As Amanda Hocking said herself, “I don’t understand why the internet suddenly picked up on me this past week, but it definitely did.”
And how.
The writing world is abuzz about Amanda Hocking, the 26-year-old self-published author who sold over 450,000 copies of her e-books in January alone, mostly priced between 99 cents and $2.99. She’s now a millionaire. The writing world has been abuzz for a while about J.A. Konrath, who has very publicly blogged about the significant amount of money he has made selling inexpensive e-books.
Many people in the last week have sent me links about these authors, wondering…
What exactly is going on here? How in the heck are these self-published authors making so much money? Is this the future? And does this mean the end of the publishing industry as we know it?
It’s still (mostly) a print world
Before we delve into what this means for the world of books, I feel like it’s important to take a deep breath and splash some cold water on our faces.
The reality: This is still a print world and probably will be for at least the next several years. Even as some publishers report e-book sales jumping to between 25% and 35% in January, the significant majority of sales are still in print. As I wrote in my recent post about record stores, over a decade after the rise of the mp3 the majority of revenue in music is still in CDs.
So let’s not get out of hand (yet) about the scale of this e-book self-publishing revolution, if it is indeed one. Yes, this is real money we’re talking about. Yes, these authors deserve all the credit in the world. And yes, these authors are also making money in print as well.
But we’re still a ways away from self-published Kindle bestsellers making Dan Brown, James Patterson, Stephenie Meyer, J.K. Rowling kind of money, the old-fashioned way, through paper books in bookstores. It’s not as exciting a story to remember that traditionally published franchise James Patterson made $70 million between June ’09 and June ’10, but it’s still worth keeping in perspective.
Let’s also not forget that Hocking, Konrath and a couple of others are the tip of a very large iceberg of self-published authors, the overwhelming majority of whom are selling the merest handful of copies. As Hocking herself writes:
I guess what I’m saying is that just because I sell a million books self-publishing, it doesn’t mean everybody will. In fact, more people will sell less than 100 copies of their books self-publishing than will sell 10,000 books. I don’t mean that to be mean, and just because a book doesn’t sell well doesn’t mean it’s a bad book. It’s just the nature of the business.
Yes, it’s new, it’s a big deal, it’s seriously awesome for Hocking, who seems like a super nice and humble person. But let’s not also lose our perspective about the scale of the shift taking place. The book world is changing in a big way, but it still ain’t done changed just yet.
The war between the worlds
So. Now that we are all sober and erudite, let me shock us back to life with this statement: Hocking and Konrath and others like them represent an existential threat to traditional publishers.
To understand why, we’re going to need to take a look at how much it costs to make a print book vs. an e-book.
There is a perception out there, repeated endlessly around the Internet, that e-books should cost almost nothing. Electrons are (basically) free, so why should an e-book cost $11.99?
The reality, which I shall bold, italicize, and underline for some emphasis: Paper doesn’t really cost very much.
Let’s start with your basic $24.99 hardcover, the most profitable format. Of that cost, only approximately $1.50 goes toward the paper, printing, and distribution and all the stuff that publishers save with e-books. Repeat: $1.50 out of $24.99. E-books just don’t save publishers gobs of money.
Let’s look at a back-of-a-napkin breakdown of a print book vs. an e-book (all numbers approximate):
$24.99 hardcover:
$12.50 to the bookstore (roughly 50% retail price)
$2.50 to $3.75 to the author (between 10-15% of the retail price)
$1.50 for paper, shipping, distribution (again, approximately. UPDATE this would be for a high-print-run book, HarperStudio cited $2.00 as average)
=
Around $8.00 to the publisher, which is split between overhead (rent, paying editors, copyeditors, etc.), marketing, other costs, and hopefully some profit assuming enough copies are sold.$9.99 e-book (agency model):
$3.00 to the bookseller (30% of the retail price)
$1.75 to the author (25% of the publisher’s share)
=
Around $5.24 to the publisher, split between overhead, other costs, and hopefully some profit
You can see why publishers aren’t exactly leaping onto the cheap e-book bandwagon when there are hardcover sales to be had. They make a lot less money per copy sold. They’re worried about cheap e-books eroding their more profitable print sales. Electrons aren’t saving them much money.
Print is still where it’s at for them, and they’re not crazy to behave accordingly.
For now.
Here come the insurgents
That $8.00 vs. $5.24 per-unit print vs. e-book consideration? Overhead? “Other” costs?
Hocking and Konrath don’t care.
They don’t have overhead, unless you count rent, an Internet connection, the services they contract out, and a laptop. They’re not paying for an army of editors, assistants, lawyers, marketing teams, sales teams, and executives. They’re not beholden to shareholders.
They write books, they figure out the editing and cover design on their own, they blog to try and spread some buzz, and word of mouth does the rest. They can afford to sell their books at a low price.
And because they cut out the middle man (and because publishers’ e-book royalties are low), self-published authors make more from self-publishing a $2.99 e-book (70%, or $2.10) than a traditionally published author makes from a $9.99 e-book (25% of the publisher’s share, or $1.75).
You read that right. More money to the author per copy at $2.99 than a traditionally published e-book at $9.99. Many self-published authors are laughing their way to the bank on that one.
