I think, historically, that having a piece of writing (whether a book or a journal) published immediately adds credit to the author. The idea is that the publishing companies take great care in reviewing each book before it is published. This makes books seem credible by nature.
Whether this is true is up to interpretation, however I think that being published is a smart way to promote yourself as an expert on a particular subject. The WSJ article mentions a dentist who says, "If you write a book, you are an expert...Who would you rather go to? Someone who has written a book, or someone who hasn't?" I think this question is an important one. The credibility gained after being published is definitely a defining characteristics when looking for an expert. If it was a choice between two identical candidates, where one person was a published author and the other was not, I believe the author would be the most popular choice.
I think the use of digital publishing is also a great way to add a second form of income from the expertise that a person has gained. The article calls this “invisible income.” I really like the idea of an entrepreneur utilizing as many options as possible to create the most profit. By releasing a book, with little overhead cost like digital books, the author is able earn the most profits. I support this earning strategy. Does anyone think that writing books to gain credibility is wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment