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? Iām 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!
BelleBooks says
Great article Nathan! And a great discussion from the commenters. I'm in the middle here: former NY author (35 pubbed romance novels, pretty successful career with NY pubs) now a successful small (tiny) press publisher with about 100 titles in my list and lots more on the way. I've had great success with ebook sales on my authors' titles in the past couple of years, especially at Amazon, for Kindle. I'm a big supporter of ebooks, indie authors, small presses and positive creative rebellion. I see the traditional publishing industry as a wasteful dinosaur and I predict the industry, and the traditional bookstores, are doomed by their resistance to change.
I love what Amanda Hocking and others have accomplished and I cheer for them. But I get really annoyed at the naive hatred of publishers and the "Who needs em" attitude I hear. One commenter here said authors only need an agent cause "the agent does half the work of publishing, anyhow." Huh? In what world is that? Also, agents are not suddenly going to start playing publisher and throwing open their arms to legions of aspiring novelists with finished books. No, they'll continue acting as strong gatekeepers, and pick and choose only the most marketable and best-written books — yes that's a subjective judgement and many fine books are rejected by the system.
But as a longtime author, contest judge and editor I can tell you that at least 80 percent of the unpublished material I read is unpublished for a very good reason: it's ordinary, boring, mediocre, etc.
Imagine if everyone who simply WANTED to play professional golf could show up at a tourney and compete. Not only would it be chaos, it would hardly represent the best of the sport.
While many hardworking authors deserve to get published but don't, many half-baked, naive, amateurish, lazy aspiring authors don't deserve to get published, period.
There's a reason that most successful authors (including Amanda Hocking, who even at the tender age of 26 reports a long history of failed writing projects and determined apprenticeship)are successful: they stuck with it, learned the business, worked hard despite rejection, honed their craft.
The average self-pubbed author hasn't done that, and it shows.
Regarding the role publishers play: I predict here and now that Amanda will sign with a bigt NY pub soon. Why? Because the management of mega-successful books requires a lot of expertise. I believe she already has a major agent and/or attorney. Yes, she's got big deals to negotiate, but even at the level of my small press there are endless contractural and business tasks to sort through, including liability insurance for our authors.
I wonder how many self-pub authors have sad tales of being sued over copyright, plagiarism or libel issues because they didn't have a knowledgable editor? And how many self-pubs are getting screwed by bad ebook deals and predatory contract terms because they don't know any better? A lot, I suspect.
The world of print pubs may be doomed, but the world of publishers is far from unneeded. Some hybrid will emerge.
Anonymous says
What is the difference between an indie work and a so called professional? Only the support background. But the content quality of a novel is never depended on the background. It's always depended on the writer . Writing is maybe the only profession where the support background count nothing at all. Your work won't be better if you're working with agents. They're holding you back instead. Your work won't be better if you're working with publishers. They force you to make quantity instead of quality. So if any of you believe your work will be better because of the agents and the publishers, think again. Your work will be better because of you, the writer.
J.C. Martin says
Great post! I'd be lying if I said it didn't leave me with a touch of optimism. I'm in two minds about this. For one, I'd ultimately like to get my novel published traditionally, just so I can see it on bookshelves. Plus, the support in terms of cover design, marketing, etc. is all there. On another hand, I am seriously considering the self-pub route for one of my novels, because I know how slow it takes for a traditionally published book to come out, and I have time constraints on this story (namely, it has to be out before June 2012 to coincide with a certain major event). The fact that you cut out the middleman and take most of the profits is a big draw, too! I just have to pray to be just as successful as Amanda Hocking…:)
Melissa says
Dan wrote:
"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."
Everyone tip-toes around this issue and suggests that mayhaps these books just need a tad bit more work. I agree with Dan. Shame on you, Dan, for distracting me from my original comment. š
Nathan, excellent blog. I'm a freelance writer. I got my start in print in national publications and dailies. So while my way of thinking tends to be more old school, there is one thing that should be said about successful indie publishers: they know how to target the market. Splat! I've read countless literary agent blogs specifying "NO MORE BOOKS LIKE 'TWILIGHT!'" And yet here's Hocking, proving that what American tweens and perhaps even their parents want is precisely that. In a slightly different incarnation. It doesn't even have to be well-written. They're desperate for more of the same. Take careful note of this, because I see it in my field as well.