If you aren’t going to be published in print in a big way and you have an entrepreneurial spirit, what’s the point of going with a traditional publisher? Why not undercut the competition and make more money?
The perception of value problem
And yet…
Despite the glaring e-book royalty situation and some notable authors opting for self-publishing (such as Seth Godin), there has not yet been a mass exodus to self-publishing. Most of the biggest bestselling authors are sticking with traditional publishers. Not only is print still where the bulk of the audience is, publishers still provide an indispensable array of services that many authors (such as yours truly) simply don’t have time to handle on their own.
But there’s a problem that publishers are up against as we move inexorably into the e-book era: Perception of value.
Publishers can explain their costs and how e-books don’t save them much money until they’re blue in the face, but on a gut level many people simply don’t believe an e-book should cost $12.99. It feels too expensive. A lot of people will simply not buy one or even go and pirate a copy because they feel like they’re being ripped off.
Why could that be? Yes, you can’t put your hands on an e-book or resell it, but people willingly plop down $12.99 to go to a movie and you can’t put your hands on that or resell it either. Why have books suddenly become exorbitant at $12.99? Why is that too much to pay?
Well, it’s partly because $12.99 is competing against the upstart $2.99 Kindle bestsellers and some other lunatics named Charles Dickens and Herman Melville and Jane Austen, who are giving away their books for free!! (Which, ahem, may be because they’re long dead and in the public domain).
And therein lies a big challenge for publishers.
The price of “good enough”
So.
On the one hand you have publishers who are clinging onto the print world as long as possible and literally can’t afford for prices to erode. They’re counting on their quality control, their marketing, and their curation of what they feel are the top books in order to charge consumers a premium and hopefully instill a perception of value that new e-books “should” cost between $10.99-$14.99.
And on the other hand you have the self-published upstarts, who are willing and able to undercut publishers’ e-book prices all the way down to 99 cents or even free.
Will publishers be able to maintain their prices or will they have to come down? And if they have to come down, how far will they have to go?
As always, the answer will be determined by consumers and their individual choices.
Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight for $8.99 or Amanda Hocking’s Switched for $0.99?
Harlan Coben’s Live Wire for $14.99 or J.A Konrath’s Shaken for $2.99?
Different people will make different choices, and I don’t presume to know how that will play out (and for the record, I haven’t read any of the prominent self-published authors).
Some consumers are more than willing to pay a premium for their favorite authors. I’m reading Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer right now, and it’s so unbelievably incredible that no matter what I paid for the e-book it wasn’t enough.
For other consumers, no book is ten times better than the other and they aren’t willing to pay a premium. Many consumers just aren’t that worried about the writing quality (as perceived/judged by the publishing industry), don’t need the publishing industry deciding what to read for them, and just want a good story.
When the world moves toward e-books and print distribution is no longer where it’s at, publishers are going to have a fight on their hands justifying the cost of their services to authors at their current e-book royalty rates.
They’ll have a second fight on their hands as they try to adapt to a world where there are good books for sale for just 99 cents or less.
What do you think about the new Kindle millionaires, and what do you think it means for the future of books?
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Jon F. Merz says
Yeah, I'm an old traditionally published author who was full of suspicion about ebooks as well. For the longest time I was selling perhaps $100 per month over the 19 or so titles I had up on the Amazon KDP system. I hated reading Konrath's blog about how much cash he was making. I justified all of it by saying that it was not a viable business model if it couldn't really be replicated by another person.
I went so far as to call Konrath out on his blog. He invited me to guest post about my experiences, which I did, and titled it "Tales of an EBook Nothing." Then while I was waiting for Konrath to run the piece, I decided to put up my hardboiled Lawson Vampire backlist with a new array of covers – priced between 99 cents for stories to $2.99 for novels and novellas – about ten titles all together (the four novels had all come out through traditional publisher Kensington in 2002-2003).
That was right at the end of January.
In February – the shortest month of the year, mind you – I made $3200 on my ebook sales. Yesterday, I sold my 1000th ebook of the month and stand to earn almost double what I did last month.
The fact is, people like Hocking and Konrath are not the only ones enjoying a LOT of success. The 5th installment of my Lawson Vampire series, The Kensei, is actually out from St. Martin's right now in stores everywhere and I think my ebook sales are far better than my print sales at this point.
Traditional publishers need to realize that the crappy 25% royalty on ebook sales isn't viable any longer. And don't forget that agents take their cut out of that 25%, so in reality, authors are getting screwed even more on the agency model.
Selling ebooks the way I do right now is giving me a fantastic income – better than the income I've earned from writing about twenty traditionally published novels over the last decade. And it gets directly deposited into my bank account net 60 days, which is pretty awesome and about as close to a writer having a constant paycheck as you can get given that the traditional publishers still cling to archaic business models that fail to address the economic reality of writers.
Times are changing. And thank god they are.
David H. Burton says
As always, the answer will be determined by consumers and their individual choices.
Stephenie Meyer's TWILIGHT for $8.99 or Amanda Hocking's SWITCHED for $0.99?
Harlan Coben's LIVE WIRE for $14.99 or J.A Konrath's SHAKEN FOR $2.99?
The question, when it comes to consumers, might be better framed as:
Stephenie Meyer's TWILIGHT for $8.99 or Amanda Hocking's entire Trylle trilogy for $6.97?
