Talk:Print on demand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] References to POD services and companies
I am against commercials in Wikipedia, but I believe this article should have a link to Lightningsource.com, which is presently, I believe, the only major print-on-demand service provider to the publishing industry. Lots of small presses and university presses use their services. If they were one among many POD providers to the publishing industry I would be against including them, but at the moment I think they are the only one or at least so far ahead of the pack that they deserve mention. I will wait a while for comment and then add a link if there is no response. Rlitwin 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is already a red-link, but no article. Feel free to create an article if you want. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe I put in that link after waiting for comment. It was quite a while ago; I don't remember what was happening that made me feel I needed to write the above. Rlitwin 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday I added an external link to the blog for TSTC Publishing. We are the publishing office at our college Texas State Technical College. This link does neither goes to the official TSTC Publishing site nor are we trolling for work (as perhaps, a link to Lightning Source, as discussed above, could be perceived as being). That is, we do not do print on demand work for outside parties; print on demand through our own print shop is the production model we're using to publish our own books; our authors are the faculty at our school; our customers are primarily our own school's bookstores. Instead, for anyone interested in about how the practical nuts & bolts asptects of how POD works (or even publishing in general) in practice we see our blog as being a resource for that. Anyway, I got a post at our blog from Bill Ramon saying we should removed this link; I will take it down for the moment but I would appreciate some additional input/reads. Longly 12:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- My view is that it's too small to be encyclopedic. There isn't room for everything that is like that. Rlitwin 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Lightning Source isn't unique, in the UK I think they might be #2, but last time I saw a market share chart, #1 was definitely someone else. I haven't seen statistics for how the US market is divided up. ErkDemon 00:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, having gone into this some more, it seems that there are quite a few print-on demand service providers to the publishing industry: someone out there is buying those Xerox and IBM presses, after all. Where LS probably are unusual (and perhaps even unique) is in their level of integration re: the supply chain and invoicing. This probably makes them a good outlet for self-publishing novelists, but not such a good option for established publishers with specialist needs who want different grades and weights of paper for different books (hi-white for specialist textbooks, standard for novels, heavier paper for coffee-table books, thinner paper for high page counts, high-volumetric for very low page counts, and so on), or that require specialist pre-flight work or assembly, such as colour inserts in a B&W book. LS seem to offer precisely one type of white paper for a b&w book, and that's it.
- LS are very well set up as a general-purpose "one-size-fits-all" solution, particularly for publishing newbies producing simple text-and-lineart books ... other POD printers tend to handle the more specialised or demanding "niche" POD jobs for established publishers with more demanding requirements. So LS are "ahead" in some respects but "behind" in others. Whether what they have to offer is wonderful or awful really depends on what your requirements are. ErkDemon 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree. There are plenty of print on demand services and all someone needs to do is use Google (or any other search engine) to find them. If someone wants to look look for Vanity presses or Author mills, there are plenty of online services like Writers Beware. Piercetp (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Victor Celorio
User BadBull keeps adding links to Victor Celorio and his invention of the Book On Demand machine to several print and book related articles. I have searched the web and found only few (and promotional sounding) accounts of Celorio and his machine. In any way, it appears that Celorio is not inventor of this technique. I'm adding the {{POV-section}} template here. → Aethralis 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me another machine that produces books under the demand which means ,if I need one book I'll be able to find it. I kees linking Victor Celorio because the article needs and I try it , not spaming, only doit to use victor Celorio as a link. All I write it's true and important to the subject on my think. User:BadBull 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the Book On Demand machine is not really notable enough for this article, especially when added in a way that resembles either advertising or how-to sections or both. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use of the words "Traditional Publishing"
Several of the external references mentions "traditional publishing" as a meaningless term used by author mills in an attempt at distinguishing themselves from Print On Demand print shops. Its pervasive use here, especially to someone who has just read the external links, gives the whole entry a feel that it's biased in favor of these vanity presses. Should something be done about this? HenrikOlsen 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Extent of use in traditional publishing
The article presently says this: "Many of the smallest small presses, often called micro-presses because they have inconsequential profits,[1] have become heavily reliant on POD technology and ebooks. This is either because they serve such a small market that print runs would be unprofitable or because they are too small to absorb much financial risk. There is also a gray area where it can be difficult to distinguish between the smallest micro-presses and those self-publishing POD service providers who do not charge their authors in order to publish."
I would like to claim that this vastly underestimates the extent of the use of print-on-demand within the traditional publishing industry. In consulting with the head of a publishing company that does close to 300 titles a year I learned that they and pretty much all of their competitors are using Lightning Source to print all of their paperbacks. These are publishers that focus on the academic market, where to be successful a book needs to sell 500 copies. These are not micropresses but well-known, well-respected presses that, as I said, do hundreds of titles per year.
So, I think this section needs to be changed to take the emphasis off of micropresses. I think that the statement about a gray area between "the smallest micropresses and those self-publishing POD service providers..." is especially misleading and irrelevant given the fact that POD is used so extensively by small and medium sized presses that are not micropresses.
