Talk:Vanity press

Library Controversy[edit]

I'm interested how the vanity press can charge for copies if they are not even bound. Can anyone give any source on this? How common is this problem? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is a discussion of that phenomenon in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. I don't remember the details, but I think that the publisher pretends to market copies to libraries etc..., but doesn't, and saves money by not even finishing to bind them. David.Monniaux 16:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In some cases librarians will reluctantly accept a vanity publication coming from somebody with the political power to close down the library or from somebody who makes regular contributions of extremely large amounts of money to the library budget. Other librarians will choose to resign rather than accept such publications.

These are some rather extreme claims. Evidence? --203.206.52.13 06:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Extreme? On the contrary, we are talking about frequent occurences in small towns with a small library and only one professional librarian holding the fort. There are stories about this in books dealing with library acquisitions methods. And of course, the Library Journal, which is the main publication of the A.L.A., (the American Library Association) has chronicled the phenomenon for sevral generations. When we do our master's in Library Science we have a special course just on the acquisition of materials. One of the main goals of an acquisition policy (but not the only one) is to establlish solid grounds for refusing unwanted gifts. When this crucial policy is flouted, by imposing vanity books or other books (old books usually) which we know by experince that the library patrons will not be interested in reading, the very basis of the collection is imperiled. Of course, the wise librarian will start looking for a job elsewhere, find one, and after that resign while stating as a basis the flouting of reckognized principles in the field of Library and Information Science. --AlainV 13:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you've yet to provide any evidence, only generic references to "small towns" and "some librarians." A citation to a specific issue of the Library Journal to substantiate your claims would be helpful. You present a false dichotomy of librarians either begrudgingly accepting such work on pain of dispossession or resigning in protest. There is a third possibility: the librarian takes the book knowing no one else will ever read it but attended by no rancor. This selective reporting should be indicative of POV problems. Lastly the collections problems presented by donations of marginal works (vanity published or otherwise) belongs more properly to an article on library science. — 207.24.168.10 05:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In retrospect I see how it might seem like a dichotomy when in fact there are more than two and even more than three courses of action. I realise now that I have been meaning to give a less anecdotal slant to this and to integrate this in an Acquisitions process article for too many months now. I have removed it from the Vanity press article since it appears in the talk page. There should be a link to a selection of materials article (or Library acquisitions article) but I am still stuck on how to phrase it or how to start it off. --AlainV 16:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Cleanup[edit]

I just merged Vanity publisher into Vanity press. The latter needs a lot of cleanup. Basically it needs sorting into various sub-heading so that the information is organissed. It could probably stand to be trimmed a little too--XmarkX 07:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, still seems repetitive. Eclecticos 06:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$50 per book![edit]

I know this is barely relevant to vanity presses or even to wikipedia, but I was very suprised to see this figure quoted for the processing of a book for a library. I just don't see how it could possibly cost that much. What is involved?

Entering the book into the computer system, making a label and barcode, stamping the book, laminating (possibly) and putting the book in the shelves. Am I missing anything? That couldn't possibly take more than 15 minutes per book at the most. What is driving the cost up so high?

My thoughts also, having worked in a library for a few months recently. Though there were a few extended discussions on how to classify particular niche or cross-category items between the senior staff, processing most books (at the time I took the post, they had just received a large delivery, and took a couple more during my tenure) was a rapid and straightforward affair. Look up the appropriate dewey code (not much more involved than actually looking for a book to read) or see if it had been pre-supplied with one (common) IF it was reference, or check the author name and produce a typewritten spine label appropriately; insert selfadhesive loan stamp label, security alarm strip and serial asset ID barcode; add a few possession rubber-stamps throughout the pages and on the page-edges; plastic-jacket it if necessary. Then click onto the 'add item' icon in the cataloguing software (continually running on several PCs), scan the barcode, type in a surprisingly small number of pertinent details, do a quick check for typos, hit OK and dump the book onto the re-shelving trolley. If that represents $50 of work (or, about 5 hours at my junior rate of pay), then I'll be suing the library for a significant amount of underpayment... the materials certainly couldn't be worth more than a few cents per title. As an aside, the quality of these alternatively-published materials must be pretty awful given some of the trash I had to process from major publishers! :) --tahrey 22/5/07

