Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 19:35:06 GMT
Lulu have always had the habit of dropping things they decide are not popular enough to bother with. Don't forget that the Wizard software has to be able to cope with the sizes also, and have they not promised new Wizards? Do you recall when it was possible to publish downloadable software here? And CD, case and inserts creation? Downloadable Art? (Which I first started to use Lulu for.) All long discontinued. And indeed, there are other places to turn to. Amazon for example, who have improved CreateSpace, or whatever it is called now, immensely. To be honest, I think this forum should be renamed Self-Publishing. BTW. Lulu also seem to have lost my email address to offer me to beta test for them. Who would have thought that over ten years of 'service' using Lulu and giving advice in the forum and suggesting what was wrong with some aspects of creating on it, would not be ideal as a beta tester? Beta tests also need to be done by so many people with so many types of devices that it catches every type of problem. I agree with Kevin. This forum should be renamed "Free Self-publishing Help and Advice."
Benziger, there is a zero chance our message will make a difference. Many many more sizes were removed years ago.
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Mar 1, 2020 20:29:36 GMT
Lulu have always had the habit of dropping things they decide are not popular enough to bother with. Don't forget that the Wizard software has to be able to cope with the sizes also, and have they not promised new Wizards? Do you recall when it was possible to publish downloadable software here? And CD, case and inserts creation? Downloadable Art? (Which I first started to use Lulu for.) All long discontinued. Oh, yes, I remember the CD, just discontinued befor I published the first one :-(
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Mar 1, 2020 20:51:40 GMT
If the new format differs only slightly from the old one, I take that as a tolerance of the printer and not as a new book with a new ISBN, especially if it is the book I suspect (project created in January, at the moment only on Lulu and not yet advertised and sold). Write to Lulu and ask if they can release your ISBN, then write to Ingram Spark and ask how to go about using the same ISBN. Thank you, but there is no need for that, as I have my own ISBN (from the 978-2 group [France, french speaking Europe, french speaking Africa]). Each new edition requires a new ISBN. However, if the same edition is simply reprinted (reprint instead of reprinting), the ISBN can be kept. No new ISBN is required if the printer changes.
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Mar 1, 2020 21:00:24 GMT
And indeed, there are other places to turn to. Amazon for example, who have improved CreateSpace, or whatever it is called now, immensely. Benziger, there is a zero chance our message will make a difference. Many many more sizes were removed years ago.
I always hesitate a little with the big, almost monopolistic companies like Google as search engine, Facebook, Amazon as everything, Microsoft for software, etc. But I am not asking for anything inhuman. A few standard formats: large, small, portrait, landscape, square (this is where it gets difficult with Lulu), my own ISBN (this blocks ePubli, which would otherwise be the better Lulu). With very little good will, Lulu could blow up many bigger competitor (I didn't ask for all my wishes to be fulfilled, but at least to see some progress...).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 22:31:24 GMT
Benziger, there is a zero chance our message will make a difference. Many many more sizes were removed years ago.
I always hesitate a little with the big, almost monopolistic companies like Google as search engine, Facebook, Amazon as everything, Microsoft for software, etc. But I am not asking for anything inhuman. A few standard formats: large, small, portrait, landscape, square (this is where it gets difficult with Lulu), my own ISBN (this blocks ePubli, which would otherwise be the better Lulu). With very little good will, Lulu could blow up many bigger competitor (I didn't ask for all my wishes to be fulfilled, but at least to see some progress...). Your request is fair and makes sense from the user's standpoint. If 1000 or 10000 people required these sizes it would make sense from a business standpoint as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 22:33:18 GMT
However, you cannot remove already existing sizes. This insults and inconveniences current users, and will cause them to lose trust in you for future projects.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 2, 2020 13:22:09 GMT
Yesterday I got an e-mail from Lulu: Starting March 31, 2020 - landscape format 22.86 x 17.78 cm in with booklet stitch binding
- comic book 16,82 x 26 cm with uncoated paper
will no longer be available, "but many new options". Lulu strongly recommends that I download these files before March 31, 2020 to rebuild a project with one of the new or similar products. I'll have to look for which of my books is affected. Probably a book I just created one or two month ago :-( Imagine all the traditional publishers having to redo their books because the printer is discontinuing certain sizes. Extremely disruptive. One will also need a new ISBN. I understand survival is key and a business has to do what they have to do. But, it's exhausting for the user.
