How Do You Price Your Ebook?

Nobody knows ... yet: With printed books, publishers generally used a multiple of either printing costs or preparation/printing costs. The multiple varied--and some books could naturally carry a higher price than others--but the idea was to have a price that took into consideration the preparation/manufacturing costs and provided a cushion for necessary discounting.

Ebooks have thrown the industry into a tizzy. Because there is no manufacturing cost, the idea of a multiple based on that is out the window. And what is the per book cost anyway? Nothing? Or next to nothing? So do you sell the books for free?

Apparently, some authors think so. Especially, new fiction authors. It's common for them to sell their "books" for 99 cents. Does this work? It doesn't make sense to me, but some authors swear by it.

Let's step back and think about this for a minute.

First, is an Ebook worth less than a printed book? On the face of it, why should it be? If the content is the same, shouldn't it have the same value? Well, the answer is a little more complicated than it appears to be. For example, some Ebooks have a poorer content, thanks to the inability in some cases to carry images the way a book can or to carry any images at all. On the other hand, some Ebooks have a richer content, thanks to the ability in some cases to carry sound, video, widgets, and links between words, phrases, and images. In this case, the searchable and more entertaining Ebook ought to be worth more. So why should an Ebook cost less than a printed book--just because it's an Ebook.

Second, what is your book worth? Is it really worth only 99 cents? If someone buys your book for 99 cents, what are they going to think it's worth--besides 99 cents?

Third, what are other people charging for their books? I'm just going to ignore this one, because other people don't know what they are doing, at least the ones charging 99 cents for their books. They might as well be selling pencils on a street corner.

Here's what I suggest.

If you have a printed version of your book, charge no less than 50% for your Ebook version than for your printed version. You don't have to cover printing costs, but you need to be wary of underpricing your work. If you have the courage, charge only 25% less. If your Ebook has much more to it than the printed book--additional media and features to the point where it's not really a book any more--all bets are off. You could charge more for it, but you probably won't. I'd just like to see you try. The Publishing Pro, LLC.

Now You Can Get Reasonable Book Fulfillment ...

... with one downside: Many of our customers are not in a place where they can fulfill their own book orders. They don't have the time, the desire, or the physical capacity to run back and forth to the post office. We've wanted an inexpensive solution for them for a long time--and we didn't have one. Until now.

CreateSpace.com, which we have begun to use for customers, has an "eStore" option. Their eStore option is not to be confused with the "bookstore" common to most print-on-demand vendors. This one allows you to sell your book from your own website but have the order fulfilled by CreateSpace. They collect the money, print the book, ship it out and return about two thirds of your selling price to you. (Considering that they print the book, this is a good deal and much more attractive financially than what you can get from a traditional fulfillment house.)

The downside? You don't get the customer contact data. If this is important, and it should be if you're looking at your book customer as a potential repeat customer, you're better off taking orders on your website with the help of a PayPal account and somebody's footwork to the post office. The Publishing Pro.

Printing Prep: It's Complicated ...

... Sometimes: Maybe even usually. Printing has always been a field of landmines, especially for those unfamiliar with the territory. In the "old days"--maybe fifty years ago--the industry was fairly stable but staffed, by and large, by journeyman typographers and pressmen who needed significant training to do their jobs. On the other end, publishers and editors were professional middlemen between the printers and authors. Beginning in the fifties, things began to change, slowly at first.

Printing technology began to change from the centuries old "hot type" systems (so named for the way in which type was created out of molten lead) to "cold type" systems that created type on paper and film. The upshot was that you didn't need a four-year apprenticeship to engage in sophisticated in printing. You still needed talent and training, but parts of the process began to be handed over to publishers and editors.

With the advent of computers and phototypesetters, editors (or production staff within publishing houses) could create their own pages of type, paste them up the way they wanted them, correct them as needed and send them off to the printer, where the pages would be turned into negatives, set into forms, and installed on offset presses.

Adobe's development of the Portable Document Format (PDF) has enabled editors and publishers to bypass the pasteup process entirely, giving them more control of the process. Even amateurs, using common programs like Microsoft Word and PDF creators less expensive than Adobe Acrobat, can create printable documents, albeit with less precision and more difficulties.

