Brava. There is no single right path in publishing. SWP’s publishing my three (soon to be four) books helped me get on with my writing life. Such a great learning, growing experience, connecting with readers. So much better, for me, than hanging back like a wallflower at a high school dance, yearning to be chosen. I’d rather just get out there and dance. Just dance.
Standing ovation, Brooke. Thank you for this. I was at Jane’s presentation, and immediately wondered how you’d respond. As a traditionally published author and developmental editor who helps clients find their publishers, I regularly recommend hybrid for so many reasons. The biggest thing my hybrid-published clients struggle with is a lack of post-publication follow-thru, which I know isn’t unique to hybrid (and is a frustratingly necessary mindset shift for many of my relatively older clients who seem to expect a “traditional” publishing experience with a tour/marketing/etc).
Thanks for all you do for the industry. I feel like I’m watching a respectful, exciting tennis match between you and Jane, and I appreciate that you both consistently give all of us so much hearty food for thought.
If hybrid publishers believe I’m biased, it doesn’t mean I’m biased in favor of traditional publishing. I’m biased in favor of authors who have a lot of time, money, and energy they are investing into their book. Hybrid publishing has been an expensive mistake for some authors—too many authors, I’d argue—some of whom contact me privately and ask me to offer bigger and more clear warnings about it. That’s not to say traditionally published authors are any happier on the whole. But they’re not writing me saying how they feel like they wasted thousands of dollars. It’s a landscape that has to be navigated carefully by authors, to truly understand the value of what they’re investing in and what the chances of a return are.
The IBPA has a diverse membership that includes hybrid publishers; its leadership includes hybrid publishers. Its responsibility is to advocate for publishers. I don’t find its intentions nefarious and it’s not trying to mislead authors, but neither does it do much to help authors. The last time I spoke with IBPA leadership, I was told they do not vet hybrid members unless they receive a complaint, and it’s not their job to police hybrids. But the IBPA’s criteria for authors to evaluate hybrids on their own are clear only if you’re familiar with the industry. Even then, I challenge the average person to evaluate hybrids using the criteria and to come up with clear answers. It’s challenging even for me.
I don’t place value judgments on how authors publish. I consistently push back against people who call hybrid publishing or other paid services “vanity” publishing because I think it is a judgmental term that doesn’t help anyone make better decisions about how to publish. But unfortunately, a lot of people have been misled by companies charging to publish (whether they call themselves hybrid or not), creating a significant problem for hybrid publishers that do good work.
During my years in traditional publishing (which ended a decade ago), part of my responsibility was reporting on the self-publishing and emerging digital publishing space. The first conferences I attended were for self-publishing authors and others who paid to publish. (And the first book I published after leaving traditional publishing was self-published and I turned down a traditional offer.) These early experiences opened my eyes to the weaknesses and elitism of traditional publishing, not that it isn't rather clear to the average person.
Today, I run a newsletter that features a bestseller list for self-published authors because they’re consistently overlooked by the major bestseller lists, such as the New York Times. Some hybrid published books appear on it occasionally, but the list contains far more self-published books. If you want to see innovation, I say go study the self-publishing market. Look at what those authors are doing. Because that’s where the traditional publishers look for new talent and partnerships.
Thanks, Jane. I would never characterize you as a person biased in favor of traditional publishing, but toward self-publishing, yes. I think the place where we most diverge is on the merits of distribution, and what reputable hybrids are actually able to offer their authors. In our case, that's everything from the capacity to get traditionally reviewed, to placement in libraries and specialty stores like REI or Costco, and of course wide bookstore placement. There's a real challenge in trying to sift through who the good actors are in this space, so I appreciate that. I sometimes feel that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater in the analysis of hybrid, however. There are probably ten companies out there that are doing this at a high level, and even those who do hybrid well can't and shouldn't ever guarantee good sales. I also have been on the traditional side, and I can say that the royalty statements of authors at Seal were often dismal. I absolutely think that authors who hybrid publish often have too-high expectations. If everyone were more transparent about the realities, I think we'd all be better off. My own transparency doesn't scare authors away; it makes them trust more in the process and not be disappointed on the back end. I know you and I are aligned in that we're both strong author advocates. As for innovation and where we see it, it seems that's perhaps in the eye of the beholder. Appreciate the response and dialogue with you, always.