Although Lulu has always made an issue of pointing out that they are merely a printer and distributor and that you, the author, are actually the publisher, the line is blurrier than the one that separates a traditional publisher from their printer. In the case of the latter, a printer does nothing more than manufacture books in a set quantity and deliver them to a warehouse. They get paid for that and that's the end of their role in the publishing process. It makes no difference to them one way or the other whether or not a book is a best-seller or on a direct trip to the remainder tables. Lulu, on the other hand, doesn't really earn its money on large one-time orders. It makes money each time an author sells a book. So if no one is buying books in a certain format, then they will stop making them available. This makes Lulu more like a publisher than a printer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 14:19:45 GMT
Imagine all the traditional publishers having to redo their books because the printer is discontinuing certain sizes. Extremely disruptive. One will also need a new ISBN. I understand survival is key and a business has to do what they have to do. But, it's exhausting for the user.
Although Lulu has always made an issue of pointing out that they are merely a printer and distributor and that you, the author, are actually the publisher, the line is blurrier than the one that separates a traditional publisher from their printer. In the case of the latter, a printer does nothing more than manufacture books in a set quantity and deliver them to a warehouse. They get paid for that and that's the end of their role in the publishing process. It makes no difference to them one way or the other whether or not a book is a best-seller or on a direct trip to the remainder tables. Lulu, on the other hand, doesn't really earn its money on large one-time orders. It makes money each time an author sells a book. So if no one is buying books in a certain format, then they will stop making them available. This makes Lulu more like a publisher than a printer. You're right, Lulu is more of a publisher than a printer. They pay us royalties. A printer does not pay traditional publishers royalties each time a book is sold. Good observation. I had bought into the printer label.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 2, 2020 14:55:29 GMT
Although Lulu has always made an issue of pointing out that they are merely a printer and distributor and that you, the author, are actually the publisher, the line is blurrier than the one that separates a traditional publisher from their printer. In the case of the latter, a printer does nothing more than manufacture books in a set quantity and deliver them to a warehouse. They get paid for that and that's the end of their role in the publishing process. It makes no difference to them one way or the other whether or not a book is a best-seller or on a direct trip to the remainder tables. Lulu, on the other hand, doesn't really earn its money on large one-time orders. It makes money each time an author sells a book. So if no one is buying books in a certain format, then they will stop making them available. This makes Lulu more like a publisher than a printer. You're right, Lulu is more of a publisher than a printer. They pay us royalties. A printer does not pay traditional publishers royalties each time a book is sold. Good observation. I had bought into the printer label. I had once asked someone at Lulu why they used the word "royalty." If you are in fact the publisher, you are making a profit, not a royalty. A royalty is that part of your profit you'd be sharing with an author you published. If you publish a book through, say, Simon & Schuster, you don't get a royalty check from their printer, warehouse or distributor, you get your check from Simon & Schuster.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 2, 2020 16:53:56 GMT
You're right, Lulu is more of a publisher than a printer. They pay us royalties. A printer does not pay traditional publishers royalties each time a book is sold. Good observation. I had bought into the printer label. I had once asked someone at Lulu why they used the word "royalty." If you are in fact the publisher, you are making a profit, not a royalty. A royalty is that part of your profit you'd be sharing with an author you published. If you publish a book through, say, Simon & Schuster, you don't get a royalty check from their printer, warehouse or distributor, you get your check from Simon & Schuster. One thing to consider, if a Self-Publisher is also the author, then the term royalties is technically correct, as in the 'publisher' in this case is paying royalties to the author in question. When it comes to the profit involved, Lulu Press [or other company offering services to Self-Publishers] are taking a share of the profit [and sometimes fees] in return for hooking the publisher up with the printer.