Digital printing, basically copyprinting, has made short-run and on-demand printing both possible and economical for many publishing applications, including authors publishing their own books. (Traditional printing methods require much waste in the "makeready" phase of the process, which makes printing of 100 books, never mind a single copy, uneconomical.)

Add to that, the reality of people now doing much of their reading--of websites, books, or magazine--on electronic devises and we have seen a revolution in printing and publishing in our own lifetimes.

However, I have seen something like a circling back to "expertise" in the very recent future. Digital printers, a key instrument of publishing access to DIYers, are becoming more demanding in what they expect from publishers (be they "traditional" or "self"). The interface between author/publisher and printer, which had been becoming easier, is showing signs of becoming more difficult. The process increasing requires upgrades in hardware (to the latest operating system), software (to the latest publishing and PDF creation software, which will run on new operating systems and meet printer's and/or electronic distribution standards), and the ability to keep up with accelerating developments in both printing and electronic publishing technology.

This may or may not be a conspiracy of sorts between the makers of operating systems, the makers of publishing software, and printers and distributors.

But it does seem to be a fact. --The Publishing Pro

Let's Get Real: Pseudonyms Have Their Uses.

Sometimes: At one of my workshops, a would-be author asked me what I thought about pen names. Knowing that he was thinking about writing an exposé and wanted to hide in the bushes, I said, "Not much." Of course, I sympathized with a whistle blower who just wanted to protect himself. It's just that books don't sell themselves. If you (as author) don't do it, no one else will. At least not in the real world.

Still, I was jumping to conclusions, not so much about this guy but in general. Just because you choose to write under a pseudonym doesn't mean you are anonymous. For example, the banker who puts on an orange wig, whiteface, and a red rubber nose in order to entertain at children's parties is wise to do so as "Chuckles" rather than as "Mr. Charles Morgan," even if parents know who he is outside of his get-up. He's not anonymous, but the pseudonym separates his clown persona from his banker's persona. In the same way, you can build your brand with a pen name.

Moreover, just because you remain anonymous doesn't mean you can't represent your book. It's trickier. though, because you have to find ways to be "visible" without being "identified." You might find yourself interviewed in the shadows or with your natural voice changed electronically.

What you can't do, at least in my world, is write a book and put it out there, thinking somebody else is going to sell it for you.--The Publishing Pro.

Do It Yourself Typography: Justified vs. Ragged

It's a conspiracy: Justified paragraphs are still more common in books than ragged-right paragraphs, but you almost never used to see ragged-right paragraphs anywhere except in ads.

Today ragged-right paragraphs are something you should consider for your book, especially if readability is your top priority. Ragged right paragraphs are easier to read because the spacing between the words is the same on every line. If the ragged-right paragraphs are not hyphenated, an option not usually entertained for justified paragraphs, they are even easier to read.

Even so, most books today seem to be done with the traditional justified paragraphs.

Here's a secret of sorts. The reason justified text became the standard is that it made journeymen printers (who had served four-year apprenticeships) indispensable. Linotype operators (and before that, manual compositors) needed years of training in order to quickly determine the proper amount of space between words for every single line. It was quite a skill. If the standard had been ragged right, the space between each word would have been the same for each line and anybody who could type could have done the job. To raise the skill level a notch, linotype operators (cleverly, some would say) didn't use the QWERTY keyboard that everybody else in the English world was, and still is, used to. Instead, they used a keyboard unique to linotype machines, which increased the need for specialized training. Anyway, people got used to seeing justified paragraphs and so today most authors still think justified paragraphs are “the way” you have to do a book.

Fair disclosure. My grandfather was a journeyman compositor (typographer) and linotype operator, and my father was a journeyman compositor. My father had to change careers because computers made it much easier to create justified paragraphs. With a click of a mouse, any fool can do it now, but that doesn't make justified paragraphs any easier to read.--The Publishing Pro.

What Kind of Agreement Do You Make with Your Illustrator?

Put it in writing: If you commission artwork for your book, you should: 1) do so on a "work for hire" basis and 2) put in writing. In response to a question from a customer, I did some research and have decided that this advice is a little too general.