Harlan Coben's LIVE WIRE for $14.99 or 5 of J.A Konrath's books for $14.95?
Kathryn Magendie says
Whether they self-pubbed or not, Hockings and Konrath's numbers (income) can be an enviable outcome for writers whether they've self-pubbed or signed with a royalty-paid pub! Dang! Lawdy be.
But, yup, there's more to it than the price, or else all 99centers 2.99ers would be enjoying their income or even half of it. Something else is in the formula.
If I could figure it out, I'd use it, and then bottle up the formula and sell it for 99cents 😀
Matthew Rush says
Excellent analysis Nathan. It's got my head spinning a bit, but much less so than if I had heard about it somewhere else. So thanks for that.
Emily Hill says
Rowenna,
Your comments and observations regarding self-published work is taken to heart by all thoughtful IndieAuthors. We *know* the bane of typos and poorly designed fast-to-market work and have self-collected around web communities such as Independent Publisher, Self-Publishing Review and other web-spots where IndieMentors meet to discuss these hurdles – and more!
With publishing industry experts predicting that 50% [fifty per cent] of all tomes will be in eReader format, with established authors (Lisa Gardner to name just one) slipping their titles away from their agents to try their hand at self-publishing, you may find that the quality you seek. And with book bloggers such as Alan Rinzler forecasting that self-publishers will soon own the mid-list – I believe the future is here. As individual IndieAuthors find their own level, I believe that the quality in formatting and design you so hunger for will be close behind.
G.P. Ching says
I think people underestimate the opportunity that is available to the publishing industry if they were to embrace this phenomenon. The traditional publishing model is the best at delivering high quality works to a broad market. But the efficiency of the self-published author means good things for the reader– a more diverse range of voices, faster time to market, and a cheaper price. It's not a giant leap to see that publishers and bookstores could create a win-win situation by partnering with self-pubs that bubble to the top. What's called for is an innovative business model that leverages the power of entrepreneurship rather than pretending it isn't a force to reckon with.
Mandi Kang says
I see self published books advertised all the time. You know the ones, they hide in the sidebar of your favorite blog. The author is trying to make a buck selling his eBook, and using his blog. The problem I have is, you get what you pay for. The stigma here is that someone, somewhere really liked that traditionally published book enough to publish it. You have to wade through a lot of self published books to find the diamond in the rough, because let's face it, lots of them are just crap.
I see the publishing world doing a compromise. Publishers will begin to break out writers in an eBook format for a cheaper price – say $5.99, without all the hoorah that goes with a paper bound version, much like a paperback novel. Readers will be relatively assured that the book they are buying at least got someone's attention (and an editor).
Nathan Lowell says
A lot to digest.
First most writers (self, indie, big6) never break out. They publish a book and sell 10 copies to family. It doesn't matter what venue. Saying that most indies will never sell more than a hundred books ignores the scads of mainstreams that never earn as much in royalty at 8% as the indie selling 100 books.
The reality? Most writers will never make it through the gatekeepers. Agents are trained by publishers to accept what the publishers think will sell to bookstores. This talk of "new voices" and "break out novels" is right up there with "campaign finance reform." It makes good copy but nobody's actually looking at the systems that are preventing it from happening. Occasionally the system *breaks* and something interesting leaks in. That's not a design feature.
Yes, the barriers are lower for indies. No, everybody won't win. There are too many books that are just not worth reading regardless of who publishes them. The difference is who gets to decide what's worth reading. In mainstream, it's the agent, then the editor, then the marketing department, then the bookstore, then the reader. In self-pub, it's the reader.
Talk about cutting out the middleman.
Does mainstream do a better job of vetting content? Possibly. They make the bar much higher to entry and have more people who need to be paid in the process. Does that, in fact, make the books too expensive? Possibly. It certainly increases the overhead for producing the books.
Second, it's not the margin, it's the volume. Mainstream arguing that they "don't make that much" is lame. You make what you make. Buyers think it's too much (restated: You're trying to sell above the supply-demand curve).
That's a losing strategy. If the price of your goods are above the curve you have to make it up in volume. This is just normal business economics. If you can't promote enough to get the volume you need at the lower price point, you need to lower your overhead.
The problem is that Big6 houses have too much overhead. That's easily solved and a lot of people before me have pointed it out. Get out of NYC. Distribute your staff electronically. If your economy of scale is not scaling (or not economy), there's a structural problem in the company. Address it.
Learn from the people who are working on a shoestring instead of letting them take Ghandi from a baby.
"First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win."
Most of mainstream is at stage one or two.
Key point, if you don't *need* to sell more than five thousand units a month to double your day job salary then why wouldn't you write for a living.
Restated: How much of a $350million dollar market do you need to live comfortably?
Consider that the average income for the bottom 90% of US citizens is about $34,000 a year. (mother jones). Do the math? How many books do you need to sell to make that? At 2.99 it's only 1250 a month. About forty a day. There are over a 1000 individual books above that level now on Kindle alone.
And that number ($350m) is only what's reported. Hocking, Locke, and Konrath aren't included in that, nor are the hundreds of others who are selling a few thousand units a month.
Any bets as to how much that number (350m) is understated? 10%? 40%?
Any bets on when they start fighting?