Yes, traditional publishing is effing broken. Baffles the mind how (most?) authors still aspire to it. Maybe they should be required to study the IBPA model before they query =)
To me, hybrid publishing as the future; it's where publishing is headed, assuming it survives as an industry. The biggest issue I see that it has to address is the exclusion of authors who can't afford it.
Point well taken there, Jude. It's always been the conundrum, and the criticism. I'd like to take this chapter and what I've got left in this space to solve for this.
It also excludes writers who can afford it but have been beaten down by traditional publishing and are leery of spending that much money basically gambling on the hope of a good outcome.
Thanks, Jude, for mentioning "the exclusion of authors." After publishing three books with that model, I left hybrid publishing and established my own small press, mainly because I could no longer afford hybrid's rising costs. We need diversity and ALL voices reflected in the books we write and read. Exclusion based on finances can preclude those.
You are my Shero! You inspire me like no other. Being one of your authors thrills me and makes me profoundly proud. Thank you for loving authors and stories the way that you do.
People may not know that Jane had me do a presentation on her platform (one of her regular webinar offerings) on Hybrid Publishing in the Fall of 2021. At the end of the webinar, she "turned" to me (virtually, of course) and said, "That went really well!" I took her remark to mean that she was pleased, not only with my presentation, but with the content (which she had vetted and approved) and the dialogue/discussion that followed. My memory of the experience, from my pitch to the final recording which she distributed to over a thousand people, was that she was quite open to the hybrid model AS LONG AS the publisher calling itself "hybrid" adhered to rigorous, clearly communicated standards. In any case, open enough to host an informed presentation and conversation on her own platform ...
For sure, she has shifted her viewpoint since then. It would be useful to understand the source and reasoning behind that shift. Perhaps it's a few bad apples, rather than the nature of the orchard
Thank you for writing this! As a debut author on the cusp of publishing my memoir with a Canadian hybrid press, I sometimes wonder if I’m going to regret my path. But you have clarified so much and I am confident in the choices I’ve made. I’m also grateful that I met you along the journey. Your writing and podcast are so informative. Here’s to getting our stories told!
Let me join in the thanks. To have you and Jane helping us think through these things is such an astonishing gift. The clarity you both bring, including divergence of analysis, is, in itself, clarifying. Couple that with your tone of mutual respect, and I'm damn grateful for these models going forward. I know you did a lot of work on the IBPA materials, Brooke (I attended one of the webinars), and they're terrific for their definitions and nuanced categories, while still giving me simple graphics and charts. 👏 Again, thank you. I too am a Write-Minded fan.
Thank you Brooke. I also attended the webinar Jane offered on hybrid publishing. I am happy she did it, and equally grateful that you've responded because I think the more dialogue there is, the better. I started out thinking a trad publishing path was THE way. When I was pitching to agents I reworked my pitch multiple times, paid two different "query expert" editors to edit my query and all the while attended various types of agent webinars in order to try to crack the nut. What struck me at the time was(and I'm not saying this is all agents) the striking apparent lack of awareness these young, obviously talented, agents had of the querying experience outside their narrow lanes. They lived in a small gatekeeper world. It seemed as hellbent on keeping authors out, as letting the few in. The standard for entry felt murky and shifting. So, how wonderful it is that the world of publishing has many paths. There is good stewardship, and there is unethical misguidance. There are tradeoffs to any decision. I appreciate your clarity in helping authors make the decisions right for them.
I see two passionate women working to support authors who are trying to get published. I love, Brooke, how you said "no" to traditional publishing and "yes" to creating something new. My experience with She Writes Press is positive. I appreciate your championing my book when I was not able to even hire an agent. Great discussion.
Brooke, this is so very helpful. I was especially curious about your perspective on Jane's comments. I appreciate the way you unpacked this and the clarity you added to the discussion. I love Christine Wolf's tennis match analogy!
Brava. There is no single right path in publishing. SWP’s publishing my three (soon to be four) books helped me get on with my writing life. Such a great learning, growing experience, connecting with readers. So much better, for me, than hanging back like a wallflower at a high school dance, yearning to be chosen. I’d rather just get out there and dance. Just dance.
Brilliant glorious rockstar you! To misquote Stevie Nicks, you make writing fun.