The ambiguity or interchangeability in this case is derived from the relationship between author, publisher, and print-service facilitator.
Lulu Press doesn't actually publish or print anything, the company essentially facilitates different services for a fee. The SP author using the service in this case isn't getting paid by Lulu Press, instead the company is collecting the Self-Publisher's profits then passing them on to the author of note as royalties earned [hence the SP author in the US having to file their 1099-MISC along with Schedule C at tax time for royalties over $300].
If you set up a DBA or LLC as a Self-Publisher you might be able to treat those royalties as company profits for a different tax rate, but in that case the profits from sales would likely have to be paid to the company you set up and be held in a company account with any withdrawals from same used for company expenses, which is something you'd need to check on with a tax-attorney as well as a good accountant. Advantages and disadvantages [if any] to either strategy would depend entirely upon how many books you sell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 17:43:11 GMT
You're right, Lulu is more of a publisher than a printer. They pay us royalties. A printer does not pay traditional publishers royalties each time a book is sold. Good observation. I had bought into the printer label. I had once asked someone at Lulu why they used the word "royalty." If you are in fact the publisher, you are making a profit, not a royalty. A royalty is that part of your profit you'd be sharing with an author you published. If you publish a book through, say, Simon & Schuster, you don't get a royalty check from their printer, warehouse or distributor, you get your check from Simon & Schuster. Yes, a printer would get a check from us. We wouldn't be paid by them. So true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 17:46:27 GMT
I had once asked someone at Lulu why they used the word "royalty." If you are in fact the publisher, you are making a profit, not a royalty. A royalty is that part of your profit you'd be sharing with an author you published. If you publish a book through, say, Simon & Schuster, you don't get a royalty check from their printer, warehouse or distributor, you get your check from Simon & Schuster. One thing to consider, if a Self-Publisher is also the author, then the term royalties is technically correct, as in the 'publisher' in this case is paying royalties to the author in question. When it comes to the profit involved, Lulu Press [or other company offering services to Self-Publishers] are taking a share of the profit [and sometimes fees] in return for hooking the publisher up with the printer.
The ambiguity or interchangeability in this case is derived from the relationship between author, publisher, and print-service facilitator.
Lulu Press doesn't actually publish or print anything, the company essentially facilitates different services for a fee. The SP author using the service in this case isn't getting paid by Lulu Press, instead the company is collecting the Self-Publisher's profits then passing them on to the author of note as royalties earned [hence the SP author in the US having to file their 1099-MISC along with Schedule C at tax time for royalties over $300].
If you set up a DBA or LLC as a Self-Publisher you might be able to treat those royalties as company profits for a different tax rate, but in that case the profits from sales would likely have to be paid to the company you set up and be held in a company account with any withdrawals from same used for company expenses, which is something you'd need to check on with a tax-attorney as well as a good accountant. Advantages and disadvantages [if any] to either strategy would depend entirely upon how many books you sell.
You're right; it's not a publisher or a printer, it's a facilitator, a go between, an acquaintance who knows all the right people. And for connecting us (not introducing us) they take a cut. Pretty smart actually.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 2, 2020 19:08:38 GMT
I had once asked someone at Lulu why they used the word "royalty." If you are in fact the publisher, you are making a profit, not a royalty. A royalty is that part of your profit you'd be sharing with an author you published. If you publish a book through, say, Simon & Schuster, you don't get a royalty check from their printer, warehouse or distributor, you get your check from Simon & Schuster. One thing to consider, if a Self-Publisher is also the author, then the term royalties is technically correct, as in the 'publisher' in this case is paying royalties to the author in question. When it comes to the profit involved, Lulu Press [or other company offering services to Self-Publishers] are taking a share of the profit [and sometimes fees] in return for hooking the publisher up with the printer.
The ambiguity or interchangeability in this case is derived from the relationship between author, publisher, and print-service facilitator.