Emily White says
I recently decided to self-publish my book because I really do have that entrepreneurial nature. I have just always liked the idea of owning my own business and I'm really enjoying having everything in my control.
I know there are some people who feel strongly about traditional publishing or self-publishing, but I don't. I say you should go with what works for you.
Although, I will also say that I find it wonderfully exciting that self-published authors are finding a great deal of success. Sure it's rare, but it's also rare for traditionally published authors to get on a bestseller list. This is such a wonderful time that we live in where authors have so many choices.
Zan Marie says
Thanks for the details, Nathan. It makes you think about self-publishing an ebook. I keep hearing that unless an author is top of the list, the big publishing houses do very little in the way of marketing. The mid-list writers are doing much of what was considered part of the deal back a little as 10 years ago. Like I said, makes you think.
Jill Kemerer says
You brought all of my random thoughts together to make sense of this issue. Thank you for such a well-written, understandable post.
Jon F. Merz says
I also think there's far too much credit given to "supposed" experts in NYC when it comes to deeming what is worthy of being published and what is not.
From personal experience I've found that many of these so-called experts are completely out of touch with the reality of their customers and the things they want to read. This is another aspect of the backlash that is helping indie writers rather than harming them.
Case in point, I have a boys' adventure series being circulated right now and the editorial remarks have shown a complete lack of understanding of what boys would be interested in reading. One editor: "I don't get ninjas." Well, fine for you, but boys happen to love ninjas – and they'd love a series written by an author who has spent his last twenty years actually studying the authentic system. That sort of comment shows that as much as the industry claims to know what people want, they actually do not. They put out what they think will be help perpetuate their own existence in an industry using failing business models, an attitude towards change that would best be described as catatonic, and an inability to affect that change even in the face of hard data with regards to the number of ereaders being sold, the exponentially increasing share of ebooks being sold, etc. etc.
MichelleWarren says
If a self-published author has done their homework and has a great a marketing plan, professional cover, website, and a great story, the regular consumer will not know the difference between their indie book and a traditionally published one. With competitive pricing, I believe those indie authors will be successful.
Gregory K. says
Great post. I agree the perception of value issue is one big key moving forward. Here, the role of gatekeepers as curators – a "guarantee" of quality in some sense – will be a potential advantage as the market gets more crowed. .
And I think there's the possibility of another type of disruption, too: a change in the way we consume written material. I'm not sure what this will look like, but iTunes, for instance, moved music from an album business to a singles business in a big way. Will these reduced price points lead to some other shift like that in publishing?
I can see niches, lots of niches, filled by self-pubbed or new types of publishing companies taking advantage of the ability to sell, and trying to control areas by using price as an advantage. I don't profess to know how it'll play out, but I think it's worth keeping an eye on.
Suzan Harden says
Thanks for providing a balanced view, Nathan.
Writers are going to need to sit back and analyze what's best for theire career. That means taking a hard, objective look at their product. Some product is best suited for the Big 6, some would do better going independent.
The knee-jerk reaction from both sides doesn't help anyone. And it makes all writers look like a bunch of nutcases to not involved in the industry.
Shawn Lamb says
E-books are something publishers must consider and venture into now or the fights you spoke of will be more intense if they wait.
Dustin Wilson says
I see comments suggesting that the dangers of Amanda Hocking's success is that other people will see it and say "I can do that to."
How, if you don't mind me asking, is inspiration dangerous? We could say the same thing about Stephen King, James Patterson, Jonathan Franzen, or Neil Gaiman.
The biggest successes in self publishing right now are by and large authors with the most book. Amanda Hocking has written nineteen novels, and she only has nine published. Why? Those are the nine that are good enough. Konrath has nineteen books published as well, but he is an industry veteran who had plenty of backlist to pull from.
Are self-published books lower quality? Yes. If you made a scoring system and scored every book based on quality of prose and tightness of story, I'm almost certain the average for self-pubbed would be lower. But, the thing is, I'm not reading the bad ones. Amazon scores, and book blurbs do a good enough job of showing me who can write, and who can't.
Kaitlyne says
Thank you so much for this article. I've been questioning people about this very idea for a few days, and it seems that a lot of people don't consider it a potentially dangerous thing that readers might get used to being able to buy a book for ninety-nine cents. Great information, as always.
Lexi says
I've self-published, and sold 16,800 copies since August last year. I'm just finishing my next book, and will put it up on Amazon when it's ready.
I'll also send it to a couple of agents who turned down Remix but asked to see my next novel. I'll tell them my sales, and won't be too eager to accept a deal, should one be offered.
I'm not as successful as Amanda Hocking – but I love what's happening in publishing right now. In recent years, publishers seem to have lost the plot.
Jane George says
The rabid anti-publishing sentiment is a reaction to the dismissive disdain of traditional publishing toward self-publishing.
As a businessperson, (writers are businesspeople), it doesn't make sense to divorce yourself from one avenue or the other. Opportunity is opportunity.
Istvan Szabo, Ifj. says
The general problem with publishing is the following; the writer is creating the story, the writer is writing the story and because of the present bureacratic system, the writer is the one who get almost nothing after each sales (As we see Nathan's numbers, everyone get much more then the writer.). And publishers are wondering why writers are turning to self publishing. Well, don't be surprised.