A work-for-hire arrangement, where your intent is to buy the artwork outright and upfront, is simpler in the long run than royalty, shared proceeds, or partnership deals. This is why I recommend it in most cases. Because of its simplicity--the artist does the work and gets paid--I haven't heard any stories about authors and illustrators or photographers coming to blows over the work-for-hire results. However, because copyright law favors the creator of a work, you are at some risk if you don't dot your i's and cross your t's. Apparently, to be safe, you should agree in writing with the artist that you will own all rights to the commissioned artwork once you pay for it. Moreover, you should make this agreement before the artist actually begins the work.

Although I have favored an informal memorandum of agreement, you would be safer with a more formal agreement with, sigh, the requisite legal language. I did find a Work for Hire Agreement template--it's only one-page, which qualifies in the legal world as a simple form--on the website of Lloyd J. Jassin, a New York attorney specializing in publishing law.

Note that this form would set you up to own all of the rights of the artwork. In my world, I want to be friendly with my vendors. Thus, I wouldn't want to restrict the artist from using the work in a way that might benefit me or at least do me no harm. For example, I certainly would allow the artist to show off the work as a sample in a portfolio, brochure, or website. I might even allow the artist to make prints of the work for sale, perhaps for no more than credit on the back of the print. However, it appears that those secondary arrangements are best made after you've safely acquired all the rights to the artwork. The Publishing Pro.

Why Should You Self-Publish?

... even if you "don't have to": Let's face it. Many authors self-publish because they can't find anyone else to publish their book. This is especially true of fiction authors. That's okay. It's reality. However, it does put you in a negative frame of mind. Let's look for positive reasons for self-publishing. In fact, let's say you have a book--or an idea--that you know will interest a traditional publisher. Why should you self-publish?

• You're in a hurry. One of the problems with traditional publishing is that it takes a long time. Good publishers work from a three-year (or even five-year) plan. If they like your book, they'll plug you into the plan--and you may find yourself scheduled for two or three years down the road. You might get lucky and be published within a year, but it's unlikely. In a good scenario, with a finished manuscript, you can expect to wait eighteen months for your book to be published. When you self-publish, you can set your own timetable. If your ducks are in a row, you might get into print within 90 days.

• You want control. When you sell your rights to a publisher--this is what you do in a publishing contract--you lose control. Of everything. The cover. The editing. The look. The dimensions and size. When I was an acquisition editor, my job was to tell a prospective author how to write the book we needed. Some authors are fine with that. Some are not. The better fit your book is for your business, the more you have to lose by ceding control. This is not to say that publishers don't care whether their authors are happy or not. They do. They will try to please you--within limits. The limits are usually worked out ahead of time. Just remember: When they crunch comes, it's their project. Not yours. When you self-publish, you can do the book your way.
  

• You want the financial benefits. When you self publish, you take all the risks and reap all the gain. In the old days (twenty years ago), self-publishing was all risk and very little gain. You had to sink a considerable amount of money just into printing your book, to the point where there was little chance you'd recoup your investment. Not so today, not because your chances of selling hundreds of copies are any better but because you have to invest almost nothing into inventory. Twenty years ago, you might have to sell out of your initial printing of 2,000 copies in order to break even. Today, my customers break even (that is, cash out of pocket) when they sell between 100 and 200 copies. With those numbers, you don't need the traditional publisher to get you into the game. In fact, the traditional publisher would be taking the money that you would be making as a self-publisher once you pass that 100-200 copy threshhold.

• You know you're going to have to promote your book anyway. First-time authors almost always think the traditional publisher will market their books. This may be the primary reason why writers seek out publishers. Unfortunately, traditional publishers do not market individual titles. Instead, they use their economy of scale to market their list of books to their coherent customer base. This happens to work, at least for the publisher. The bad news is that the traditional publisher can't do much to market an individual title. Except for the predictable best seller, a book cannot generate enough revenue to justify anything more than its temporary position on the front list (in catalogs and the website) and a press release mailing. That's about it. Publishers expect their authors to make most of the noise about their individual books. So ... if you are going to have to promote your own book, you might as well self-publish--or at least come up with a better reason for finding a publisher than your unwillingness to promote your own book. The Publishing Pro.
  

Plan Your Revisions.