It can take several hours just to catalogue a book if the book is not already in common cataloging databases like OCLC's, all neatly prepared for "copy cataloguing" or "derived cataloguing". And the library pays a certain amount to OCLC (or other suppliers) for the data needed for cataloging. Yes, if we are talking of a book which is already in one of those cataloging databases it can take less tha an hour to catalogue and process the book, but most vanity books never make it to the Library of Congress databases or to the OCLC databases (and some rare books which sometimes end up as donations to the library are not completely described by Library of Congress databases, OCLC et alia) so they have to go through a process called "original cataloging", which sometimes requires hours. In other words a professional librarian (somebody with a master's degree in Library and information Science) has to nearly read the book then look up comparable books on the databases to know not only in which part of the Library classification it will be placed but also what other elements are necessary for a useful description of the book, using both that library's adaptation of rules derived from the International Standard Bibliographic Description and possibly the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). Whew! This means heavy labour costs, so big libraries (university, State or national libraries) break up the process among several types of library employees (paid at different scales), with the library clerks (persons with a high school diploma) doing the tagging and shelving, the library technicians (persons with a junior college or tech college diploma in library techniques) doing the preliminary intellectual work and the professional librarians (master's degree) doing the final work and approval of the cataloguing. This "assembly-line" process is usually integrated with the book-selecting and book-buying acquisitions process so donations to the library, wether they are vanity press books or not, can very easily screw thing up completely, unless provisions are made beforehand to treat donations in another process. --AlainV 03:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Johnathon Clifford[edit]

The article now says "Johnathon Clifford claims to have coined the term in 1959/1960." I would like a cite -- where does he make this claim? who is he? where does he claim to have used the term? DES 21:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually spells it "Johnathan," but both spellings are unlikely - the name is usually spelled "Jonathan".

Don't know the validity of his claim, but there is a guy who spells his name like that and claims to have coined the term. [1]

I went to school with a guy with his name spelt like that, it appears to be rather polymorphic!

I first came across the term in an episode of "The Waltons" - poor old John-boy thought he was goung to become a genuine published poet, until the bill arrived that is. So very likely an anachronistic use of the term; I don't doubt there was such a thing in the Thirties, even if it was not at that time known as Vanity Publishing(talk) 09:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now that there are cited examples of use, earlier than jonathan Clifford, absent some reason to include him, I say we remove the information.

"History" deletion[edit]

History my rear end. That was nothing but a polemical screed against the publishing industry. Nothing salvagable from an NPoV perspective, so it's gone. If somebody wants to write a history of vanity presses (which has absolutely nothing to do with the history of independent and self publication), go right ahead. Iceberg3k 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragrpah of this section, which indicated that the equation of self or vanity publication with low status is comparitively recent was factual (I drafted a version of this as one of my first few edits to wikipedia). I have reestored this paragraph without the PoV screed that had become attached to it. DES ^(talk) 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone[edit]

Much of the text reads like a how-to not get ripped off. While scams are noteable, it should be written in an encyclopedic way. Andjam 14:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self publishing and vanity publishing[edit]

It should be pointed out that self-publishing is legitimate: for example small societies, local museums, fanzines and other persons groups produce publications which they know will have small print runs. They are buying a service and know what they are doing. Libraries (particularly the local history sections) may well stock such publications if appropriate.

Jackiespeel 22:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABI[edit]

isn't the "American Biographical Instiute" a vanity publisher?

How to Verify Vanity Publishers?[edit]

I note that every single example of a Vanity Publisher in the list has had "citation needed" added. In the Vanity gallery article there is a useful list of galleries and what they charge, but not a question as to whether they are or are not vanity galleries. While I recognize that publishers do not want to be identified as vanity presses, is there perhaps some way to verify their status? Artemis-Arethusa 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found the source of the list and added reference links to all relevant publishers. Artemis-Arethusa 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, answers.com is not the source of the list, but a copy of an older version of this article. I've removed items that were sourced only to this article, after a brief google search for appropriate sources. We still have a reasonably substantial list, which seems like enough to me. JulesH 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu.com?[edit]