It seems if you really care with literature you must leave the following two elements behind; agents and publishers.
Anonymous says
In terms of perception of value, one of the most valuable commodities these days is time.
If you read the reviews on many of these cheap books, there are readers warning others not to waste their time.
Reading a book is a commitment. In our modern society, time is money. However much money a publisher puts into a book, the reader is putting in more.
So I think it's understandable that people want cheap books. I went a long while where I didn't buy new books because I was routinely disappointed by many of my favorite authors.
So, sure, I shelled out a dollar to read Amanda Hocking's book. Whether or not it's worth my time…
We'll see.
Anonymous says
I keep hearing about "such talented writers" who "can NOT even get an agent" and "especially in THIS changing marketplace."
So, I wonder, if Rowling was trying, today, to find a publisher, would she have gone to over 100 attempts (or something like that, I've heard) or would she eventually just go self-pub?
If the dynamic didn't change soon, we were only going to have a few top-top sellers and many voices who gave up before they were ever heard.
Viva The Independence Day.
veela-valoom says
Maybe I'm the odd duck but I just wasn't that impressed by Hockings book. It was good. I've read worse. But I value my time. While I read Switched I could have read a bunch of books that are probably better.
I love e-books and I love my Kindle. And I admit that spending $12.99 on an ebook when Amazon has the hardcover marked down to 9.99 just FEELS ridiculous. I can't explain why but it feels so wrong. But if I love a book/series I'll pay for it on e-book. I don't even know what I paid for "Monsters of Men" the 3rd Chaos Walking book because I was so into the series and NEEDED the book so much I just didn't care.
Having read a cheapo e-book I'm a little put off by them. I see the value of having an editor/agent/more eyes on your work.
However the classics for free–I am all OVER those books. But other free/cheap books I'll consider very closely before clicking buy.
K. C. Blake says
Well, I decided a few months ago to self-publish my vampire series because I tried the traditional route and it didn't work. I had an agent at Trident Media Group who loved the books. She tried her best, but editors repeatedly told her they didn't want to take a chance on another so-called vampire book at this time. We were stunned. I had an interesting hook, so it isn't a Twilight replica.
I've had two books published the traditional way. Yes, it was great to hold them, turn the pages, smell them, but in the end the fact is Vampires Rule was sitting on the computer doing nothing. I want them to be read and enjoyed, by thirty people, a hundred people or a thousand. I'll take whatever I can get at this point.
J. Viser says
First, congratulations to entrepreneurs like Konrath, Hocking and others! Ebooks are what what American culture is all about – work hard to create a quality product, bring it to market and earn your financial success.
Self-publishing is here to stay, it is only a question of market share now.
That said, I agree with your premise that there will always be a market for printed books. Even self-published success stories like J.A. Konrath are contemplating (or doing, by now) offering limited editions of print versions of their ebooks. It is hard to sign a Kindle :).
I don't think your post was sobering as much as it was defending the status quo. The beauty of self-publishing is that there are no gatekeepers between authors, the creators of content, and readers. There are plenty of excellent books that traditional publishers will never take a risk on for their own various reasons.
The potential for ebooks is that it will bring many good, self-published works to market for readers to enjoy. Works that might not ever be picked-up by the traditional publishing world. Bad ebooks will simply not sell well and bad writers will have to improve their craft if they want to make a living as a writer.
Here's the deal – most readers know that a self-published work by an unknown author is a gamble, but they will be willing to risk 99 cents or a few bucks to find their next great read. I've bought plenty of print books only to find out after getting through them that they sucked. Every reader has a story like that, so to say that a printed book written by a represented author and published by a tradtional house is a higher quality product really doesn't hold much water.
At 99 cents, the risk/reward ratio works very well for readers and success stories like Hocking's and Konrath's encourage other writers to take a risk and bring potentially great ebooks to market. After building a fan base with one ebook, the perceived value of an author's works increases, allowing that writer to raise prices in the future.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Sarah Woodbury says
2009-2010 were the worst two years in history to try to break in with a traditional publisher. The industry cut 30% of their staff and bled money. Borders went bankrupt. Thousands of good books went unbought.
For me, it isn't choosing indie publishing over traditional publishing, it's that my three books that are selling very well as ebooks were all rejected by traditional publishing houses over the last 4 years. If I didn't indie publish, they'd still be languishing on my desktop, unread and unloved. Why NOT indie publish? Why not share my books and my stories with people who email me daily and tell me they loved them? I'd love to make a ton of money, but far, far better is that I am no longer writing in a closet by myself, for editors who like the characters, like the plot, like the writing, but think my books are 'between genres' or 'not marketable in the current competitive climate'.
The great thing about ebooks is that you can download a sample. If the writing is bad, the plot uninteresting, you don't have to buy it! The reader is king! HOw cool is that?
Anonymous says
I think the big problem with traditional publishing is they seem dead-set on making themselves irrelevant. You get several things with traditional publishers that are difficult to get self-publishing:
1) Professional editing
2) Placement on brick-and-mortar store shelves
3) Marketing
4) An advance
5) Cover design (art and copy) and layout
6) Stamp of approval
Well, more and more we're being told that publishers don't have time to edit books. We have to self-edit before sending them in.
