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!
nilla|utanpunkt says
Sorry, unintentionally rude there with my typo, rake the seeds.
J. R. Tomlin says
Sorry that I don't feel like reading all the comments, and someone may have mentioned this but why is Mr. Bransford comparing ebooks with hardcovers rather than paperbacks? It is a much more logical comparison.
He also kind of ignored the many other ebook authors out there who are doing very well. Victorine Lieske who has been on the NYT bestseller list may well be doing BETTER than Amanda Hocking; it's hard to tell. Will most eboon authors become millionairs? Obviously not. But one thing is for sure. This evolution in publishing is going to change things and it's a long way from over.
Nathan Bransford says
J.R.-
Because for new releases hardcovers and e-books are (usually) released at the same time and are competing against each other.
J. R. Tomlin says
That's true, Mr. Bransford, IF the novel is released in hardcover. But come on. What percentage is these days?
By the way, I don't know the answer to the question but it can't possibly be a very large percentage.
kcyarn says
Another piece of the equation is book sellers. On paper, they make more off print sales, but do they really? After you take shipping, storage, and repackaging costs into consideration, e-books are a better deal, especially for e-retailers like Amazon. They'd rather pay for server space than warehouse space, which means they will continue to push e-books over traditional books.
Using your numbers, it looks like only two parties benefit from traditional book sales: traditional publishers and physical book stores. Given Borders recent bankruptcy filings, I have to wonder how significant the benefit is. Would Borders have benefited from investing in smaller retail spaces with larger coffee shops, wifi, comfortable chairs, and maybe an on-site daycare so patrons could buy and discuss e-books in a comfortable environment without the muchkins underfoot? Possibly, but this is the same conundrum faced by the traditional publishers. Do they produce/sell a good or a service?
According to the traditional publishers, they produce a good: books. When you look at their financial filings, they report their revenues as book sales, not author services. Unfortunately for them, consumers don't buy books from traditional publishers. Consumers buy them from bookstores, including Amazon. If supporting the traditional publishing model isn't in the bookstore's best financial interests, they will create their own publishing platforms. We've already seen this with Amazon.
The "good production perspective" is, as you pointed out a fallacy in an post-Internet economy. Publishing houses act as gate keepers, editors, and marketers. These functions are outside their self-defined mission, but they still provide value. I can see a future in which the publishing houses are down-sized or split into many companies. As subcontractors, they could oversee quality control in the e-book marketplace, most likely at the behest of e-publishers like Amazon that are inundated with material. While they might not have the authority to delete works, they could guide the best books to the top for a fee. They might also work directly with authors, excepting a percentage of sales or a flat fee in exchange for their expertise.
This assumes they wake up and realize their corporate value is in their expertise, their people, not physical books. Until then, they will be service providers masquerading as goods seller in a service economy. The smart ones will learn from the software companies, many of whom have already undergone this transition, and survive.
Of course, a decent agent could easily offer the same expertise, which makes me wonder if we will see the death of traditional publishing or agents first. My gut says traditional publishing. Literary agents already understand that they provide a service, and some are already filling roles, such as advertising, that were traditionally handled by the publishing house. As small businesses, it's more likely that some of them will adapt their business models to the new paradigms and do so years before the traditional publishers, who are shackled by both tradition and bureaucracy.
Dorothy says
I think it's a supply and demand thing. You don't supply me with a NY contract and I'm going to demand a new way of publishing, a new way of really making money instead of those laughable royalties and I'm going to demand you to listen to me when I say buy my ebook for 99 cents. With Facebook and Twitter, but mainly Facebook I have found, you price your ebooks lower than what people pay for paperbacks and I mean really lower so that people will buy that instead, you stand to make a big hunk of cash.
Marilyn Peake says
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your detailed analysis of the present world of eBook publishing. I agree with everything you’ve said. I realized something the other day, with all the buzz about authors who have sold millions of copies of their eBooks by self-publishing them on Kindle: now is probably the time to strike, while the iron’s hot. This may be a temporary bubble. Things are changing so quickly and radically in the publishing world, the 99 cents price could be eliminated farther on down the line through all kinds of possible developments, e.g. all the major bookstore chains go bankrupt and Amazon raises prices after those competitors no longer exist, Amazon gets bought out by another company that believes in agency model prices, etc. I hope to get an agent and a traditional publisher for the science fiction novel I’m writing; but, if that doesn’t happen, I’ve made up my mind: I’m self-publishing that novel directly to Kindle. I hope to have the final edit on that novel completed within the next few months. I know from experience how quickly a bubble can burst in publishing.