Standing ovation, Brooke. Thank you for this. I was at Jane’s presentation, and immediately wondered how you’d respond. As a traditionally published author and developmental editor who helps clients find their publishers, I regularly recommend hybrid for so many reasons. The biggest thing my hybrid-published clients struggle with is a lack of post-publication follow-thru, which I know isn’t unique to hybrid (and is a frustratingly necessary mindset shift for many of my relatively older clients who seem to expect a “traditional” publishing experience with a tour/marketing/etc).
Thanks for all you do for the industry. I feel like I’m watching a respectful, exciting tennis match between you and Jane, and I appreciate that you both consistently give all of us so much hearty food for thought.
Ha. Good analogy. I feel that way, too, sometimes.
If hybrid publishers believe I’m biased, it doesn’t mean I’m biased in favor of traditional publishing. I’m biased in favor of authors who have a lot of time, money, and energy they are investing into their book. Hybrid publishing has been an expensive mistake for some authors—too many authors, I’d argue—some of whom contact me privately and ask me to offer bigger and more clear warnings about it. That’s not to say traditionally published authors are any happier on the whole. But they’re not writing me saying how they feel like they wasted thousands of dollars. It’s a landscape that has to be navigated carefully by authors, to truly understand the value of what they’re investing in and what the chances of a return are.
The IBPA has a diverse membership that includes hybrid publishers; its leadership includes hybrid publishers. Its responsibility is to advocate for publishers. I don’t find its intentions nefarious and it’s not trying to mislead authors, but neither does it do much to help authors. The last time I spoke with IBPA leadership, I was told they do not vet hybrid members unless they receive a complaint, and it’s not their job to police hybrids. But the IBPA’s criteria for authors to evaluate hybrids on their own are clear only if you’re familiar with the industry. Even then, I challenge the average person to evaluate hybrids using the criteria and to come up with clear answers. It’s challenging even for me.
I don’t place value judgments on how authors publish. I consistently push back against people who call hybrid publishing or other paid services “vanity” publishing because I think it is a judgmental term that doesn’t help anyone make better decisions about how to publish. But unfortunately, a lot of people have been misled by companies charging to publish (whether they call themselves hybrid or not), creating a significant problem for hybrid publishers that do good work.
During my years in traditional publishing (which ended a decade ago), part of my responsibility was reporting on the self-publishing and emerging digital publishing space. The first conferences I attended were for self-publishing authors and others who paid to publish. (And the first book I published after leaving traditional publishing was self-published and I turned down a traditional offer.) These early experiences opened my eyes to the weaknesses and elitism of traditional publishing, not that it isn't rather clear to the average person.
Today, I run a newsletter that features a bestseller list for self-published authors because they’re consistently overlooked by the major bestseller lists, such as the New York Times. Some hybrid published books appear on it occasionally, but the list contains far more self-published books. If you want to see innovation, I say go study the self-publishing market. Look at what those authors are doing. Because that’s where the traditional publishers look for new talent and partnerships.
Thanks, Jane. I would never characterize you as a person biased in favor of traditional publishing, but toward self-publishing, yes. I think the place where we most diverge is on the merits of distribution, and what reputable hybrids are actually able to offer their authors. In our case, that's everything from the capacity to get traditionally reviewed, to placement in libraries and specialty stores like REI or Costco, and of course wide bookstore placement. There's a real challenge in trying to sift through who the good actors are in this space, so I appreciate that. I sometimes feel that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater in the analysis of hybrid, however. There are probably ten companies out there that are doing this at a high level, and even those who do hybrid well can't and shouldn't ever guarantee good sales. I also have been on the traditional side, and I can say that the royalty statements of authors at Seal were often dismal. I absolutely think that authors who hybrid publish often have too-high expectations. If everyone were more transparent about the realities, I think we'd all be better off. My own transparency doesn't scare authors away; it makes them trust more in the process and not be disappointed on the back end. I know you and I are aligned in that we're both strong author advocates. As for innovation and where we see it, it seems that's perhaps in the eye of the beholder. Appreciate the response and dialogue with you, always.
Yes, traditional publishing is effing broken. Baffles the mind how (most?) authors still aspire to it. Maybe they should be required to study the IBPA model before they query =)
To me, hybrid publishing as the future; it's where publishing is headed, assuming it survives as an industry. The biggest issue I see that it has to address is the exclusion of authors who can't afford it.