Should lulu.com be considered a vanity publisher? They are more in the "print on demande" market, and I think that their business model is quite different from the usual vanity publisher / scam. I've read some genuine praises about them in blogs, so it makes me wonder. -- Hugo Dufort 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do apear to be a self-publisher, because they chanrge only a commisison, without an upfront payment. Med Publisher 00:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should lulu.com be removed from the list at the end of this article (about vanity publishers)? I'm just wondering of course; I don't advocate self-publication. I own a small-scale publishing "house" in poetry (a real one, not a vanity press). A poor lady I know, who has limited talent, spent 3500$ only to get a photocopied spiral-bound "book" from a vanity publisher. This is revolting. -- Hugo Dufort 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Lulu.com. They're a POD self-publishing service; their features are completely different from those of a vanity press and they're very up-front with what they promise (they are effectively a publishing-oriented version of CafePress). You don't go to Lulu because you're looking for instant fame and fortune, you go to Lulu because you're looking for a way to self-publish on the internet. Iceberg3k 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was surprised to find Lulu in that list. -- Hugo Dufort 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understood them as working was that they only printed a copy of your book when someone ordered it, which is faithful to the print-on-demand model, much more modern and efficient, and a fair bit different from the usual vanity publishing model (you pay them thousands and get about 20 copies of your book back...). If my memory is working correctly then that surely disallows them from the VP list?

I got a book published by lulu, and I don't think they can be called vanity publishers. I didn't spend a single penny for getting it published and whenever my book sells, they give me a certain percentage. That is convenient for a new writer who hasn't been able to get her book published by a mainstream publisher. They aren't cheating people. - Shruti Chandra Gupta

Is Xlibris or isn't it?[edit]

Based on various sources of information, I thought Xlibris was a vanity press, but when I added that information to its Wikipedia page it was removed without comment. Frankly, that whole page reads like little more than an advertisement for Xlibris, not a balanced article. So is it or isn't it? Artemis-Arethusa 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively Perjorative[edit]

We have become used to the idea of large publishers offering mega-contracts to super-star authors (who it seems not infrequently write "with" someone). Such publishers also carry lots of books that are less spectacular, but perhaps not altogether unremunerative. On the other hand, Academic press is far more likely to involve strange boondoggles. I remember walking into Peter Lang with my cities-book ms. and being given a fee schedule. The last time I looked, this was more or less typical of many Euro-based academic publishing houses, and UPA here. Even when an academic book is offered by a legit house, it is taken on merely for esteem reasons, and the academic author gets little if any money. The polite term for this is "subvention" and it is commonplace not only for books but for academic journals; it is, in fact, expected. There are other variants on the theme. The New Press, e. g., has published some very dubious things from CUNY; one would be interested in knowing what the

The article talks about "peer review". In such a case, a subventer has some influence? And anyway, peer-review is pretty much a crock; doesn't guarantee much beyond assuring that the journals using it are reviews-of-our-research.

The article appears to think "legitimate" publishers market books. Nonsense! They market some books. A very different matter. Panelists fielded by the Authors' Guild, talking about book marketing, have continually recommended an author engage his own publicist and do his own marketing. If you ain't a superstar, you ain't gonna get much.

There is also an inherent view of knowledge and "intellectual property" implicit to this article that is seriously flawed. The late-60s/early-70s views of folks such as Habermas and Lyotard (who quotes Habermas approvingly in Postmodern Condition), that knowledge becomes somehow proprietary, and therefore controlled distribution somehow valuable, are clearly not on the mark. This in turn changes the nature of publishing, which assumes that proprietary and valuable character. --djenner 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making Light is not an attack site[edit]

I don't know what an attack site is, but Making Light isn't one. It's a widely read, oft-cited, notable website edited by some of science fiction's most prominent editors, people with long, deep histories in the field and in publishing. The citation removed is to a piece of original investigative work that is supported by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America's "Author Beware" clearing house of information on scam presses.

I've replied on your user page. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Vanity Presses are Not Unethical Scams[edit]

