The term “vanity press” is a persistent phrase that frequently comes up when people discuss the different publishing paths. It is clearly designed to be derogatory—historically referring to companies that will print anything that hits their desk without any regard for quality, either of writing or of the physical printing. There are still companies that function with this model, and often they are not providing a service that is worth the cost or result in a book the author can sell well. But the phrase is also so highly stigmatized and sometimes applied so broadly that some argue that anyone who invests money into their own publishing process is no different than just using a “vanity press”—including self-publishing, assisted self-publishing, or hybrids. The publishing world is evolving, and this black and white thinking only benefits one group—and it’s not writers.
Bad actors and the origins of the term “Vanity Press”
Vanity press as a term came into popular use in the 1920s and 30s. As you can imagine, logistics and costs of printing and distributing books have changed a lot in the past hundred years, to say nothing of the explosion of digital publishing.Even then the term was rather slippery, applied equally to printing services who would accept orders from both publishing houses and individuals alike and the runners of complicated scams who took egregious advantage of authors in highly publicized fraud cases. Overtime, anything that deviated from the royalty-agreement style of book publishing was given the stigma of “vanity publishing,” despite the fact that there is an ever-growing range of publishing paths with various levels of success for authors.
There are still companies today that still print everything they are given without discerning or contributing to quality, and of course we do not recommend working with middle-men companies like this. And as much as publishing has changed, the scams of today look different than they did a hundred years ago, too. But there are ways in which investing in your publishing process may make sense for you.
How hybrids and traditional presses work
Hybrid companies and traditional presses take many of the same steps through the publication process. When both styles of companies find a manuscript they want to work with, they go through the stages of editing—revisions, copy editing, and proofing—and then into production—design, layout, registration, and so forth. Both styles of publisher show selectivity when look for manuscripts to work with and both styles of company put their energy and expertise into producing a quality book, both in content and in production quality.
At Page and Podium, our hybrid press works with a core team of repeat collaborators—staff and trusted contractors—so our design, editing, and production can match the standards of traditional presses. Legitimate hybrid publishers should offer the same cohesive branding, rigorous editing, and selective acquisition based on fit and message as much as on quality. We work with primarily memoirs and experience-based nonfiction that tells important stories we want to help share with the world. We focus also on a particular political slant with books that show a commitment to equity, justice, and progress. When we choose to work with an author, we meet the story where it is and provide guidance through the editing process with a commitment to make it an excellent final product. That hands-on, selective approach isn’t universal among hybrids, but it’s a hallmark of non‑scam operations: defined editorial criteria, commitment to craft, and a clear sense of mission.
You Pay Either Way—Either now or later
The primary difference between these styles of publishing is that a hybrid publisher requires a financial investment from the author upfront. In traditional publishing, the author is often paid an advance and then royalties once that advance has been paid out by the publisher. A common adage that is often used in the same breath as “vanity press” is “money should only ever flow to the author.”
But that isn’t always the case and fails to take into account many variations—even within traditional publishing. For example, traditional publishers sometimes ask authors to cover extra production costs, especially for images, diagrams, or complex layouts. Amanda’s second book, Culturally Speaking, included diagrams translating voice into musical notation. Those graphics raised production complexity and cost, so the publisher required subvention funding to include them. Subvention is an industry term for author‑paid or grant‑funded fees that allow a publisher to absorb additional expenses. There are also other ways that money may be invested by the author even in the traditional path—including education, editorial help prior to pitching, and marketing and promotional efforts.
Also, in the traditional publishing path, it’s important to remember that the publisher is going to recoup their expenses. The average advance has shrunk significantly in the past few decades, and yet it is still common for authors not to see any additional money from their publisher for years, if ever.
Choose what’s right for you
Authors subsidize publishing one way or another, so the practical question is which press will actually serve your needs. Traditional publishers typically pay around 7.5% of net royalties after printing, distribution, and other costs are deducted, which often leaves authors with a very small per‑copy return. Hybrids or self‑publishing may ask for upfront fees for production, design, or distribution, but those payments can secure specific services and greater control.
The better approach is to evaluate who will invest in the book, who has the right team and tools to realize your vision, and who will champion your message and audience. Legitimate hybrids can offer cohesive branding, rigorous editing, and selective acquisition just like traditional houses, and traditionals sometimes ask for subvention when production gets complex.
Framing publishing as a moral binary of “traditional good, paid bad” obscures useful choices. Judge options by value delivered: editorial quality, production standards, distribution reach, marketing support, and alignment with your mission, and pick the partner that helps your book succeed.
Let’s retire the term altogether
The publishing world is changing, and yet this stigma persists. The term “vanity press” is particularly sharp because it plays against all authors’ fears and doubts about their skills and the legitimacy and value of sharing their stories. No writer wants to publish in a “vanity press,” they want to share a well-written book sharing their perspective that will benefit and challenge the people who read it. And that is precisely why the traditional side of publishing is significantly invested in keeping this term alive: because if they’re the only “legitimate” game in town, they retain the power and control over the industry. It keeps the decision of what counts as “worth-while” books in the hands of a very limited number of people who, historically, have not been driven by sharing the books that matter to the world the most, but the books that might reap the most profits. (And they’re not always right about that part, either.)
We see language weaponized like this in other industries and fields, too. In education, there is stigma and bias against community colleges, often called “high schools on the hill” as opposed to the “legitimate” larger state schools. However, when speaking to actual college graduates, many will report they received better attention and education, especially in general education freshman and sophomore courses, than their counterparts who went to larger schools all four years. States who use “right to work” laws choose that phrasing carefully because it sounds much nicer and harder to argue with than “anti-union.”
So can we all agree to retire this pejorative, blank and white term? If a company does shoddy work or uses scam tactics, call them what they are: a scam. It’s not vanity to want to help and challenge others with your words and stories. As James Baldwin, said “We write to change the world.”