Brick-and-mortar stores are going away.
The marketing budget of a book basically goes entirely into store placement (and maybe not for *your* book). Authors have been taking an increasing role in marketing for years and years—and it's getting worse.
Advances are getting smaller and smaller.
It's basically coming down to cover, layout, and that stamp of approval.
Cover and layout I can take care of if I need to. It won't be as good as a publishing team, but they mess up sometimes, too. I'll at least control the process.
I think it's still worth it to go traditional—though having never been through it, I can't say for sure—but it's rapidly becoming a bad deal for authors who are not automatic best-sellers. The amount of work looks the same to me: I have to market my book single-handedly no matter what.
Sheila Lamb says
I like having self-pub/kindle books as an option. I'm trying the traditional route one more time…then will consider Kindle-ing it. Don't forget the CreateSpace paperback option for kindle/amazon self-published authors. I still prefer paper and have bought self-pubbed books in those formats from Amazon/CreateSpace. I have a hard time with the "agents as gatekeepers" theory 100% (maybe 90% true) when Snooki is out there instead of some really good, talented authors.
D.G. Hudson says
Anon (first comment) has some good points and identifies how a lot of writers feel. But we must remember, Konrath and Hocking are smart and savvy. Everyone who self publishes doesn't automatically acquire those traits. They are also lucky to be some of the first to reach the top of the heap but as they both say — it took a lot of work on their part.
I think self publishing will appeal to more writers if they don't succeed with traditional publishing.
One writer I know is going to back away from trad publishing and try selling on her own for a while. She self-published, then tried print publishing, and is now going back to self-publishing.(if you're not an internet personality, established writer, a go-getter like some, or God forbid, a vacuous celebrity, who has time for you in publishing?)
Frustrated writers will do what they feel they have to do. Publishers will do what they have to do, but perhaps they should consider giving the NEW writer more priority, while pushing for quality in the writing. Publishing has to cut what's not working, perhaps 'flattening' their organizations like so many other industries which were too 'fat' in personnel, especially in management.
Right now, I'm just sitting on the fence, and gathering data. Both will survive IMO, but perhaps in different incarnations.
D.G. Hudson says
Loved Sommer Leigh's take on this post. Scrooge McDuck!! And dragged along by their dentures! What a mental picture – thanks for the chuckle.
Anonymous says
One thing to remember about self-publishing is that a lot of the services that traditional publishers provide can still be purchased by the self-publishing writer.
Need a professional-looking cover? You can pay for one. Need an editor? New York pros are out there selling their services.
The biggest thing traditional publishing does is print books and push them into bookstores. At some point down the road, that will be much less important.
I don't think big publishing will vanish, but they are going to have to slim down a bit and reduce their infrastructure costs so they can sell ebooks at more affordable prices.
Akila says
The future of publishing? I don't think it's going away even though people like Hocking and Konrath are making money. I read Hocking's book a month ago before the big buzz started. While an interesting read with a creative plot, I wished that a publisher had looked at it, first, because if it had been subject to a strong editor, it would have made for a much better book . . . perhaps something that could rival Twilight in popularity. Aside from major typos, inconsistencies (at one point in the book, a character suddenly changed from female to male which I account for as an editing snafu rather than an unexplained transgender operation), the characters were not as fully fleshed as a strong editor could make them. I hope that the very first thing Hocking does with this money is to hire a good editor to help her with her subsequent books.
Second, while I understand publishers' reluctance to embrace new technologies, I frankly think that their desire to stick with paper is the same sort of backwards thinking that led Blockbuster to their demise, in favor of operations like Netflix and On Demand. For example, the most recent book in Robert Jordan's New York Times Bestselling Wheel of Time series came out in November 2010 but the publisher wanted to hold out on Kindle sales until November 2011, expecting that people would buy the hardcover and the Kindle version. Instead, many loyal readers (including me) refused to purchase the hardback book, which led the publisher to cave and release the e-book in January 2011. All in all, the publisher looked stupid and the new technology won.
E-books are here to stay. The publishers better get used to it.
Kristin Laughtin says
Interesting. I don't think I have the entrepreneurial nerve to self-publish yet, but it's fascinating to watch these developments. Even if Konrath and Hocking are the tip of the iceberg, they could also be the start of a new model that will have tremendous ramifications on the existing structure.
I've had to set a few people straight lately about the "high" cost of ebooks. The problem is that most people don't see why they should have to pay for art or craft. This is across mediums. I've got friends who are artists, make jewelry, etc., and people are always trying to get them to give away their work for very cheap or even free because "they could do it themselves", "the artists like doing it", "it doesn't cost that much for beads/paper/etc.". I think some of the same attitude extends to literature. Too many people think they are paying for the paper in a print book, not the time and labor of the author and any editors, agents, design artists, and so on involved in the project. Take away the paper, and they just don't see why they should have to pay. It's ridiculous.
Karen A. Chase says
For authors, getting our writing into the hands of readers (or message out to our audience) is the mission behind what we do. True there are some who just write dribble for cash, or who want to brag about holding a book they wrote. But primarily authors have a story to tell, one they want to own, and one they want others to read. It's not about a book. It's about my collection of words, telling a story, and getting it into the hands of readers. Authors want to be read. The medium is simply the method of distribution. And it's one I can chose without layers. Without giving up 85-90% of sales. And without losing the copyright to my own work.