I made changes to this article because it was very negative. There are many good reasons for an author to choose a vanity press and just because someone had a bad experience doesn't make them all scams. Real vanity presses should be listed here as a resource for people looking to publish books for personal use, etc. I think there is also a COI going on here with SFWA and it's memebers. Please don't make this article about personal attacks. This just isn't the place for it.-- Showauthor (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "vanity press" was supposed to be a negative term, and this article dealt specifically with printers, authors and practices that make up "vanity press". While some of your edits do address POV, others seem skewed in the other direction. Flowanda | Talk 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term itself is negative, but the practice of using a vanity press is not always a bad option and offering such services is not unethical. Is there a specific edit that I made that you are unhappy with? I am sure we can reach a neutral agreement.Showauthor (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the article was that the term "vanity press" was similar to the way that "astroturfing" or "front group" was used when discussing lobby groups or grassroots organizations...that it was about specific practices that involve deception or taking advantage of someone's inexperience or desire to get published, not self-publishing in general. I also thought you were looking for feedback (there's nothing like making a bunch of edits and having no response, right?), but I don't have any experience in this area to make much more than wikistyle or tone (like the "you" how-to tone you've since edited) comments. Flowanda | Talk 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda | Talk 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A scam is a scam and deception is deception. You'll find both in every type of business on this Earth, but "vanity presses" and "vanity publishers" are not all scams. the Merriam-Webster definition for a "vanity press" is "a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense." There's nothing wrong with that. Authors choose what kind of publisher to go with depending on their needs and there are logical reasons for an author to choose a vanity press such as small quantity or personal print projects. It is fair to say that "vanity presses" are looked down on when it comes to marketing because "vanity presses" are not selective and therefor this raises questions about quality. However, making this article specifically about deception and/or businesses that take advantage of authors would be like making an article about any other legitimate business enterprise which takes payment for services rendered and discusses the exchange of capital as "deceptive." One would not necessarily classify McDonalds business transactions as deceptive but I fail to see much of a difference from a person paying money to get their book published and a person who pays for a Big Mac. Showauthor (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to these comments... I was surprised by the tone of this article which doesn't seem to make any legitimate distinction between vanity presses and self-publishing. Self-publishing is a totally legitimate way of getting your work published, particularly if it's something that publishing houses are unlikely to be interested in (for whatever reason) - in general, they provide a printing and binding service to authors and charge them for it, and occasionally may provide distribution as well, for an additional fee. A vanity press, on the other hand, also provides this service - but implies rather more. Vanity presses imply that you will become a successful published author, whereas in reality many will send you 20 copies of your book and leave the rest sitting in a warehouse. They imply that they will provide marketing support, get your book in Waterstones etc, but never intend to - and charge for the privilege. Perhaps this is a trans-Atlantic thing? I think in the UK there is generally accepted to be a clear divide between 'self-publishing' and 'vanity publishing', but maybe the terms are used subtly differently in the US? 193.60.236.98 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Anon[reply]

Yes, all vanity presses are unethical scams. That is what the term means. The commentator above me is entirely correct in saying "the tone of this article.....doesn't seem to make any legitimate distinction between vanity presses and self-publishing." As someone with twenty five years experience as a writer/journalist I have never heard the term "vanity press" used seriously in the way this article describes. Perhaps some people used it more loosely, i.e. pejoratively, in an off-moment, but if pressed they will concede to its real meaning.

All authorities you will read make a clear distinction between legitimate self publishing exercises and vanity houses, which are scams. The public deserve to be made aware of the facts and Wiki owes it to its readers to be accurate. The term "vanity press" means crooked in the same way that "shoplifter" means crooked, and alluding to genuine self-publishing firms as vanity presses is like calling ordinary shoppers "shoplifters."

This article is just entirely mistaken about what the term "vanity press" means.

A key point about vanity presses only hinted at here is that they frequently seize all rights to an author's work in the small print. This is why publishing through such crooks can be crippling to an author's future. A legitimate self-publishing exercise will never do this. It is a key point in distinguishing a legitimate self-publishing company from a vanity print. for other comments, see my entry below at 13.

TJ (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you drew a Venn diagram (remember these?), neither circle would subsume the other, but neither would they be disjunct: the vanity publishing circle and the self-publishing circle would overlap. What vanity publishing is not self-publishing? Vanity publishing that uses an independent company, of course (other than a simple printer). What self-publishing is not vanity publishing? Self-publishing that makes itself absolutely clear on this matter, that never tries, in any way, to deceive potential readers, book stores, libraries, newspapers, friends, relatives, or anyone else--ever. Is vanity publishing always unethical? Well, in my opinion it is--on the part of the "published" as well as on the part of the "publisher"--, but you'd might as well ask whether prostitution is always unethical (in my opinion prostitution--literal prostitution is not--, but that's neither here nor there). Both are considered always unethical by the culture at large although individual members of the culture may disagree. Individual disagreement or agreement is POV, but the general culture's attitude is not, and this article may be--and should be--written from that standpoint. TheScotch (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorHouse[edit]

I've taken AuthorHouse off the list of examples. The source provided - 10 Publishing Mistakes And How to Avoid Them - is not reliable, but even if it was, it specifically distinguishes POB from vanity press, and never claims that AuthorHouse is a vanity press/ - Bilby (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note somebody has added it back in the list. I've added another reference. This one calls AH a "subsidy publisher", which seems to simply be a synonym for a vanity press. Unfortunately, being a newsletter source, it doesn't seem to have an official copy hosted on the web, although there are a number of web sites that quoted it at the time it was published, so if you search for the title you should be able to find it. JulesH (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a number of other missing references.