Point well taken there, Jude. It's always been the conundrum, and the criticism. I'd like to take this chapter and what I've got left in this space to solve for this.
That is awesome! Look forward to seeing how that develops!
It also excludes writers who can afford it but have been beaten down by traditional publishing and are leery of spending that much money basically gambling on the hope of a good outcome.
Thanks, Jude, for mentioning "the exclusion of authors." After publishing three books with that model, I left hybrid publishing and established my own small press, mainly because I could no longer afford hybrid's rising costs. We need diversity and ALL voices reflected in the books we write and read. Exclusion based on finances can preclude those.
You are my Shero! You inspire me like no other. Being one of your authors thrills me and makes me profoundly proud. Thank you for loving authors and stories the way that you do.
So grateful you responded to that post.. I've been ruminating over it for hours! As always, informative and spot on. Thank you Brooke!
This is brilliant and endlessly helpful for new and established authors alike! Thanks again Brooke for another fantastic post!
People may not know that Jane had me do a presentation on her platform (one of her regular webinar offerings) on Hybrid Publishing in the Fall of 2021. At the end of the webinar, she "turned" to me (virtually, of course) and said, "That went really well!" I took her remark to mean that she was pleased, not only with my presentation, but with the content (which she had vetted and approved) and the dialogue/discussion that followed. My memory of the experience, from my pitch to the final recording which she distributed to over a thousand people, was that she was quite open to the hybrid model AS LONG AS the publisher calling itself "hybrid" adhered to rigorous, clearly communicated standards. In any case, open enough to host an informed presentation and conversation on her own platform ...
For sure, she has shifted her viewpoint since then. It would be useful to understand the source and reasoning behind that shift. Perhaps it's a few bad apples, rather than the nature of the orchard
Thank you for writing this! As a debut author on the cusp of publishing my memoir with a Canadian hybrid press, I sometimes wonder if I’m going to regret my path. But you have clarified so much and I am confident in the choices I’ve made. I’m also grateful that I met you along the journey. Your writing and podcast are so informative. Here’s to getting our stories told!
You got this, Beth!! Congratulations!
Let me join in the thanks. To have you and Jane helping us think through these things is such an astonishing gift. The clarity you both bring, including divergence of analysis, is, in itself, clarifying. Couple that with your tone of mutual respect, and I'm damn grateful for these models going forward. I know you did a lot of work on the IBPA materials, Brooke (I attended one of the webinars), and they're terrific for their definitions and nuanced categories, while still giving me simple graphics and charts. 👏 Again, thank you. I too am a Write-Minded fan.
Thanks for this, Amanda, on all counts. :)
Thank you Brooke. I also attended the webinar Jane offered on hybrid publishing. I am happy she did it, and equally grateful that you've responded because I think the more dialogue there is, the better. I started out thinking a trad publishing path was THE way. When I was pitching to agents I reworked my pitch multiple times, paid two different "query expert" editors to edit my query and all the while attended various types of agent webinars in order to try to crack the nut. What struck me at the time was(and I'm not saying this is all agents) the striking apparent lack of awareness these young, obviously talented, agents had of the querying experience outside their narrow lanes. They lived in a small gatekeeper world. It seemed as hellbent on keeping authors out, as letting the few in. The standard for entry felt murky and shifting. So, how wonderful it is that the world of publishing has many paths. There is good stewardship, and there is unethical misguidance. There are tradeoffs to any decision. I appreciate your clarity in helping authors make the decisions right for them.
Thanks for your perspective, Joan—always measured and kind. :)
I love it! Thanks Brooke - for always fighting back. You rock.
I see two passionate women working to support authors who are trying to get published. I love, Brooke, how you said "no" to traditional publishing and "yes" to creating something new. My experience with She Writes Press is positive. I appreciate your championing my book when I was not able to even hire an agent. Great discussion.
Thanks, Stephanie!
I loved this, Brooke, and as always, I learned something new, so thanks for your thorough analysis of a complicated subject.
Brooke, this is so very helpful. I was especially curious about your perspective on Jane's comments. I appreciate the way you unpacked this and the clarity you added to the discussion. I love Christine Wolf's tennis match analogy!