Sentences with phrase «work than traditional publishers»

Academic presses can be more discerning about the rigor of your work than traditional publishers.

I would argue that it is Amazon by a landslide, thanks to the Kindle platform and related features — many of which provide writers with a far greater share of the proceeds from their work than any traditional publisher has ever dreamed of paying.

Not exact matches

Indie publishers spend far less time getting their story into readers hands than a writer working the traditional system.

Even with traditional publishers, it's more and more common to see an author marketing his own works rather than being able to rely on their publisher to do the job.

None of the work is more complicated than tracking submissions, rejections, synopses, agents, publishers, and sales over the months and years that writers on the traditional path have to do.

As a writer, I'd love to get my work into the hands of as many readers as I can, and for all of these reasons, a traditional publisher can help me reach many more readers than I could on my own.

That is quite a few less than a traditional publisher, BUT (and this is a big one) there are some MAJOR benefits Amazon works in compared to a traditional publisher.

Having published more than a dozen books — nonfiction and fiction — with both traditional and often prestigious publishers as well as on my own, I have a very good sense of the demands of book promotion and was delighted to have the chance to work with Smith Publicity who did a fine job with my Sino - American Tales series of historical novels

While reprint publishers have been the biggest contributors by introducing hundreds of thousands of recycled works to the market, traditional publishers have also contributed as many, if not more, books than indie authors.

Translators are arguably the ones who, (apart from the author, of course) work so thoroughly on a book that we are more likely than most to get a deep understanding, yet I have never come across any traditional publisher who wanted to hear my opinion.

In short, the only clients that agents (who, contrary to popular belief, do not, by - in - large work for authors, but are little more than slush filters that publishers generously allow authors the luxury of paying for) can look forward to having, and being eager for publishers to exploit in the traditional way... are losers.

That's how you know you're working with a firm that is more likely to treat your book as a unique product in the marketplace — as a traditional publisher would — rather than as another widget on the assembly line.

This is based on the misguided preconception that e-books and self - published works are inherently worth less than getting print on paper through a traditional publisher *.

I just worked harder than almost everyone and have now published over a hundred novels with traditional publishers.

Doing your own book indie takes far, far less time than working with a traditional publisher on the same book.

«And listen,» DeFiore adds, «we're doing a bit more work for the client, probably» than agents might do if they'd sold a manuscript to a traditional publisher.

The benefit of working with a traditional publisher, rather than with an author who's self - published, is to make use of the specialists who deal with books on a daily basis.

Discounted prices on ISBNs along with the advantage of a publishing house's seal, while maintaining more control of your work than you would have with a traditional publisher.

In this new role as a partner rather than a traditional publisher, however, I became more engaged with the lives of the businesses and organisations I've worked with, and over the course of the last year came a quiet revelation: to stretch the astronomical metaphor to its limits, the book is not a lone star but the centre of a solar system.

Traditional publishers usually publish more nonfiction than fiction works.

Honestly, so do I. I'd love to see traditional publishers continue — with good author contracts and with an acknowledgement that they work in partnership with authors rather than believing that writers are necessary idiots.

The move promises to raise the already high anxiety level among publishers about the economics of digital publishing and could offer authors a way to earn more profits from their works than they do under the traditional system.

E-books in particular can be relatively cost - effective to produce, getting your work into the hands of readers and customers faster than if you used traditional publishers.

I expect as this process of digital change continues publishers and authors (some of them self publishers, some of them hybrid authors who both self publish and use traditional publishers and some of them pure line traditionally published [though I expect these to be a smaller and smaller band over time]-RRB- will work together not less frequently, but more frequently and in multiple ways rather than in the more straightforward ways of the past (the emerging value web I discus here).

AH: Yes, and it seems that in the end it really comes down to dollars and cents and a lot of these successful, established mainstream authors are starting to realise they can earn significantly higher royalties releasing work on their own than they do going through a traditional publisher.

Once an author takes on a team of professionals and works with them in a collegial way — acting now as the publisher and not as the whiny, self - centered author — there is no real advantage to the traditional model other than access to the distribution chain.

Self publishing has given me more money than I ever made working with a traditional publisher but their marketing was much more efficient, ie.

It's no wonder that traditional publishers prefer to work with authors who have ideas for more than one book; they figure they stand to make more money on their investment.