Sentences with phrase «worse than publishers»

That and making Amazon strong enough and dominant enough to withstand attacks from Publishers and other elements — ones that are worse than Publishers because they don't really care about readers or reading.

Now, you can do worse than your publisher and still make more money — that's the simple truth in the 25 % of net royalty math — but I think few authors contemplate giving up print distribution and taking on extra responsibilities because they're fine with losing digital market share.

Not exact matches

Technology giant, Google pulled down 3.2 billion adverts that violated its advertising and publishers policies in 2017, adding that this was more than 100 bad adverts...

(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.) Buried within this book is a powerful if familiar argument: the American education system is worse than we -LSB-...]

Even if the naysayers are right and self - published titles are always objectively worse than traditionally published titles, at least with a self - publisher you can count on the publisher treating the author with respect.

I'm guessing it wouldn't), it's good to see publishers experimenting with the ebook format, which should be more than a badly formatted PDF.

Budget constraints are a reality for indie publishers as well, but rather than releasing a bad book, the indie publisher may shelve the book project until sufficient money is raised.

The publishing industry has a bad reputation amongst the majority of writers, many of whom see publishers as little more than law firms with an editorial department in tow.

If a self - published book sells 5,000 copies in its first six months, an agent or publisher is not going to let first rights issues stand in their way (always assuming that the book is well - written [I've known self - pubbed authors who've managed to sell large numbers of really pretty bad books] and the sales suggest a market that could be tapped, rather than one that has been exhausted, as with some niche products).

For the record, I also never said that traditional publishers were elitist swine (certainly they're no worse than me, which isn't saying a lot).

We just received a check from our publisher which was less than the stamp it cost to mail, and worse, our agent took 15 %.

It's too bad that the recent meeting between the leaders of the American Library Association and top executives of Penguin Books as well as other Big 6 publishers did not «help» Penguin to reach a conclusion more favorable to libraries than this complete withdrawal.

And since «Publishers to Avoid» sounds worse than not being in the book at all, those companies lose a point.

Worse than this, however, is approaching an agent or publisher with the first chapters of a first draft of a novel.

I was just listening to a Joanna Penn podcast with Jane Friedman in which they said contracts traditional publishers are offering first - time authors are worse than ever.

Not bad for a book that was rejected by more than 20 publishers because of its touchy subject matter: the 1942 Vélodrome d'Hiver roundup.

They would abandon the slow, turgid, and overpriced books from traditional publishers to the point where trad publishers would be worse off than ever before.

I've been trad published, and the last contract I saw was so much worse than the first from the same publisher — not on money but on everything else — that it's crazy.

In fact, I don't know if many of you have noticed, but at this point in time, the traditionally published books are much worse in format and proofing than what indie publishers are doing.

In fact, I don't know if many of you have noticed, but at this point in time the traditionally published electronic books are much worse in format than what indie publishers are doing.

If you were saddled with a bad cover, title or blurb, it's easier for publishers to assume you failed than to admit they may have failed you.

But as an author who was badly treated by a big traditional publisher (HarperCollins), I, so far think there's no one out there who treats authors more fairly than Amazon does.

I've never gone into Christian publishing, but friends I know who have, are treated worse than even those working for the lower - end publishers in the non-Christian publishing world.

Asterling said: I've never gone into Christian publishing, but friends I know who have, are treated worse than even those working for the lower - end publishers in the non-Christian publishing world.

First of all I've read worse pieces of cr*p from publishers than from indie, and yet, yes, most of what is published is cr*p, indie or traditional.

Recognizing the name of the publisher (e.g. AuthorHouse) in a negative way is worse than not recognizing it at all, if you ask me.

Worse, you have publishers fighting for a pricing scheme (agency pricing) that they admit makes them less money than they made under the earlier pricing policy.

Nothing worse than having a favorite series fizzle out because the author got double - teamed by «ordering to the net» intersecting with publisher ambivalence.

Related Posts: Kindle Unlimited: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Making Your eBooks Permanently Free at Amazon, How Self - Publishers Can Dominate the eBook Market in 2014 (Rather Than 2020)

There's nothing worse than being handed a cover which clearly demonstrates that the designer has no idea what your book's about, or its emotional tone: and if that's the case, that's probably because the publisher has either not briefed them properly, or worse still, has completely missed the point about your book.

Someone who has the attention of the reader and a trad publisher of the usual bad kind is only making ten or five percent royalties or less than five percent royalties on «discounted books», and then is paying twenty percent of that to his agent.

Stephen King and James Patterson are not bad at business or math, and they aren't at all happy that Amazon is trying to muck with their business (which includes many more sellers than just Amazon,) in order to gain more control over the marketplace and get more co-opt money from publishers.

Nevertheless, Jones goes on to say — and with Andrew Lownie's practiced perspective on the matter, we agree --» Nicola Solomon is right to raise the questions; publishers could do worse than provide some answers,» as Andrew Franklin has done.

Worst of all is the pedal point innuendo that selfless publishers are somehow more benevolent to authors than agents, who are best compensated only when their author is best served.

Since publishers know authors have the legitimate choice of walking away from a bad contract (and being successful anyway), authors now automatically have more power in negotiations than they've ever had before.

As bad as it is to have a publishing world with only five major publishers in it — a monoposony in which a tiny handful of companies converge on terms and practices that are ultimately more to their benefit than those of authors, it's even worse to have a world in which a single company controls the entire market.

The fact that 70 % of trade book sales are print may be important to a big trade publisher, but it is worse than useless for a writer.

Stat based publishers can be the worst to deal with as they will only surrender their review copies to sites that obtain large amounts of visits per month, a good example being Capcom or Sega who ask for nothing less than 250,000 hits to your site per month.

Even worse than that: «In Japan, Sony actually seems to be embracing Long Tail to a greater extent than Nintendo, loading the service up with niche games from small publishers... But in the US, they have added one (1) third - party game despite the fact that third - party games were inarguably the primary reason to own a PSone in the first place.»

Were it not for some really bad development decisions and decidedly tone - deaf responses from the publisher, this game would be launching to the sound of diehard fans cheering rather than an insane amount of (deserved) vitriol.

Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmfulâ $ ¦ and worse from the climate sceptics» media side».

Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmful... and worse from the climate sceptics» media side».

Worse than having your comments deleted is having them marked junk by the blog publisher.

If lawyers persisted in obtaining desired material via library photocopies, they, the publishers, would be no worse off than before a Slaw TOC project.

With Ecuador cutting off internet communication and visitors for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher is now being arbitrarily detained in conditions worse than most prisoners who have been found...