When self-published paperback and small indie eBook publishers were brand spankin’ new, in a time that seems so long ago now – the year 2004, I had my first books (middle grade fantasy novels) published, first by a self-publishing company, then in both eBook and paperback by a small indie publisher. A distribution company opened up that catered to self-publishing and small indie publishers, and my books were distributed through them. I did lots of book promotion and enjoyed that immensely. After that, my books started selling like hotcakes. I received emails from all over the United States, telling me that libraries had purchased my novels, that one library had even put my books on display as alternatives to the Harry Potter novels, that children were writing book reports about my books, and many more wonderful things like that. A two-page article and interview with me was published in TBD, the print magazine associated with Io, the University of Glasgow Science Fiction and Fantasy Society. I was interviewed by radio stations across the United States and in Canada. Excerpts and book covers of my novels were included on a CD with Stargate novels and handed out by Stargate authors at a convention where they appeared with actors from the Stargate TV show. It was an awesome time! It was also short-lived. A big bookstore company bought the distribution company, and my book sales dwindled. One library contacted me to tell me they were trying to purchase my books but were having trouble getting them through a distributor; and, after a few months, they gave up trying. I know what it’s like to think a trend or bubble will last forever. They rarely do, and the 99 cents price for self-published eBooks may end … or there may eventually be so many 99 cent eBooks, that very few single books sell more than a few copies. I would like to be part of a bubble while it’s new and shiny, not when it’s just about ready to pop.
Rebecca Stroud says
As patience is not my strongsuit, after my one and only agent rejection (thank you, Nathan), I decided to "learn" how to epublish. I conquered HTML and my covers/blurbs are descriptive; being a former reporter/columnist, I was already well-versed in editing.
No, I do not make millions…or even thousands. I do, however, have four books on Amazon's Kindle site. And that is four more than I ever would've had if I'd waited for a trad publishing deal (if that even happened).
I do agree that marketing is a bitch (for me, anyway) but I'm learning that, too (thank you again, Nathan). And I only have one "popular" genre book for sale; the others are short stories and a collection of my pet-related columns (I am a dog lover). So I can understand why I'm not anywhere near the rocket-ship sales of Amanda or Joe or…
In any case, I'm writing what I love not hoping for validation by a system that unequivocally states I must write what they (monetarily) love.
And although I know my work is professional, I also know it may take some time for it to gather momentum (if it ever does). But, again, I'm writing…not waiting.
Sean Patrick Reardon says
I think the major publishers are under estimating the commraderie that exists among independent authors. It is like a huge underground network where the writers support each other, have decent blogs, interact with each other, and it keeps growing every day. So many "established" writers have blogs to promote themselves, but hardly every respond to comments made by visitors. No one is getting rich, but their work is getting read and word of mouth is the most powereful tool around. I think most writers would rather spend their time writing, reading, and getting to know other writers than agonizing over the insane rules of a query letter. The turning point for me was when I was following a bunch of agent blogs and so many of them complained about how bombarded they were with queries.
Ruth Ann Nordin says
Well, I enjoyed the objective approach in this article. I'm self-published. It wasn't because I hated the traditional publishing route but because self-publishing felt right for me. There is no right or wrong, and I don't understand why we can't support both avenues. The point is, we write because it's what we enjoy.
I don't see print or publishers ever leaving. Some readers want paperbacks from traditionally published authors. Some want self-published ebooks. To me, the reader and writer can win. Do what feels right for you.
And regardless of how one publishes, there will be bestsellers, midlists, and those that don't sell much at all. That's why if you're pursuing the method you're passionate about, you're better off. Better to shoot for the stars and fail than to never shoot at all.
Dan says
I don't know why Amanda Hocking has been so successful. Her cover design is noticeably more proficient than most other self-published books, but I looked at her first chapters and the writing is very poor. The dialog is wooden and there are serious grammatical issues, including a lot of shifting verb tenses.
