Ingram Spark perfectly illustrates the arrogance of the middleman

Independent publishers are discovering that distribution platforms like IngramSpark have become arrogant gatekeepers who profit from creators' work while treating them with contempt. From AI-generated rejections to insulting suggestions that publishers hawk their "unworthy" books on Facebook, these middlemen have forgotten they contribute nothing to the creative process. Fortunately, smart publishers are bypassing them entirely through direct printing and drop-shipping, making these dismissive gatekeepers increasingly obsolete.

7/26/20254 min read

Author crushed under foot by distrubters
Author crushed under foot by distrubters

The Gatekeeping Problem in Independent Publishing: When Middlemen Forget Their Place

The independent publishing revolution promised to democratize literature and specialized content, giving creators direct access to readers without traditional publishing barriers. Yet new gatekeepers have emerged—distribution platforms that wield enormous power over what readers can access, often with little transparency or accountability.
My recent experience with Ingram Spark perfectly illustrates this troubling dynamic. After submitting a carefully crafted publication, the platform rejected it for failing to meet their "standards and expectations." When I appealed, asking the reasonable question of what exactly I was appealing since no specific issues were identified, I received an even more insulting response.
The appeal system requires publishers to guess from a list of nine potential violations without knowing which one applies. After working through their checklist and confirming none applied to my work, I received this gem from "Gale" at IngramSpark Support: "After a careful second review, your titles do not meet the standards and expectations of our retailers. Your title will not be included in our distribution network."
The kicker? They then suggested I use their "Share & Sell" feature to "create purchase links for your print titles on social media." The audacity is breathtaking - reject a publisher's work as unworthy of distribution, then in the same breath suggest they hawk it on Facebook like a garage sale.
The Arrogance of the Middleman
What makes this particularly galling is the fundamental relationship these platforms have with creators. IngramSpark doesn't write books. They don't research or develop content. They don't spend months crafting resources for underserved communities. They simply control access to retail distribution networks.
Yet they've positioned themselves as arbiters of quality, deciding which publications deserve to reach their intended audiences. Quality work gets rejected through what are clearly template responses from "support" staff, while the platform simultaneously solicits the same author for printing services and suggests they peddle their "unworthy" work on social media.
This reveals the core issue: these platforms profit entirely from creators' work and investment, but treat those same creators as supplicants seeking approval rather than the customers and partners they actually are.

The Retail Tail Wagging the Publishing Dog
The rejection likely stems from Ingram Spark's relationship with major retailers who prefer broadly marketable content over anything that doesn't fit their narrow algorithms. This creates a perverse dynamic where quality independent work gets blocked not because it lacks merit, but because it doesn't fit retail formulas designed for mass market predictability.
Independent publishing was supposed to solve exactly this problem—allowing creators to reach audiences directly without corporate interference. Instead, we've simply moved the bottleneck from publishing houses to distribution platforms that are often even less transparent and more dismissive in their decision-making.
The Creator Economy Under Siege
This isn't just about one rejected book or one frustrating platform. It's part of a broader pattern where intermediary platforms accumulate power over creators while contributing minimal value to the creative process itself.
These platforms:
  • Control access to distribution networks creators can't reach independently
  • Make subjective quality judgments without expertise in specialized content areas
  • Provide minimal feedback when rejecting work, making improvement impossible
  • Profit from creator success while bearing none of the creative or financial risk
The result is a system where creators do all the work—research, writing, editing, marketing, and financial investment—while platforms extract value and control access to audiences.
The Transparency Problem
Perhaps most frustrating is the opacity of these rejection processes, delivered through form letters signed by "support" representatives who clearly haven't examined the actual work. "Doesn't meet our standards" tells creators nothing actionable. What standards? Applied by whom? Based on what criteria?
The appeal process is equally insulting - requiring publishers to guess from a list of potential violations without knowing which applies, then receiving the same form rejection regardless of the response. It's a system designed to waste creators' time while providing the illusion of due process.
For independent publishers, this treatment is not just professionally insulting—it reveals the platform's fundamental contempt for the creators who built their business. The suggestion that publishers should hawk their "unworthy" work on Facebook after being deemed unfit for "professional" distribution perfectly encapsulates this arrogance.
When platforms send out form rejections that appear AI-generated without clear, actionable feedback, they're not curating quality—they're simply exercising arbitrary power over creators who have limited alternatives.
What Independent Publishing Actually Needs
True independent publishing requires distribution platforms that remember their role in the ecosystem. They should be:
  • Service providers, not taste arbiters
  • Transparent about policies and rejection criteria
  • Responsive to creator feedback and concerns
  • Accountable for decisions that affect creators' livelihoods
  • Specialized enough to evaluate niche content appropriately
The current system, where a handful of platforms control access to readers while providing minimal transparency or creator support, undermines the entire promise of independent publishing.
The Rise of Direct Publishing
But here's the thing these gatekeepers don't seem to realize: smart independent publishers are already finding ways around them.
More creators are bypassing traditional distribution entirely by going direct to printers and implementing their own drop-shipping solutions. Print-on-demand technology that was once exclusive to platforms like IngramSpark is now accessible directly from manufacturers. Publishers are building their own distribution networks, partnering directly with independent bookstores, and selling through their own websites.
The infrastructure that gave these middlemen their power is becoming commoditized. What seemed like an insurmountable moat—access to printing and distribution networks—is rapidly becoming just another service that publishers can source independently.
Moving Forward
Creators need alternatives to platforms that treat them dismissively while profiting from their work. This might mean:
  • Supporting newer, more creator-friendly distribution platforms
  • Building direct relationships with specialized retailers
  • Developing community-based distribution networks
  • Demanding greater transparency from existing platforms
The independent publishing revolution isn't complete until creators have genuine alternatives to gatekeepers who've forgotten that their business exists entirely because of the content creators produce.
We built this industry. We deserve better than AI-generated rejections and dismissive treatment from platforms that contribute nothing but increasingly obsolete distribution infrastructure while claiming the authority to determine what deserves publication.
The middlemen need to remember their place—or publishers will simply route around them entirely. And increasingly, that's exactly what's happening.
Two mwn at printers looking over book
Two mwn at printers looking over book