I'll help: Technology--specifically publishing software like Quark or Adobe InDesign and POD (print-on-demand) technology--makes it easy and relatively inexpensive to revise your book once it's published. In fact, it's so easy, you can get carried away doing revisions and become distracted from the business of authoring, which is to say, marketing. However, I do think it is wise to plan your revisions, and I've devised a mechanism for doing that.

If you are a full-service customer, I will waive my normal fees for changing up to 20 pages (regularly $1.50 per page) and for uploading files to your online printer (regularly $25.00 per upload) for a revision uploaded at least 90 days after your initial printing and again for a revision at least one year after your initial printing. (You will still need to pay any fees charged by your printer.)

Here's my thinking. If you wait 90 days after your first printing, you might want to make minor changes based on feedback from your readers and you might have gotten some juicy testimonials that you didn't have when you first printed your book Then, again, after a year, you might need to update some basic information: your contact info, website addresses, promotional material at the back of the book, or your back cover. If you don't need to make any changes, that's great. If you do, this seems like a reasonable schedule to me. And if you need to do it more often and are willing to pay the regular prices, that's okay too. The Publishing Pro.

Consider These Three POD Companies.

They each have different advantages: And disadvantages. I see no reason for the average self-publisher to take anything but the POD (print-on-demand) route. You can print books as you need them, reducing your inventory risk, and the prices are surprisingly low. Here are three POD companies (websites) worth looking at.

Lightningsource.com. I've put several books up on LightningSource. They're quality is good; they even promise archive quality paper that meets library standards. Their base prices for black-ink-only interiors are not as good as those of CreateSpace, but they offer quantity discounts that reduce your costs whenever you're printing more than 50 copies at a time. If you print 250 copies at a time, the discounts get really serious. Sometimes, they even offer sales. Their prices for color books are surprisingly low. Their service is good, with customer-service reps that you can talk to, and excellent turnaround times for printed books (a week). I also like that they don't pretend to be anything but a printer, even though they are owned by Ingram, a major distributor. LightningSource is a good choice if you value quality and plan to sell most of your books yourself. (You can open a "wholesale account" with LightningSource, but I haven't recommended that any more than I recommend that my customers sign up with any other distributor.)

CreateSpace.com. CreateSpace gets my attention mainly because they are owned by Amazon and offer a seamless way for your book to be distributed by Amazon, with the result that you get a better deal than if you signed up separately for an Amazon Advantage account. They also offer an "eStore" option that lets you use your website to send book orders to CreateSpace to be fulfilled. Obviously, you don't make as much if you fulfilled the orders yourself, but it's a decent deal and a great one for author-publishers who don't want to be bothered with running to the post office all the time. Their base prices for black-ink interiors are less than those of LightningSource, but they don't seem to offer quantity discounts. And their color prices are higher. Also on the downside, they don't promise to use archival paper and their printing may be done by different vendors, with varying quality the result. We're not sure about their service yet, but that Amazon and eStore option is quite attractive. (They too offer an option for getting into bookstores, but the return hardly seems worth it.)

InstantPublisher.com. I'm looking at this one for one reason. If you need to run a few pages of color in an otherwise black-ink book, InstantPublisher is worth looking at. They charge color prices only per color page used. LightningSource and CreateSpace will normally beat their prices, but in this instance InstantPublisher might be the solution.--The Publishing Pro

Copy Editing: So You Think You Can Do It?

Don't try this at home: Some authors know they need a good copy editor. However, too many don't know what a copy editor does, or don't value the work, or think a friend can do it for them. In my world, copyediting is the most difficult aspect of putting a book together. As an aside, I don't consider it the most important: I'd put the planning (determining the audience, the message, and the structure) ahead of it. However, it is the most difficult, at least for me, by a long shot.

Let's get some terms straight. When you say you need an "editor," what do you mean?

If you're looking for someone to help you shape your manuscript into publishable form--by advising you about your readership, your content, and your structure--you might be looking for someone calling himself or herself an agent, a writing coach (or consultant), an editing coach (or consultant), an acquisition editor, a substance editor, or a plain old "editor." When I ran the editorial department at an independent publishing house, my title was "editorial director." However, my job could have been defined as "acquisition editor." I helped find, develop, and shape books into publishable form.