Lulu Press doesn't actually publish or print anything, the company essentially facilitates different services for a fee. The SP author using the service in this case isn't getting paid by Lulu Press, instead the company is collecting the Self-Publisher's profits then passing them on to the author of note as royalties earned [hence the SP author in the US having to file their 1099-MISC along with Schedule C at tax time for royalties over $300].
If you set up a DBA or LLC as a Self-Publisher you might be able to treat those royalties as company profits for a different tax rate, but in that case the profits from sales would likely have to be paid to the company you set up and be held in a company account with any withdrawals from same used for company expenses, which is something you'd need to check on with a tax-attorney as well as a good accountant. Advantages and disadvantages [if any] to either strategy would depend entirely upon how many books you sell.
You are right: as a self-publisher the author pays himself a royalty. But Lulu itself doesn't pay royalties to an author since Lulu is ostensibly not the publisher. When Lulu sends money to an author, it is really to the author as a publisher. A more or less parallel example might be if a publisher sent books to a bookstore on consignment. The bookstore sells them, sends the money to the publisher who then sends along an agreed-upon share to the author. What went one between the bookstore and publisher was not a matter of royalties...but what occurred between the publisher and the author was. Likewise, Lulu merely handles the sales for the publisher(author). I suppose then that the publisher-author would be in publisher mode when he deposits his money the bank...and is in author mode as he draws funds out later in the form of royalties. Actually, it's all kind of an academic argument, really...but it does kind of irk me when I hear Lulu use term that makes it appear as though it were in the position of publisher.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 2, 2020 19:54:22 GMT
One thing to consider, if a Self-Publisher is also the author, then the term royalties is technically correct, as in the 'publisher' in this case is paying royalties to the author in question. When it comes to the profit involved, Lulu Press [or other company offering services to Self-Publishers] are taking a share of the profit [and sometimes fees] in return for hooking the publisher up with the printer.
The ambiguity or interchangeability in this case is derived from the relationship between author, publisher, and print-service facilitator.
Lulu Press doesn't actually publish or print anything, the company essentially facilitates different services for a fee. The SP author using the service in this case isn't getting paid by Lulu Press, instead the company is collecting the Self-Publisher's profits then passing them on to the author of note as royalties earned [hence the SP author in the US having to file their 1099-MISC along with Schedule C at tax time for royalties over $300].
If you set up a DBA or LLC as a Self-Publisher you might be able to treat those royalties as company profits for a different tax rate, but in that case the profits from sales would likely have to be paid to the company you set up and be held in a company account with any withdrawals from same used for company expenses, which is something you'd need to check on with a tax-attorney as well as a good accountant. Advantages and disadvantages [if any] to either strategy would depend entirely upon how many books you sell.
You are right: as a self-publisher the author pays himself a royalty. But Lulu itself doesn't pay royalties to an author since Lulu is ostensibly not the publisher. When Lulu sends money to an author, it is really to the author as a publisher. A more or less parallel example might be if a publisher sent books to a bookstore on consignment. The bookstore sells them, sends the money to the publisher who then sends along an agreed-upon share to the author. What went one between the bookstore and publisher was not a matter of royalties...but what occurred between the publisher and the author was. Likewise, Lulu merely handles the sales for the publisher(author). I suppose then that the publisher-author would be in publisher mode when he deposits his money the bank...and is in author mode as he draws funds out later in the form of royalties. Actually, it's all kind of an academic argument, really...but it does kind of irk me when I hear Lulu use term that makes it appear as though it were in the position of publisher. Please tell me I did not make a reasonably cogent academic argument, my professional reputation would be in tatters if I had one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 13:56:41 GMT
I'm afraid our emails to lulu did no good Benziger Here is an excerpt from an email I got from them. "Thank you for reaching out to us and expressing your concern. Lulu takes careful consideration when making decisions that will impact our user base, such as the availability of particular products. The executive members of our team do night make these choices lightly and they have decided that those particular options were not utilized enough by our user base and in order to make room for other project types that might suit our base more we have removed them."
|
|