Mira says
Great post, Nathan, very thoughtful and very informative. I also love how you tend to dive into these sort of waters – its brave and far-seeing.
I don't think I have much to add to your post or the comments – alot has been covered here. I just think I want to add two main point.
The first is: for writers, it's not either/or. Amanda Hocking just signed with a literary agent.
The second is: there has not YET been a mass exodus to self-publishing, but I would just give it some time.
The first Kindle was released in November, 2007. That's just three years!
Wait until a few more Amanda Hockings come to the forefront, and also for the current culture of publisher loyalty to fade….
I truly believe that the biggest threat facing print publishing today is not the failing of bookstores, the low price point of e-books or the e-book market in general.
It is the pretty much inevitable movement of authors toward more money, more control and more freedom.
When this occurs, publishers may begin to offer more competitive packages. Whether that will be enough to stem the tide of attrition – I don't know. I tend to think they'll move too slowly and be too late – to be brutally honest, but I could be wrong.
P A Wilson says
It's always good to hear about successes and publishing is the same as everything, for every huge success there will be hundreds or thousands of people who are not huge successes.
I think one thing that gets missed in the calculation of cost between print and ebooks – the author takes a long time to get the book into publishable state. It's debatable whether it's cheaper for the big houses to go e-book, but for small houses and individuals, e- is definitely cheaper.
Cathy Yardley says
I think that if we look at it as "can we become millionaire bestsellers as self-pubs" then yes, it's a recipe for failure. But I look at it this way: as a traditionally published author, becoming a bestseller or at least escaping midlist is crucial, because I won't keep getting contracts otherwise. If I'm self-publishing and making the same sales I was making as a "failing midlist" author, I can actually not only make a decent living, I'm not waiting on reserves against returns, not waiting for my bi-annual royalty statement that if anything lacks transparency, and I'm not living in a constant state of "will they like my option book? Do I have enough audience?" It gives me the flexibility of responding to the market more quickly. Yes, it means more up-front costs and an uphill battle… but we're doing the promotion work anyway, or should be. THe business is hard on either side of the fence. For authors who are more entrepreneurial and who perhaps have a background with traditional, this seems to give more of a chance to control more variables in our income stream. It depends on the level of risk we're comfortable with.
Diana says
I've read through all the comments and there is a major point missing to this discussion.
Self-publishing is NOT a new phenomena. John Milton self-published Areopagitica in 1644. Some well known authors of classic literature self-published their first work including Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Wolf, Rudyard Kipling, James Joyce and a smattering of others.
Looking back over the past 20 years, one can see that every few years an author rises out of the self-publishing world and goes onto commercial success. The ones that immediately come to my mind and that I can point to without looking at Wikipedia or googling for answers are: The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield and Eragon by Christopher Paolini. Amanda Hocking and J A Konrath are the current names to add to the list.
A complete list of self-published authors who have gone on to commercial success is small.
Self-publishing has been an option for almost four hundred years. So far it hasn't toppled traditional publishing. I doubt the ease of e-publishing will kill it either.
In fact because it is now so easy to self-publish electronically, the probability that I will take a risk on a self-published author and buy one of their selfpubbed books is diminished. I know how many writers are out there who think that what they write is absolutely brilliant when in fact it is absolute garbage.
Regardless of whether a book is traditionally published or self-published what makes an author rise out of obscurity and onto the bestseller lists is talent. Even if your name is Snooki, your book won't sell if there isn't some talent behind it.
just4kix says
Writers feel that being trad published will validate their worth as a writer, but the truth is that most trad published books turn out to be damp squibs (only the chosen few are vigorously marketed.) I learned that after being trad published myself. So, tired of being told But Can You Drink The Water? was not commercially viable, despite it winning awards, I decided to e-publish. It’s the best thing I’ve ever done as a writer. I’ve sold over 5500 books in three months and am now selling over 100 a day on Amazon UK. At 71p ($0.99) it is earning more money than my trad books brought in over several years. Why waste time looking for an agent or a publisher when you could be selling eBooks? There’s nothing to stop you doing both, but if you have good sales you are going to wonder if it’s worth even having an agent or publisher.
Loree Huebner says
Very interesting post. Much to consider about publishing vs self-publishing.
Karen Cantwell says
So your question is what do we think about the Indie Millionaires and what does this mean for the future of publishing? Well, I'm not an Indie Millionaire, but after publishing my humorous mystery on Kindle in June of 2010, I am now taking in a monthly paycheck that allows me to pay my mortgage and a new car payment with a little left over. It also helped me find an agent with a respected NY agency. So I think that self-publishing ebooks is a viable option for those who haven't had luck via traditional routes IF they're willing to do the self marketing and IF they're willing to do the work up front to put out a professional product.
What does it mean for the future of publishing? What I think is going to affect the publishing industry PERIOD, is the advent of the eReader. We indies have only been able to take advantage of an offer originally made possible by Amazon, but it's the owners of eReaders that will force the industry to change. People just don't want to pay high prices for books that aren't printed on paper. That's not a guess — I see readers posting this complaint continually on various discussion threads and social networking sites. I think it's human nature for people to resist change, but it's coming, that is for sure.
mardott says
No, Nathan. It's not because some ebooks are going for $2.99 or less. It's because the very same book is selling for $8.99 in paperback, but the publishers wants $12.99 for the ebook.