If you already have a publishable manuscript--and don't need someone monkeying with the substance--you almost certainly need a copy editor. This is a professional who cleans up the grammar, removes redundancies and writing tics, checks spelling and punctuation, establishes consistent capitalization, and so on.

Many authors tell me they don't need a copy editor because they've had someone, or several someones, "look at it." If you really don't care, go for it. However, you probably will care when your readers and friends begin pointing out boo-boos, tics, characters whose names are spelled different ways or whose names change altogether, and so on. (For some reason, the same friends who won't read an early draft for you seem to be the ones who take particular delight in reporting problems after the book is published.)

Copyediting is not for amateurs--a category that can include fellow writers, English professors, journalists, bloggers, tech writers, the severely anal member of your book club, and others who think (with good reason) that they know their way around the English language.

While some aspects of self-publishing lend themselves to the do-it-yourselfer, copyediting is not one of them. For one thing, you shouldn't copyedit your own work. You've been through the manuscript too many times; you're jaded; and you're not objective. For another, it's just, well, hard.

• It's hard emotionally, at least is is for me. It's a rather intimate exercise, forcing you to spend hours inside the brain of someone else. I can only do it for about an hour at a time.
• It's hard technically. You have to be familiar with myriad grammatical rules and their variants, spelling (and when to look up a word), and style issues. Much of copyediting is about consistency, which requires relating all the details to the whole. Whereas good page-making software forces consistency with style tags, there is no such tool for copyediting. The copy editor is on her own.
• It's hard artistically. For me, copyediting is akin to sculpting. You use your technical expertise to carve away what doesn't belong and expose what is good. The result should in some ways (at least in the best sense) look more like the author than the original manuscript.

Below are my practices. Your copy editor doesn't need to do what I do, but he or she should follow some sort of professional protocol and be able to explain what it is.

• I follow a master style guide.The Chicago Manual of Style is incredibly complex, but it is the gold standard for the book publishing industry.
• I follow a master dictionary. My current one, Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, Ninth Edition needs to be updated.
• I create a supplemental style sheet. Publishers typically create an in-house supplement to their master guide (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style), but I've found I need to create one for each book. The supplement itemizes any style variations from the master; lists peculiar spellings; lists proper names of people, places, and organization (to enforce spelling consistency); capitalization peculiarities; abbreviation issues; and so on.
  
• I do a sample edit before proceeding. I use this to get feedback from the author. This helps me determine how aggressive or lenient to be with my copyedit and identifies any issues that need to be noted on the supplemental style sheet.
• I give my edited copy to the author for their amendments and approval. Eight years ago, when I bought the book-production business that evolved to The Publishing Pro, LLC, copyediting was done in pencil, with author amendments written over the top. The approved changes then had to be transferred to the electronic file. Today I do my copyediting in Microsoft Word, with the "tracking on" so that authors can see my edits. I then produce a clean version--with the changes accepted, the tracking turned off, and the clean file checked against the "tracking" file. This catches more mistakes and nits, with help from Word's grammar and spellchecker. I give both the clean file and the "tracking on" file to the author, encouraging him or her to use the clean file for author alterations or corrections, which should be highlighted in color.
• I review the author alterations. The idea is to make sure they conform to the established style and that no errors have been added. At this stage, I go with the author's wishes unless there are obvious problems.
  
• I read the page proofs on hard copy before sending them to the author. This is the place where I choose to read the book on hard copy, which is the best way to catch small errors. However, I consider this more of a continuation of the copyediting phase than a proofreading. The copy editor shouldn't be a designated proofreader (a different function), for the same reason the author shouldn't.
  

Proofreading: Copyediting needs to be distinguished from proofreading. The former is done on Microsoft Word; the latter is done on page proofs (hard copy, preferably). Proofreaders are not reviewers and should not critique the book; they are not copy editors and should not try to tweek the writing. Doing either tends to do more harm than good. Every alteration introduces the possibility of an error, either a major one or a minor one that undoes the consistency established by the copy editor. Ideally, proofreaders should have a copy of the same style manual and dictionary as that used by the copy editor. This is not always possible, but they should definitely have a copy of the style supplement. They should mark typos, outright errors, punctuation problems, and capitalization that seems to violate the established style. They should also mark apparent typographical errors, text-flow problems, and inconsistencies with the established design .The Publishing Pro, LLC