<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Amazon sales rank would a traditional publisher seriously consider taking on a POD book?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dwarfprinting.com/273/what-amazon-sales-rank-would-a-traditional-publisher-seriously-consider-taking-on-a-pod-book/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dwarfprinting.com/273/what-amazon-sales-rank-would-a-traditional-publisher-seriously-consider-taking-on-a-pod-book/</link>
	<description>Big Printing For Little Companies</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 03:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sky</title>
		<link>http://dwarfprinting.com/273/what-amazon-sales-rank-would-a-traditional-publisher-seriously-consider-taking-on-a-pod-book/comment-page-1/#comment-886</link>
		<dc:creator>Sky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dwarfprinting.com/273/what-amazon-sales-rank-would-a-traditional-publisher-seriously-consider-taking-on-a-pod-book/#comment-886</guid>
		<description>They wouldn't.

POD books have had a long-held reputation of being poorly written and poorly edited.

Traditional publishers won't touch anything that doesn't bring in a boatload of money and has a strong following.

Amazon.com may have a rank-and-file system which allows authors the chance to have their books posted and seen to the world in general--but the truth is...

You have to have a damned good book and a name that people recognize as being a major money-bringer and someone they can have blind faith in to bringing out a really good book.

Most POD authors don't understand this. They think that just because they are published by a third party outlet, it means that traditional publishers will suddenly &#34;look them up&#34; and take them in.

Unfortunately, it's never the case--because it's so damned rare for a POD author to be picked up out of the blue these days.

The ongoing recession has a lot of publishers stream-lining their operations and cutting back on a number of fronts--including signing up agented authors for a nice six-figure contract. (Or seven--for that matter. It's been a few years since the publishers had gone and done such a thing.)

So your job as a POD author is a hell of a lot harder than it usually is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They wouldn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>POD books have had a long-held reputation of being poorly written and poorly edited.</p>
<p>Traditional publishers won&#8217;t touch anything that doesn&#8217;t bring in a boatload of money and has a strong following.</p>
<p>Amazon.com may have a rank-and-file system which allows authors the chance to have their books posted and seen to the world in general&#8211;but the truth is&#8230;</p>
<p>You have to have a damned good book and a name that people recognize as being a major money-bringer and someone they can have blind faith in to bringing out a really good book.</p>
<p>Most POD authors don&#8217;t understand this. They think that just because they are published by a third party outlet, it means that traditional publishers will suddenly &quot;look them up&quot; and take them in.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it&#8217;s never the case&#8211;because it&#8217;s so damned rare for a POD author to be picked up out of the blue these days.</p>
<p>The ongoing recession has a lot of publishers stream-lining their operations and cutting back on a number of fronts&#8211;including signing up agented authors for a nice six-figure contract. (Or seven&#8211;for that matter. It&#8217;s been a few years since the publishers had gone and done such a thing.)</p>
<p>So your job as a POD author is a hell of a lot harder than it usually is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