I will NOT pay that. Which means I don't buy that book at all, because I'm swearing off physical books. I have no more shelf space. I'll wait to check it out from the library.
Which also makes me angry. I'm an aspiring writer – I want to support other writers. I wonder if I can send the author a donation if I check the book out instead of buying it?
Nathan Bransford says
mardott-
That's not the fault of publishers, or at least not entirely. For print, publishers set a suggested retail price, but Amazon decides what to charge consumers. Publishers DO set the e-book price with the agency model. So if Amazon wants to charge customers less than the e-book price for a print book publishers can lower their e-book prices, but for the reasons I outline in the post they're reluctant to do so (and would be happy for you to choose the paperback). So you end up with a bizarre stand off.
I agree that it's extremely confusing for the consumer.
Chuck H. says
I have been considering self-publishing since the Literary Lab did a series on it a while back. Your post has me wondering if I could actually make a living at it. I don't need a million dollars, just enough to be comfortable here in central Missouri. Must go cogitate.
J. T. Shea says
Careful, Nathan! If you splash water on your face before delving into the world of books you'll get the pages wet. Or short circuit your I-Pad.
Seriously, beware of journalists' estimates of other peoples' 'earnings'. People have enough difficulty counting their own earnings for tax returns and so on. How can journalists know someone else's debts and expenses and taxes, payment schedules and conditions governing advances, and so on?
Your report of Reuters' report of Forbes' report of James Patterson's earnings is a case in point. For example, how can Patterson's supposed 2009/2010 earnings of $70 million include a $100 million dollar deal?
I've criticized the book to music comparison before, but I won't repeat myself now.
Only $1.50 to make and print and distribute a $24.99 hardcover? That's lower than any estimate of such costs I've seen for a mass market paperback. Where did get your figure, Nathan?
Hardcover to e-book is the extreme comparison in windowing terms. Both author and publisher do better on the $9.99 e-book example than on a $12 trade paperback or $8 mass market paperback.
Charles Dickens books were being pirated in the USA during his lifetime. Legally, due to US copyright laws, which remained among the most lax in the world as late as 1988. Dickens went on US lecture tours to recoup some of his losses. Today's Longtailers would love him!
Anyway, I thoroughly agree 'traditional' paper publishing is very far from dead. Now I must go down to my dungeon…basement to see how my slaves…ghostwriters are doing on my next 17 books.
Samantha G says
I always thought as the whole e- book fad as a way to exploit the author and the author to loose money- based on the fact that some people give their books away for free. This post has made me more confused because I don't understand where the money lies for the author (I understand the whole lower price + e-book = unhappy publishers.)
So, where can the author REALLY make the most money?
Nathan Bransford says
J.T.-
First, on Patterson, those deals are paid out over time, hence the income discrepency for one year.
$1.50 may be on the low side for unit cost and shipping (HarperStudio cited $2.00 as average), but unit costs vary depending on the print run. For a bestselling book, I don't know that $1.50 is so far off (though the four months since I left agenting may have wrecked my memory).
nilla|utanpunkt says
You are saying that paper and print cost is only 6-7%? Well, not this side of the Atlantic. I am a designer who has been involved in book publishing, and I have never seen such a low figure, certainly not on a hard cover.
On the ebook millionaires, they are the lucky pioneers in a very new market, where kindle owners seem to suck up whatever books come their way. And for $0.99 I guess you dare take a chance. I think there will be a flattening of the market though, when hundreds of thousands of titles will be out, and more difficult for unknown authors to make a dent. But the ones that have something ready to go already now can rape the seeds.
callingcrow says
There’s another aspect to this whole Kindle induced upstart Indie (self-published) eBook writers. As an old mid-list writer, I believe that the big houses have failed in their mission, if their mission is to provide a voice for new, interesting, and, even controversial authors. Everyone knows the story of A Confederacy of Dunces, but for those that don’t, in a nutshell, writer John Kennedy Toole wrote his heart out, started sending it out, receiving rejection after rejection, till he finally killed himself out of heartache. (His mother later had the book published with the help of literary novelist, Walker Percy.) Well, there are probably thousands like Toole, good writers who pour their souls into their work, maybe writing things that are controversial or politically incorrect. And when they approach the gate keepers (publishers), things shut down. Rejection. Rejection. “We’re looking for female PIs now. You got any of that?” Or, “How about YA? That’s all that’s selling.” Or, “Vampires.” Not to single out one genre, but it seems that publishers are always chasing the latest trend.
This is all pretty sad and discouraging for a writer with a serious tale to tell to grown up audiences. I remember reading about a writer that won the James Jones Literary Society’s annual award. Serious book people pronounced his book worthy. But several years later he had still not found a house. His story and others like it are all too common.
Yes, the print folk have lost their way and are now blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes. But now at least we won’t have as many broken hearts and dreams, and yes, even suicides. Using the web, the Kindle ereader and others, and sites like Amazon, these writers can now get their words before appreciative readers. And that’s every bit as significant a change as genre writers making millions on $0.99 to $2.99 books.