These books were rejected by everyone for a good reason: they don't meet the minimum standard of English-language proficiency that agents and publishers expect of a novel. Many of the reviews of top selling e-books by Hocking and others also complain of significant plot-holes and inconsistencies, and of wooden characterization. These are, to put it bluntly, worse than every single urban fantasy and paranormal romance that got published. But Amanda Hocking is now a lot richer than most traditionally published authors.
We may be entering a world where the quality of the writing isn't really a significant part of the calculus; readers of e-books are clearly willing to tolerate inexpert writing in exchange for a price point below $3. Either the readers who are buying this stuff do not perceive a disparity in quality, or they are price-sensitive and not very picky about their reading material. I doubt Hocking's audience was ever buying a lot of $15 hardcovers.
I think a lot of the readers turning to low-price Kindle e-books were mass-market paperback readers; voracious consumers of cheap fiction who never paid more than five bucks for a book, even before Kindle. I also think that cheap e-books have converted a lot of buyers who formerly bought up used books and remaindered books, so it's not clear yet whether these cheap e-books are cutting into sales of traditionally published fiction.
Jennifer R. Hubbard says
Yes, that pretty well sums it up. A few other take-home lessons:
The biggest danger to authors in this scenario is the erosion of the perceived value of books. If there becomes a widespread belief that written work should be free, then making a living from writing will not be possible (not that it's easy now). Unless, perhaps, some sort of advertiser-subsidized model evolves, which is the way that TV and radio operated for years: free content, with ads.
The biggest challenge to authors has always been, and will always be, marketing–i.e., finding readers. If traditional publishers and booksellers fold, this does not mean that gatekeepers vanish. It means that the gate will move elsewhere.
There will always be a gate because nobody will ever scan through millions and millions of available books; they will rely on some sort of filter.
J. T. Shea says
Thanks for your succinct explanations, Nathan. And don't worry about your memory, you sound as sharp as ever.
Harper Studio's $2 is for 'the paper/printing/binding of most books', though they do go on to instance a $26 'physical' book, presumably a hardcover. They do not include distribution in the $2. The comments on the Harper Studio article are interesting and debate returns and remaindering and so on.
In any case, I thoroughly agree paper bestsellers can make a vast amount of money and the physical costs related to paper books are much less than people think.
Project Savior, your wish is granted. Richard Curtis has been e-pubbing out-of-print books for years. And Andrew Wylie set up an e-pub operation as a bargaining chip with publishers.
Scott Neumyer, yours is an interesting example of reverse windowing. Cheaper first, more expensive later. There's more than one way to skin a horse!
Amy, I doubt Amazon operate out of a hovel somewhere.
Elizabeth C. Mock, impressive record! And you're right about 'self-publishing' being something of a misnomer. Printing, binding, and selling a book out of the proverbial trunk of one's car would be true self-publishing.
Lance C., interesting that hardcovers are still with us at all, over seventy years after paperbacks first appeared.
Sinisterechoes.com, my Aunt Mabel is very offended by your comment. And so is her cat Tiddles.
Anonymous 9:44 am, Christopher Little was the second agent J. K. Rowling queried.
Sarra says
In the above comments, HBIC posed the question "Not to mention, if you do not have enough faith in your own writing to at least attempt to have a publisher consider it, why are you writing?"
As a self-published author, this kind of comment really ruffles my feathers. I'm writing for the readers. Not for the publishers. Publishers don't just automatically publish every quality book that comes to them. They select which books to publish based on a lot of factors like marketing and how many other books have a similar topic and whether this genre is hot.
Just because I never tried to get a traditional publisher or an agent doesn't mean that I don't have faith in my own writing. In fact, I feel it's just the opposite. I have enough faith in my writing to publish it on my own and take it straight to the readers. I don't want an editor who might possibly change my title or make me take out my favorite scene or change something I love about my own work. I want to be the final decision-maker and believe me when I say, that takes a huge leap of faith.
I am sure I will make a lot of mistakes along the way, but I'm learning and my sales continue to grow (over 7,000 so far in just a few short months). I feel so incredibly lucky to be writing now when I have these choices available to me. That's one of the things I like best about this post – that Nathan is acknowledging the fact that authors now have a CHOICE about how they want to publish. Both writers and readers have more choices than ever, and only time will tell how the market will change.
Anonymous says
Dan.