This article is entirely wrong and defamatory to some of the organisations it references[edit]

This article is entirely wrong and defamatory to some of the organisations it references. Vanity publishing is, specifically, a confidence trick.

I have tried to introduce the text below and erase defamatory references from this site before the likes of Iuniverse and Lulu take Wiki to court. I have been obstructed for some reason. Please listen, editors, you are on very dangerous legal ground with the text as it is.

Vanity Press (fraud)

Vanity publishing is a form of confidence trick targeted at those with literary aspirations. It is a form of fraud, although in many jurisdictions defining it as a specific crime is problematic. It is to be distinguished entirely from legitimate self publishing activities and companies that aid authors to self-publish. Care needs to be taken as a misapplication of the term to those engaged in legitimate self-publishing activities could lead to legal action for defamation.

Modus operandi

“Authors wanted,” “Publisher seeking authors,” are the kind of adverts placed in newspapers and magazines by vanity publishers. Those who respond (henceforth referred to as “the mark”) will find that their work is quickly accepted. The acceptance comes with extravagant praise of the marks work as well as exaggerated claims of its potential. It is this appeal to the marks vanity that forms the “hook” part of the con and is how the con gets its name.

Along with the praises and promises - invariably at the end - comes a request for the author to assist with the cost of publishing. This money, usually a fair sum, is pocketed almost entirely by the conman who goes on to produce the marks work (if it is produced at all) in a substandard edition with no editing, no sales effort and no chance of getting the volume reviewed, as reviewers immediately spot the poor quality output of vanity publishers and reject them on sight. Likewise, bookshops will not stock such books.

Some years ago a journalistic investigation into vanity publishers by a British national newspaper led it to ban all adverts by them from its pages.

See The Writers Handbook by Barry Turner, an authoritative source which has, in several editions, contained articles warning of the Vanity Press and from which I have elicited the definition and facts above (although the text and terms such as "mark" are my own)

TJ (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways of defining what is and isn't a vanity press. The most common one is something like "a publisher that will publish (almost) any book for a fee". Some people don't even consider the fee to be a necessary part of the definition. And whether or not a vanity press is a confidence trick depends entirely on how it is operated and marketed: a vanity publisher that attempts to convince prospective authors that their low quality work will achieve massive commercial success if they publish it is clearly a confidence trick. On the other hand, there are many respectable vanity publishers who are quite upfront with their potential clients about how many books are likely to be sold.

Turner's book is well respected, but his is only one voice among a large continuum of opinions on this subject. Yes, in my opinion it would be a good idea to stress that many vanity presses operate in ways which are either illegal, immoral or both. And if you want to add material to the article along these lines, sourced to the book you quote, you are welcome to do so. I don't think deleting large quantities of the article as it stands is a good idea, though. JulesH (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a for-instance, you're concerned about iUniverse suing wikipedia over calling them a vanity press; however, iUniverse themselves define a vanity press as "[a] Publisher who publishes books financed solely by their authors,"[2] so by their own definition they are a vanity press. JulesH (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have hit the nail on the head here. A POD such as Iuniverse is specifically not a “publisher who publishes books financed solely by their authors," because the people who buy the books pay for them to be printed. That is the whole point of print-on-demand.

I have to tell you that if you try to defend this article in the English law courts on the above grounds you will be toasted and roasted. There are not really different definitions of what a vanity press is - there are plenty of people who do not know what it is and spout on the subject but that is not the same thing as a a variety of informed opinions. Other respected sources that back me up are;

The Insider's Guide to getting Your Book published by Rachael Stock.

How to Publish Your Own Book by Anna Crosbie

It is certainly true that "vanity" is a term bandied about disparagingly and carelessly by those in the publishing industry but that doesn't mean that Wiki has to report these pejorative views as bold fact.

Wiki is a valued and respected resource to many, including me. I urge on you caution and beg you to delete much of this article which may well cost the Wiki project dear, if not lead to its termination altogether.