I will wait for discussion before making the change. Rlitwin 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Only a third of that section is about micro-presses. I don't think there is undue emphasis. However, there are a lot of myths about POD technology being used for nearly all books. If you want to add information like that, be careful to source it properly or it will most likely be deleted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- On second thought, I think you are mostly right. However, in my view the last sentence of that paragraph is dubious enough that I will delete it rather than just asking for a source. It is presently unsourced, and I think dubious, but that's just half the problem. The other part of the problem is that it colors the whole section about the use of print-on-demand by traditional publishers, in a misleading way. I think this would be the case even if there were a source for it; it is misleading in the context of section. If there is a gray area between micropresses and no-fee POD services, I doubt that it is sizeable enough to be notable. So I'm deleting that sentence until there is a source that not only establishes that this gray area exists but that it is notable. Rlitwin 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] external links to third-party POD review sites
Links to POD review sites should be included in the links as a matter of completeness. I don't understand the arbitrary, child-like behavior of wiki "editors"--do you know anything about the POD world? Listing POD review sites is about being thorough with regard to an emerging publishing phenomenon.
Before the arbitrary edits, I have looked up POD on wiki and found the POD world review site in the links section, a site that I bookmarked because I found it interesting. Now subsequent readers of the article won't know about it. It's a shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.189.252 (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
- Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Jefferson Anderson 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why have any links at all?
- Some links are useful. Blogs in particular are explicitly excluded by Wikipedia's external linking policy, unless "written by a recognized authority". The place to discuss policy is not here, but on Wikipedia talk:External links. You may want to create an account before engaging in discussions. Anonymous IP address editors are frequently not taken seriously. Jefferson Anderson 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that links to a couple sites that offer unbiased reviews of POD sites backed up by quantitative data would contribute significantly to the value of this article. The precedent has been set by articles like digital camera, or film. This type of comparison is very relevant to the topic, but beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, therefore, if sites exist that are up to the standards, we should include them here for users' reference.
[edit] external links
Are necessary to provide important information regarding the article content. The bottom line is that you don't know what is important in the POD area, hence your edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.189.252 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
- They are not important to an encyclopedia article. Try DMOZ. Jefferson Anderson 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are. As outlined here: Wikipedia:External_links --130.15.224.195 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New "Digital press" Wikipedia category
I've started a category for pages relevant to "new technology" commercial/industrial printing - major suppliers, hardware, workflow, formats, standards, that sort of thing. Almost anything relevant to POD probably counts. There did seem to be a reasonable number of relevant pages out there, but I thought that they they were too difficult to find without a specific category (quite a few of them were already listed under the "printing" category). Hope this helps, ErkDemon 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Let's Not Assume the Reader lives in the same country.
"Replica Books is the POD arm of the other leading wholesaler, Baker & Taylor, strong in library and academic markets, as well as bookstores in the northeast." Northeast? Northeast of what?
- Clarified northeast as Northeastern United States Crskees 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link between Cygnus and Self Publishing and Vanity Presses?
I cannot find a verifiable between Cygnus and self-publishing and vanity presses. Can anyone provide a citation source for "This is why POD is often associated with self-publishing and vanity presses"? Crskees 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is also debate about whether print on demand is an actual "business model" or a "publishing model" or "printing model." Many different kinds of business with various business models employ print on demand technology, to produce materials on demand. In these cases a POD printing model fits within the larger business model. Comments or suggestions? Crskees 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Errors and Omissions in PoD Entry
> The "PoD" entry ALREADY quotes (verbatim) from my book with Poynter. I > tried to add the missing citation but it was deleted. This confuses me > because a separate citation to an article I wrote for BookTech Magazine has > been included for some time, without problems. I don't understand why there > would be a difference between including an attribution to a book, versus an > attribution to a magazine. > > Next I tried to add some important distinctions between the printing method > and the business model (both of which are essential to a full understanding > of POD) and they were also deleted. > > Finally I tried to correct the first sentence that currently reads "Print > on demand with digital technology is used as a way of printing items for a > fixed cost per copy, irrespective of the size of the order." This is no > longer accurate, but my correction was removed. > > Unfortunately, my work schedule does not leave enough time for extensive > paperwork, appeals, forms, debate with moderators, etc. Jointly, Poynter > and I travel more than 5,000 miles per week on average, doing workshops and > seminars. > > So I will close by repeating that the sections on POD and Self-Publishing > appear dated to me, and somewhat narrow in their view. I'm generally > considered an "expert" on these subjects and willing to update them if > there is a hassle-free way to do so. And I will follow objective standards > used by most journalists. My goal isn't just self-promotion; it's getting > more current, authoritative information to authors and publishers... which > is just as important as selling books. > > Please feel free to pass this invitation along to others if appropriate. > Otherwise, I'll simply wish you happy holidays, and best wishes for > improvement in 2008. > > Warm regards, > Dan co-author@u-publish.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.234.150 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