"We may be entering a world where the quality of the writing isn't really a significant part of the calculus"
Since when quality matters to agents and publishers? Agents are usually rejecting quality materials too. Writers start to believe agents are using a coin to decide instead of reading the queries and the samples.
Something is definitely not good with the present system and the self-publishing can be the final nail in the standard publishing's coffin. Why? Because it's much more profitable, you keep the copyrightm there are no restrictions, you have greater freedom and you don't have to write to hundred agents whose maybe, just maybe read your letter and your work (And even take the time to send you any sort of response.).
"this does not mean that gatekeepers vanish. It means that the gate will move elsewhere."
Or the gatekeepers should learn they're working for the writer and the not the writer is working for them. But yt seems the writer is not important at all. In this damned system everyone is living from our ideas and our writings. And we're getting less and less, because everyone is starting to be greedy as hell… and actually we're doing the 75% of the work. Then the writers ask the following; why should we work with agents and publishers. They do nothing, but preparing their pockets to be filled and they're telling us what should we do with OUR work.
Agents and publishers are riding the horse backward these days. If writers are turn to self publishing, no one can blame them.
Sarra says
After re-reading my comment when I posted, I realized I made it sound like I don't think editors are valuable. I am sure that editors make a lot of books better. But quality editing can come from many sources. Not just publishing houses.
Personally, I use a critique group that is invaluable to me. I think the main point I was wanting to make is that it's all about what you are looking for as a writer. I don't hate publishers or have any animosity there. I just am glad I have a choice in how I want to get my books in front of readers.
Jackie Barbosa says
The most common outcome of publishing–all kinds–is that you don't get rich. Whether you go with a big traditional print publisher, a small press, or self-publish, the chances that you will make a healthy profit from your book are really quite tiny.
Just because Amanda Hocking hasn't made JP Rowling or James Patterson money yet doesn't say much about self-publishing or digital books, because the vast majority of authors published by traditional print publishers will never make that kind of money, either.
Michael Offutt says
Nathan Bransford = Buzzkill
But…I still luv you 🙂
Shelia A. Huggins says
There's something about the "90% of self-pubbed material is crap" statement that sort of bugs me. I'm not sure why some people believe that one way of publishing is better or worse than another. I think it's up to the individual and what that person's goals are. It's unfortunate that some people will think my book is crap without ever bothering to pay 0.99 to read and make a judgment at that point. Then again, people might not buy because they don't like my hairstyle either.
Eli Collins-Brown says
Well, there's also the fact that you can carry 1000 titles on a Kindle and also on your iPad and iPhone, which also synchronizes between the three devices. So I can pick up where I left off on my Kindle the night before (Kindle is easier to handle when I read in bed at night) on my iPad when I'm enjoying coffee in the cool street cafe (which provides free wireless, unlike BN), and then again when I'm sitting in the waiting room in my doctor's office and pull out my iPhone to pass the time. Hum………
Stephanie says
Could you conceivably get your book published through a traditional publisher for print, but not sign away your electronic rights, and then self-publish the e-book version, as a second serial?
I'm guessing publishers would want to avoid this, but is it possible/legal if you negotiate the contract correctly?
judith says
It's shocking to see you're price breakdown when we continuously are hammered that shipping, warehousing, transportation, and yes, paper cost, are the HUGE factors on the massive cost of today's hardcovers and paperbacks.
I've been harping on the price of e-books for as long as e-books have been around.
If I think $10 is too much for a paperback, and gladly buy them used at Half-Priced when they hit the $1 shelf, there's no damn way in hell I'm paying for something that's not 'real' and has few overhead cost in terms of what physically has to be done to the book.
Patrick Neylan says
"consumers just aren't that worried about the writing quality … and just want a good story"
There you have James Patterson's career in a nutshell.
Donna Ball says
OK–reality check. I just completed a year long experiment re: how much a regular midlist author with a solid backlist, a moderate following and four books in print in brick&mortar bookstores (which were presumably being actively supported by a NY publisher) could realistically expect to make by self-publishing on Kindle. The results are posted here: https://awriterreads.blogspot.com/2011/03/great-e-book-experiment-results.html
–with real numbers and real $$ amounts. And if you don't want to read the whole thing, rest assured that neither Ms. Hocking OR my print publisher have anything to worry about.
Yet.