TJ (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanyajane continues -

I think where you are getting muddled is that you are not following the money, which is the key, defining part of understanding and naming any business model - or distinguishing between genuine commerce and dishonesty.

Consider these models

Vanity publishing

All of the author’s money goes into the publisher/conman’s pocket – or as much as the publisher/conman thinks he can get away with. Little or none goes into producing the work.

Subsidy publishing

Someone pays a publisher for the use of the name of their imprint and also pays for producing the work. The charge for the use of the imprint’s name is pure profit for the publisher (hence it is regarded as the semi -legitimate cousin of vanity publishing.)

Legitimate self-publishing

All of the author's money is invested in producing the title.

Legitimate publishing

The publisher invests his own money in producing the title – the author pays nothing but gets royalties.

Print on demand

This is fundamentally different from all of the above. This is primarily because the POD publisher needs to have purchased, or have a financial interest in, a printing press to which they have immediate access to satisfy their print on demand obligations. This is a significant outlay ($$$$$$) which no normal publisher makes, as they generally use outside printers. This means that the business model of a POD publisher needs to be compared more with that of the printing firm.

The primary object, having made such an investment, is to keep the equipment working and paying for itself (also note, having made such a colossal investment they may consider it small beer to protect their interests by taking to court those who threaten their investment by tarnishing their business image)

PODS such as IUniverse charge initial fees for setting up for printing etc – but then printers charge these too, before you pay for a print run. PODs sometimes charge some sort of joining fee which includes services like layout and cover design but quite frankly it seems to me that these are often charged at cost or even below cost compared to the rest of the publishing industry. Some of the covers are damn good, and constitute value for money in my book. Many printers also offer such services simply to bring in business and keep their presses moving. Sometimes you have to pay other people to do things for you – this doesn’t make them conmen. Heard of a vanity plumber? No one would make such a silly comment.

Most probably all profits in a POD come from the author, or others, ordering books to be printed.

To my mind this all makes the print-on-demand a legitimate service based on investment and a POD does not deserve to be tarnished with the vanity label and its suggestions of dishonesty. I bet if you if it is tested in court the court will agree with me.

TJ (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help fix this page but have potential conflict of interest[edit]

I'm a publisher who charges writers a small amount because I have no other way to perform the service. I have to have some income from the books, and it's been my experience that only the very big well-known publishers actually sell enough copies to make money that way. I firmly believe that anyone should be able to get their work in print, and that's what vanity presses are for. However, I am not a vanity press. I take exception to the definition from Merriam-Webster. In my view, a vanity press will in fact publish anything, as long as they get money for it. A small, or independent, press will publish only work that meets their quality standards. My own standards are quite high and I have turned down many more submissions than I have published. That's why there are only 4 books out from my press--actually 3 currently since the first is now out of print. I believe the criterion 'lack of selectivity' must be included in the definition of a vanity press. I'm trying to find some references to justify an edit of the page, to at least include a competing definition if not a replacement one.

The whole publishing industry is in transition. POD printing is becoming more accessible to the general public; Lulu, CreateSpace, iUniverse, and others may be thought of as publishers or as printers depending on whose definitions are used. All of these entities facilitate self-publishing for the masses; in one sense they are the modern version of a vanity press. However, I use CreateSpace as my vehicle for POD printing and distribution, while putting my company name and my isbn on the books. So, for me, CreateSpace is a printer, not a publisher. I am the publisher, but not the writer. I am selective, and therefore not a 'vanity' publisher. IMHO.

I'd like to see this page clarified and improved. I'd be happy to help but it is quite clear that I am too involved with the industry. If no-one picks it up, I'll do my best to make the changes, and I'll maintain an impartial POV, but I really think it would be best for someone else to do it. I do hope that I can serve as a consultant, though.

