Q: What’s the difference between self-publishing and print on demand (POD)? Is one better than the other? —Rachele LaBello

A: With self-publishing, a company generally charges you an upfront fee (roughly between $500 and $1,000) and then does print-runs, or large orders, just like a traditional publishing house. You pay the cost of your book’s publication and control almost every aspect of the production process. Your name will be listed as publisher of the book. The upside is that you have many copies and control everything, which makes it easier to market and sell. But if you haven’t done research on how to market your book, you could end up with so many leftover copies that you’ll have to start building furniture out of them.

POD publishing uses printing technology to produce books one at a time through a company at a cost-effective price. The books are printed individually as orders come in. Therefore, if you have an order of 200 books, you can print 200 books. If the only person who wants a copy is your mother, you can print just one book. POD cuts back on costs and eliminates the need for space to store unsold copies—that way you’re not stuck with 10 tomes stuffed in every corner of your bedroom. I hear spouses don’t like sleeping on piles of books.

Both are great options if you’re looking to get your book in print, and if you research companies that dabble in each, you’ll find benefits to both. If you’re writing a family history, memoir or book of poetry that has a limited audience, using POD is probably to your advantage. POD books are rarely stocked at bookstores, however, because they’re often nonreturnable and not sold at a discount. If you know how to market and promote your book and want to try to make a splash in local bookstores, printing in bulk via self-publishing may be a better bet.

Brian A. Klems is the online managing editor of Writer’s Digest magazine.

Have a question for me? Feel free to post it in the comments section below or e-mail me at WritersDig@fwpubs.com with “Q&Q” in the subject line. Come back each Tuesday as I try to give you more insight into the writing life.

Q: I've submitted my manuscript and query letters to various agents and publishers and have received several rejections. I feel this book is pretty marketable. How many agent rejections and how many publisher rejections do you think I should take as a signal to self-publish this book? I'm pretty tenacious. If need be, I could probably send out a query letter a day per day to 100 agents, but I'm wondering if there's a cut off number of rejections after which it's prudent to give up?—Barbara Bullington

A: There is no standard on how many rejection letters it takes to push an author into self-publishing mode—mainly because every author (and manuscript) is different. Some authors don't see self-publishing as a viable option for their work, while others—especially nonfiction writers who are also good marketers—see the opportunity to make more money self-publishing than they would spending time trying to traditionally publish their work.

If you believe self-publishing could work for you, you can certainly set a rejection threshold. But I'd recommend against it. This puts the timetable in the hands of agents and publishers, not you. And trust me, you don't want to have to waste your life away waiting for essentially bad news: "Well, there's rejection letter number 50. Thank goodness it came. Now, after 35 years of waiting, I can stop sending out all of these silly queries and self-publish!"

While I joke about the rejection-letter model, I absolutely do think it's good to set a timetable—just one that you control. For example, let's say I've sent out a dozen queries for my memoir, The Brian A. Klems Diaries: Editor by Day, Superhero by Night. I have set a deadline of 18 months to either sign an agent or get signed by a publisher. For each rejection I receive, I send out another query and continue this for the next year. If I don't get any bites by the time the 18-month deadline passes, then I look into my self-publishing options.

Now I'm not saying 18 months is the best timetable (depending on your work, you may want to consider giving it a few years or limiting it to one year). That's completely up to you. But by setting a timetable as opposed to a rejection-letter count, you have a clearer picture of when it's time for you to move forward.

Brian A. Klems is the online managing editor of Writer’s Digest magazine.

Have a question for me? Feel free to post it in the comments section below or e-mail me at WritersDig@fwpubs.com with “Q&Q” in the subject line. Come back each Tuesday as I try to give you more insight into the writing life.