Larry Marshall says
I think the biggest problem the big six are going to have in adapting to the new world of books is their overall approach to authors and their catalogs.
If eBooks had become a big deal back in the 60s or 70s, when the publishers approached money-making by growing large numbers of authors and their catalogs, we'd see:
1) fewer authors saying things like "wow, I can get everything I've written for the past decade back into circulation
2) fewer consumers saying "the selection is amazing"
As it is, if you removed the last three releases from the top 50 authors from most bookstores, you could turn them into bowling allies. Until publishers come to understand that part of the problem is their 'all the eggs in a few baskets' approach, they will not come to grips with the digital world, whether the prices are 99cents or 20dollars.
Anonymous says
Nathan, I saw an online comment by Amanda Hocking that you had rejected her manuscript after reading the full. I'm the Anon who said the other day that her books seem to have broken quite a few of your rules. I find it interesting that you're now giving her book tons of publicity just because she sold so many of her books through self-publishing.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
I'll talk a bit more about that tomorrow. I had an inkling I had, but since I don't have my e-mails from my old job I wasn't positive. Amanda confirmed today.
I'm not sure what you're taking away from that though?
John Barnes says
The model you're describing of the publisher's situation pretty directly implies a discontinuous function, i.e. one with a "catastrophe" (mathematical term for the idea popularized as a "tipping point.")
So what your analysis actually forecasts is that there will be a steady decline for traditional publishing until it abruptly, in a very short time, drops the rest of the way down the toilet. Sort of like being in a soap box derby racer that is rolling down a gently sloped, smooth road, but somewhere farther along — no one knows where — there's a drop of a few hundred feet.
If there's a lesson in that, it's probably that anyone sticking to traditional publishing should be preparing to brake and jump.
Incidentally, I have somehow managed to achieve midlistness in the new publishing world; my self-pubbed ebook PAYBACK CITY (https://www.e-junkie.com/shop/product/25109.php, salvaged from a traditional publisher that stiffed me, and after it was not picked up by anyone else) has so far made me a couple grand. Not enough to have paid for writing it, but a couple grand more than I had when I got stiffed. I priced it at $4.00 back in 2007 and any number of people told me that was silly, far too low; nowadays I'm thinking about dropping it a bit. I'm also thinking about braking and jumping.
Backfence says
I'd just like to hear how she managed to promote her ebook into that many sales!
Anonymous says
The final word in this discussion will be uttered by the inexorable free market. Pontificating on how much a product “should” cost does no good. If it can be made and sold at a profit for less, someone will do it and will put the company that insists on charging what it “should” cost out of business. Publishers had a strangle-hold on the business of books, but technology has broken their hold.
S. Edward Brown says
I still have this unquenchable desire to see my words in print – almost like a badge of honor…or at least a nod that says "Yes, you're an author…we're vouching for you…and now Tony the Bouncer will let you into the Club." Even if the book flops and copies end up on the cheap table in the bookstores, it means something to me. It means I did it. I made it. I'm an Author.
That's the publisher's ace in the hole – their dirty secret – their value added to their product. Credibility. There's definitely a perception in the industry that you haven't made it as an Author until you've been published by a traditional House.
Yeah, I could make a million dollars self-publishing – and that'd be awesome – but I'd still feel deep down inside that I'm successful in the Minor League, but not in the Majors. Not quite the same feeling. There's credibility with the Houses that you still can't find on the outside. Maybe that credibility is eroding, but self-publishers as a whole still lack that intangible Thing that the Houses can offer.
And I want that credibility. But I also want to make a million dollars…*sigh*
Anonymous says
Millions of Dollars!
I have to have a serious talk with my publisher now about dropping prices 🙂
Anonymous says
Nathan, what I'm taking away from it is this: Quite a few agents are providing an immense amount of free publicity for books that make a lot of money, rather than devoting more of their blog time to books they feel have outstanding literary merit. Many people interpret blogging about a book in enthusiastic ways as an endorsement. I'm pretty sure that Amanda Hocking's book sales are about to go through the roof after all the articles and blogs written about her this past week, even though not one article or blog I read mentioned anything at all about the quality of her books.