I'll watch this page and I'd be glad to have any less general comments appear on my talk page.--Chuck Gregory (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would be happy to see changes you make along these lines, as long as they are sourced to reliable sources. There are plenty of us here who can watch for any POV issues, and fix them as they crop up. In case you haven't read it, WP:COI has good advice. JulesH (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAP Lambert Academic Publishing[edit]

Definition of vanity press as per this article: "as one that does one of the following ... publishes work without competitive selection; or publishes work without professional editing". LAP sends email spam all around the world to universities asking whether LAP can publish Masters' and Doctoral theses. I've got their spam emails a couple of times. A simple google search for "Lambert vanity press" finds tens of reports of the same experience So:

No review process
No competitive selection
No professional editing
Author fishing through email (spamming)

According to this article's definition, LAP fulfills vanity press criteria with flying colors. Included back on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.4.33 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I had to remove it again. It would certainly appear, from the references provided, that LAP has some rather questionable practices. However, none of the provided references describe them as a vanity press, and LAP do not charge authors for publication. They also request that authors submit manuscripts for approval, which suggests that there may be a selection process. I certainly wouldn't publish with them, but we probably need another category to place them under. - Bilby (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition does not require the press to charge authors for publication. It states "one of the following". Furthermore, I wonder if Bilby read the provided references, for in the reference to Victoria Strauss of SFWA Writer Beware, she explicitly labels it as author mill, which is defined as vanity press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.4.34 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US National Endowment for the Arts is unusual, as it seems to include an awful lot of things as a vanity press and isn't in keeping with more common definitions. I would tend to stick to the normal definition, in that a vanity press relies on charging the author to publish. Which LAP doesn't do. Nevertheless, in this case, the only part of the US National Endowment for the Arts which clearly applies is "publishes work without professional editing", given that LAP claim to select what they publish. And LAP's justification is that a thesis should already be at a high standard, so I don't see even that as clear cut given that they have a point. And yes, I noted the author mill comment, but I tend to see author mills as different to vanity Press. While our article on them seems to see them as a variety of vanity press, most commentators make a distinction on the grounds that author mills don't charge upfront fees.

Actually, I just checked the article we're relying on to define vanity press from the US National Endowment for the Arts, and it is a bit of a problem. First, it isn't about vanity presses, but is eligibility criteria for applying for a fellowship. Second, the section we quote from starts with "For the purposes of this category, a vanity press is defined as ..." I'm inclined to remove the definition on those grounds, as that's not offering a formal definition, but an informal one.

I should add, I stand by the earlier comment that LAP are dodgy. I'm just not convinced that this is the right category for them. - Bilby (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move LAP over to Author Mill, but noticed that VDM was already covered, so ended up just removing it from here. (It may still warrant specific mention in Author MIll, though). Apparently Victoria Strauss coined the Author Mill term, and in so doing distinguished it from Vanity Press.[3] Thus I'm assuming that her use of of "Author Mill" to describe LAP was part of her distinction between the two forms. Hopefully this is ok. - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poor comparison[edit]

"Such a term is not used in other art forms, i.e., a filmmaker who "publishes" a film and distributes it is not considered a "vanity filmmaker," a sculptor who creates a work through a foundry is not considered less of a sculptor."

A book producer who publishes a book and distributes it is also not considered a "vanity book producer! Thus the comparison is here wrong, for the comparable case probably would be used in such art forms: an actor who pays to participate in a movie would be considered a "vanity actor" and a sculptor who pays to have his work on display might be considered less of a sculptor. Harald88 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the means of publication under consideration should be considered as a spectrum rather than a discrete group. There are a number of what are generally conceived as vanity publishers - which can be compared to the rest of the cowboy industries. There are also a number of publishers, POD establishments and similar, who provide a service for those who wish to have thier work published in small runs/for small markets, the authors knowing what they are getting involved and are provided with the service for which they pay - whether printing a screed they have prepared, right up to ghosting the book. There are also a number of firms which lie between these extremes.

Academics to some degree #have# to publish - does this involve a vanity press? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academics must publish articles in scholarly journals or have their books published by notable scholarly publishers. In both cases there will be selection committees made up of academic peers who will decide if the article or book is worthy of publication, based on scholarly criteria. This excludes vanity press publications because a vanity press has no valid selection criteria. With them money is the only condition for getting published.--AlainV (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as Vanity Publisher?[edit]

Just an aside: many Wikipedia articles, especially substantial ones, are created by only one editor. Quite a few become 'Featured Articles'. Is that a form of 'Vanity (Press) Publication'? Typically, Wikipedia articles are (?should be) the result of a collective effort, but these articles are put on WP 'in one go' by one author (with free editorial help by author WP editors!), and there are only few subsequent 'collective' edits. Typically, many of these articles are of very good quality indeed, but much too detailed to qualify as 'encyclopedic' contributions. As I say, 'just an aside': this remark doesn't warrant a section in the article proper, or does it? A similar note could be added to Self-Publishing Sleuth21 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles that are posted in one go have been developed by the author in a user space sandbox. There is no obligation for an article to have multiple authors and there are a number of reasons why author's choose to fully develop articles before posting them:

