To self-publish or not, that is the question of many aspiring writers. If you are like me, you probably spent more than a few hours reading everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of self-publishing. It is a risk/reward calculation, but here are a few myths about traditional publishing to consider (from my own experience):
1. A traditional publisher will help me market. False. Most publishers are putting out titles at a rapid clip, they will shotgun blast your book and a review copy blurb to the top 200 newspapers and what comes from that is really all you will get. You may get a few extras (posters, flyers, etc), but nothing you can't make on Zazzle for 20 bucks.
2. I will get more reviews with a traditional publisher. False. Reviews are a function of contact, and as we said above the publisher does not help you there. You help yourself by finding outlets and blogs who review your type of book and are interested in a review copy. Blogs are content needy, if you package a pre-written interview and a review copy of your book, you will find interest and that interest may generate sales. You are the best-positioned to sell your product to reviewers.
3. My potentially audience will find me easier. False. When is the last time you searched for a book by publisher. People search by subject (and we can talk more about optimizing that later), but your ability to be seen and to stand out depends on the quality of your writing, a reasonable presence on the web, and word of mouth. In this business, personal recommendations are absolute gold.
So, what to do.... If you think that you can take a risk financially (and we will talk budget next Monday), and if you have a story that you like, then I say self-publish. If you are avoiding self-publishing because you think traditional is better, then you are cheating yourself out of a chance to tell your story.