– Anon @5:05 PM
karen-w-newton says
I have not read all the comments so I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but, although I am sympathetic to publishers need to make a profit, there is a certain disingenuousness (if that's a word) at work here. Publishers have FOR DECADES priced books according to their format. If they brought a new author out in mass market paperback in 2010, the book was mostly like $7.99 or $8.99. If the new author was published in hardcover, the books was at least $22.99 or maybe $24.99, unless the author had a built in platform, and then it was more. And yet they seem shocked that readers would assume ebooks should be cheaper. Well, duh! They need to be more upfront about why they want ebook price higher. They are, after all, the authors of the perception that format drives price.
Anonymous says
SB already made most of my comment: "Although I enjoy these self-published books, I can tell that they would have benefited from a publishing process. I often find that the books have lower intrinsic value, due to editing mistakes, formatting mistakes or, sometimes, sloppy writing. But I am willing to read them because they're free or cheap and they tell good stories."
I own all of Hocking's books, but it's clear they suffer from a serious lack of editing. Spelling and grammar mistakes abound and I find myself want to make the same notes I leave on my student's papers about pacing and plot.
I'm happy for her success and for less then a week of coffee I now own everything she's published. But I think she really could utilize the shaping that comes from a traditional set-up. I think because the ROI can be so little a lot of self-published authors are loath to invest in editing and the other services.
Terin Tashi Miller says
Wow. You've done it again. Try as I might, I can't stay away.
I especially found the back of the knapkin breakdown extremely interesting. Because the cost to the traditional publisher, in the models you set forth, still include bookstores–presumably, profiting from both distribution, and display. Some piece of the pie they're not apt to get with ebooks.
Just as the paperback didn't end traditional or hardcover publishing, I don't believe ebooks will either.
But, speaking as someone who hasn't made millions as a self-published author (we all prefer the term "Indie," I imagine), I'm also struck by the reasoning used for arguments for and against. Because they all boil down to money. James Patterson's $70 million in one year certainly is eye-popping. Does that mean he's a good, or great writer? Or that he's capable of being marketed and recouping costs and then making a profit?
I'm not surprised Hocking has made a million dollars offering books for 99 cents to $2.99.
Nor, frankly, am I surprised I haven't.
I never got into writing to be rich. Some might contend that's why I've never been and may never be rich, including at least one ex-wife.
What ebook publishing–particularly thanks to Amazon, which I contend has a vision and is seeing it through–is doing is making writing more available than ever to readers.
That was the original goal of paperbacks.
How many authors would be glad to get 70% of 99 cents from ereading potentially loyal fans, as opposed to having those readers read their hard-hewn art in a library, for free?
Celebrity culture has hurt literature and writing far more than epublishing ever has or will. Everyone wants to be famous, everyone wants to be rich.
James Joyce's friend Sylvia Beach had to publish Ulysses, not because no one could understand it, but because traditional publishers were afraid they'd never be able to sell a book with such profanity in it. She didn't publish it to get rich. She published it because she could, and she loved Joyce as a writer. And the book still fetches a high price, despite Joyce being dead many years now.
There will always be those "who know," whether they say they know literature, great writing versus bad quality, or merely "what will sell."
If your goal is to get your novels read, rather than make money, and you can make some money by offering your valuable words and insight for less than a soda at a vending machine or a Grande at Starbucks, ebooks are the greatest invention since sliced bread. Literally. Even better than microwaved popcorn.
Our trade deficit alone should be enough to convince people that reality is consumers want cheap goods, or even better they want quality goods cheaply.
When I made $200 on the print-on-demand and ebook versions of my first novel, I decided I'd made my first goal of publishing: to earn as much money as Ernest Hemingway's advance from Boni & Liverite for "in our time."
Before Boni & Liverite published it, his friend Robert McAlmon published a small paperback run of 300. A copy of it interested Boni & Liverite, who thought they'd better get a deal with Hemingway so they could make some money off him.
That's the other goal of the Amanda Hockings and other indie authors like myself. To be noticed by a "traditional" publisher, to have our work validated by someone we still think "who knows" what great or good or quality writing is. Not someone who thinks they can get a cheap product for a steal that they can sell for as much "as the market will bear."
Anonymous says
My work has value and I do not like seeing authors rushing to prostitute their work for $1 a trick.
It will be better for all of us if most self-published, cheap books continue to suck. The more they suck the better. The more of them that suck the better. I hope that good $1 books are harder to find than gold nuggets.