The author wants to do a proper job of completing the article rather than post a partial or incomplete product
They are complex and need a lot of development time, but can be worked on at the author's own pace without a sense of pressure to complete
It is easier to handle referencing and formatting when it is done in one go rather than bit by bit
It avoids "help" from other users and bots putting in citation required type templates on partially done articles
The author may be developing a number of related articles in parallel and wants to coordinate their development
There is a greater sense of achievement and flourish in the publication of a completely new article than one that has been developed bit by bit over a period of time in main space (even if has been developed by the same user)

As to whether users use Wikipedia as a vanity press; that really asks a question as to motivation. Why do any of us spend time researching and posting content here? There is a sense of sharing of our knowledge and in a collaborative process (particularly within a field of interest), but, like most things in life, a bit of recognition is always welcome. Wikipedia is hardly the ideal vanity publishing medium though - unlike a blog, it is relatively hard to learn all of the MOS rules and the formatting tools to present a page in an attractive way and nothing is truly permanent because other users can edit the "masterpiece". The amount of effort to get an article through the FAC process is also considerable. Wikipedia is also essentially anonymous - editors are not identified on the article (only in the history) and most users post pseudonymously. If vanity were the only reason to publish here, it hardly seems worth it. --DavidCane (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these important and thoughtful comments. I am actually trying to help a friend who feels very aggrieved by what he perceives as copyright violations and plagiarism in several WP Featured Articles. As he phrased it: ‘I am being plagiarised in a WP article, which even got some sort of prize!’. I may come back to your comments at a later stage, perhaps on my User talk page. I will let you know. Sleuth21 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not the right place to raise any concerns regarding specific Wikipedia articles, or to introspect on the nature of Wikipedia in general. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description not entirely accurate[edit]

The first line of this article reads: A vanity press or vanity publisher is a term describing a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published. I don't think this is necessary the case. Publishers like LAP (Lambert Academic Publishing) and Nova Publishers do not charge fees to the authors but will publish pretty much anything anybody sends them, which I believe adheres to the broad definition of vanity press. They make money later on by selling books at ridiculously high prices mainly to the authors themselves or to unwary buyers. Both publishers also share the common practice of spamming authors of any kind with an email template where basically the authors' name and field of work are the only things that change. I propose to rephrase that sentence: in which authors may have to pay to have their books published and where there's little or no quality filter. Regards.Gaba p (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the lack of a quality filter is a defining characteristic of a vanity press. If a press was selective about who it published, but only published if the author paid for the process, then I think it would still be a vanity press. Similarly, if a press didn't charge the author, but published all sorts of rubbish, then I'm not sure that it would be a vanity press. So the quality filter doesn't seem to be necessary nor sufficient. Otherwise, I agree with you, in that it is unclear if a publisher who didn't activly charge the author would be a vanity press or not. What I'm not sure about is whether or not the answer is that it is not a vanity press if it doesn't charge, or if our definition is not fully inclusive.

I'll look around for sources and see if anything turns up with a better definition. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby see this page and this WP entry. The first link says:

So, yes, while LAP is technically not a "Vanity Press", as you do not pay for your own book (..) LAP (..) is ultimately an author mill. Publication through LAP, while technically being a legitimate outlet, is a buyer beware situation.

And from WP's definition of Author Mill:

Also, author mills tend to share a business model with vanity publishers: no editorial screening of submissions, no meaningful pre-publication editing, no meaningful post-publication marketing or distribution.

So it would appear that the correct definition is Author Mill instead of Vanity Press in some cases (like LAP and Nova Publishers). Gaba p (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"History" section confusing[edit]

The History section seems to be talking specifically about self-publishing, not vanity publishing. If there's debate over the overlap of these subjects then it should be made clearer. Mark Twain publishing his own work through his own printing press may be vain but it certainly doesn't constitute being a 'vanity publisher' - it's self-publishing.

80.0.27.240 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vanity press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

use of the term[edit]

We currently have the line The term vanity press appeared in mainstream U.S. publications as early as 1941. sourced to a 1941 article, rather than one that points that out as an early usage. I can quickly find the term being used in mainstream papers in 1936 and 1937, at times in relation to a piece that Ben Belitt did for The Nation in May, 1936. (I've not seen that article.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]