Mark says
I don't think self-publishing can make a professional author. Konrath already was one. That's a big deal. With no editorial feedback almost every book by anyone is potentially just crap or merely riddled with it.
Remilda Graystone says
I'm not a fan of e-books nor am I a fan of audio books. I've always preferred hardbacks/paperbacks for various reasons, so if I want a book, it's only one way I'll be getting it.
I get why people might be mad about paying more for an e-book than they would a hardback, but, as someone mentioned in the comments above, I think they're forgetting that writers are still working as hard as before, regardless of which route their work is pushed through. You're paying the writer for how much effort they put into their work, most times, and not the paper. And the effort doesn't change just because the paper isn't there.
I'm not really surprised that Hocking has sold a lot of books. They're priced at 99 cents. It's not really much of a leap of faith, now is it? Compared to 10+ dollars, 99 cents is nothing. If it turns out to be crap, I think what'll really hurt is just how much time you wasted on it. Although if it's crap, you'll probably be able to tell early on and therefore save yourself time.
If I ever get over the whole you-can't-flip-or-feel-the-pages thing, I think the next reason I'd be hesitant to read an e-book priced that low (or one that wasn't backed by a publishing house) would be because just about anyone can publish in that way. I agree that crap gets published traditionally, but I'm thinking a lot more crap gets published through the alternate route. It reminds me of sites where they allow you to publish your book through them when they don't actually provide you with anything other than the means to get the book bound.
Of course, there are self-published writers who, I'm sure, write/have written books that aren't filled with plot holes and inconsistencies and typos, but I'm not sure they're the majority.
I'm not really worried that e-publishing will take over, for many reasons, and I think publishing the traditional way still has its appeal for many people.
To me, e-publishing essentially boils down to this: It's no different than looking at my story on the computer screen. And that's not what I want. If others want to e-publish, kudos to them and good luck. I think every writer should go about things in the way they feel is best.
Anyway, thanks for the even-handed and thorough post. I learned a lot.
neolo says
Konrath gives away many of his books for free, and they are…well, how to say this…they are horrible. Ugh. His truculence against traditional publishing doesn't really help. At the same time, the business seems prime for innovative people to develop new business models, whether working on their own or with industry professionals.
Anonymous says
Amanda Hocking's sales ranks on Kindle are amazing right now. She has the #1, #2 and #3 sales ranks in Romance, and the first book in one of her trilogies has the #6 sales rank for ALL Kindle books, better than Kindle books by James Patterson or Stieg Larsson. Her other two books in that trilogy are currently at #15 and #16 for sales of ALL Kindle books.
Victoria says
As a writer, I want to make the standard of print publishing. I want the legitimacy I think it confers. I don't want to be explaining to people that I went the non-traditional route because I wasn't good enough to make it in the big leagues, and regardless of whether that's the reason authors go that way or not, that's how I'm feel about it.
As a reader, I want to read published books. I want the quality I think traditional publication confers. I've read plenty of unpublished novels trawling through online writing groups like OWW and Authonomy, and I really do think that only the best get past the agents and editors into press. I'm okay with that.
I don't believe there are thousands of wonderful books not making it past the 'gatekeepers' because experience has shown me that that isn't so. I suspect there are thousands of writers convinced their works are wonderful (when they're simply not up to scratch) though. And they're the ones ranting and complaining about who has the keys to the publishing world and why they can't get hold of them. A good book gets through the gates. I want to write them, and I want to read them, so it's traditional publishing for me on both fronts.
And that's a different argument from e-books and print books. Yeah, I know they're tied together but… I want hardcovers of my favourites and I'm happy with e-books of books I wouldn't want to read again. Easy to dispose of without the guilt. I don't care what I pay, though yes, I think non-print should be cheaper, because I don't get to keep it, for real. I know, I KNOW, but that's my perception no matter what the reality of print costs are.
Not on any day am I going to trawl through Amazon or anywhere else looking for $1 reads. Time is precious, and I want to spend that time reading quality. Next book to buy will be Pat Rothfuss' 'The Wise Man's fear.' In hardcover AND ebook. You just can't get that kind of quality in a self-pub. You just can't, people.
McKenzie McCann says
I would be a happy girl if my book sold 450,000 copies in a month.
Delle Jacobs says
I guess I'm one of those authors everyone is so busy debunking right now. Yes, you're right, most indie authors won't have much success, but the ones I know are all doing better than they were under the traditional model. And let's not forget, not very many of us can become the next J.K. Rowlings, either. Writing is one of the very few careers in this country in which we can truthfully say most of its followers can't make a living at their profession.
A little over a year ago I decided to give Kindle and Smashwords a try with four of my previously published works. The results were modestly good at first. But in October, sales took a giant leap for two books. It seems Kindle had put them on the Free Reads list, and in the five days they were up, they downloaded over 10,000 books each. After that, all my books sold much better, but sales were slowly dwindling. I could see people liked my books because they were coming back to buy others. So I re-set my prices at 99 cents, hoping to have high rankings for the after Christmas rush.
That's what happened. Readers found one, then hunted up the others. Maybe this is just a fad, but my sales have climbed to over 10,000 last month, and the rate of sale now is even higher. And my books by other publishers, with of course much higher prices, are also climbing quite nicely.
Now I'm realizing I can actually do better by self-publishing, and I've changed my mind about the new works I had planned to submit to trad publishers. I'm okay with people thinking I'm probably not good enough because I know most people who read one of my books will go back to find more.
As far as the editing goes, I'm sure most readers aren't aware that the indie authors who are most successful these days have ways of getting outside edits done. I always have an independent edit done before publishing a book. And I'm a cover artist anyway, so I can take care of that angle. What I can't give you is the traditional story New York prefers. But then, that seems to be what my readers like. Something unexpected.
C. R. Hindmarsh says
I'm going to take the middle ground on this one and say there's enough room in the market for ebooks, print books, self-pubbed authors and traditionally pubbed authors. Each different format offers advantages and disadvantages to writers and readers, so I'm doubtful of anyone who claims that one side of the divide is doomed to failure.
I congratulate anyone who is successful in their writing, no matter how they distribute their work (or how they define successful). In the end, readers will decide for themselves.
mbdcares says
I scrolled down all these positive, "yeah, for e-publishing comments, but other than Veela Veloom Jon Merz, and another individual that read one book from Hocking and didn't like it, everyone else seems to be fishing here. So what everyone should do tomorrow is go read Hocking, Konrath or Merz pushing their publishing numbers up, and then come back with answer based on reality. I've read Hocking, Konrath and I'm finishing Merz' Parralel right now and I'd rank them low, middle and upper middle enjoyment, respectively. (Nice job, Jon) Tomorrow after everyone has downloaded these as a .99 experiment, I think you should have this talk again without all the 'atta boy, Nathan' postings and only allow those who have downloaded one of these books to weigh in. Konrath and Merz between them have a lot of years of writing books and Konrath has a very informative blog that has lots of traffic. But what happens when every Tom, Dick and VERY Hairy with a lap top submits an e-book to Amazon? There has to be some kind of threshold for this kind of success. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm only trying to find the ledge where reality dips off into the e-byss here.
Mary Beth Baron
Anonymous says
Not only does Amanda Hocking have the top three best-selling Romance books on Kindle, 7 of her books are now in the top 20 best-selling Romance books on Kindle!
abc says
I had never heard of Amanda Hocking before you mentioned her (apparently I've been a little bit busy at work), but I have been reading her blog today and that girl is awesome! She's honest and authentic and funny and down to earth and full of heart. Go Amanda Hocking!
Jeannie says
The odd thing to me is how much is going to the bookstores–I mean $12.50 out of $24.99?
Here's the problem: They could seriously move more books IF they'd drop their price point–and maybe two hundred Borders outlets would still be in business. There is no way I pay $24.99 for any book unless it's so rare I can't get it any other way. $16.50? Maybe.
I understand bookstores are struggling to stay afloat, but until new print books come way down, they're going to continue to struggle, because too many buyers will just wait for the $4.99 used copy on Ebay.
And yes, I know there's a lot of overhead with being a brick and mortar store. But. They'll have a better chance of meeting that overhead when they come down to what the buyer can/will pay.
Anonymous says
Let's put this into perspective. Mid-list writers aren't making millions
Mid-list writers will make more money this way. Editing services and cover art are not expensive when your paycheck goes from around $10k to a $100k for a book.
Also, print on demand services are improving each year.
Skipping the old gatekeepers now makes better business sense. Why should writers deal with publishers with New York overhead?