So what literary agents and publishing houses can take away from successful indie publishers is important information about their target markets and what said markets want to read. It's an indicator of trend. Whether people who download the 99-cent eBook actually read it could be debated (hey, I have 99-cent apps on my iPhone I've never even used, but I saw them and thought, "Hey, that looks cool!"). But the point is, these eBooks appeal to people for a very specific reason. The year-long + gap that can occur between the time a new writer is represented, has a m.s. sold and is ultimately published, can make all of the difference in missing that trend entirely.
I propose that the publishing industry will eventually — not just yet, but one day — have to adapt to a certain degree by learning how to cut the cost of e-publishing and getting digital content to the market, post-haste. The industry has all of the tools it needs at its disposal. By working together, the Big 6 could easily figure out a way to delineate eBooks that are thoroughly vetted and edited from those that are not — even if they have to establish their own Amazon.com-like platform.
India Drummond says
I started learning serious writing skills at university… 20 years ago. So I grew up under the "self-publishing is for those who can't sell to a real publisher" regime.
This year will be the release of my debut novel from a "real" publisher.
Although I do appreciate the work my publisher has done with my book, I've decided to go indie on future books. I realised a few things:
1. There's nothing my publisher is doing that I can't do myself or hire done.
2. For all the talk about how wonderful traditional publishing is, most of their authors still have day jobs. So just as Hocking is an anomoly in indie publishing, Rowling and Patterson are the same in traditional publishing. I'm not looking to be a millionaire. I want to make a living. I have a decent chance at that with self-publishing.
3. Publishing myself, I can put out 2-3 books a year, building that ever-important backlist. Sound fast? Maybe, but I have the experience to write quality work quickly. I have several books written in past years that I can go back, edit, and release. I have lined up a group of pros to edit and design. So I know I'll be putting out professional work I'm proud of.
I just wish this had all been possible 20 years ago. I am glad of the experience gained over those years, but not the frustration. I've never been happier or more confident now that *I* am in the driving seat for my writing career.
Anonymous says
India. Thank you for sharing your experience. I liked point #1 the most. I also meditate to go indie… after I give one last chance for the gatekeepers to read my work. In the last one and a half years I'm getting letters from all around the world from future readers. They want to read my work and they're asking when is it going to be released. But they can't and I don't have a clue when is it going to be released because some gatekeeper is lazy to read queries or novels (And they're whining on twitter and blogs, because they must work.). Right now gatekeepers and publishers are working against writers, but foremost against the readers. Honestly, if they're rejecting again without any reason, I gladly turn to indie and put a nail into the standard publishing's coffin, because as you said, we can do the very same. The only difference is; we're working for the readers.
Anonymous says
The problem for this independent route, is that the work needs to be vetted. This does not mean by a writing group of peers that don't want to offend the author or, in many cases, are needing that person's reciprocated love for their own writing, and potentially later when they are trying to market themselves.
Vetted means that the darling sentences or chapters that need to go, must go. It's not a suggestion, but it'd advice given by someone with a professional interest in the success of the writing.
This doesn't mean that all self-published work is automatically bad, but I've been in enough of those writer group relationships to know that many writers can't see their own trips. Those writers need a higher voice of authority and they can't even recognize this.
That hubris extends to things like cover art, where because this creative person owns a copy of Photoshop, they think they are now also a designer and artist. This is possible, but probably very rare. If the cover isn't to a professional standard, I doubt very much that the writing is either.
"Good enough", in any of these disciplines, is simply not good enough. As a consumer, I want great.
Renee Pace says
Excellent blog and very thought provoking. I'm an e-pubbed author and considering self-pub but one thing for certain making sure your book is polished is essential. I've read a few self-pub e-books lately and you can tell they skipped the editor/copy editor phaze. It does show. My parents in their late 60's both bought a kindle – now that's telling.
Megan Maynor says
We just got Kindles. My husband was reading when we got ready for bed last night.
"What are you reading?"
"It's a series about trolls. A girl who's a troll."
I told him about this post and the "Kindle Millionaires." We discussed how $10 feels like a good deal for a book in a book store, but once you're on an electronic device, you're in an itunes state of mind and things should cost around $0.99.
"How much did you pay for that book?"
"$2.99"
"Who's it by"
"Let's see…Amanda…Hocking?"
Istvan Szabo, Ifj. says
"That hubris extends to things like cover art, where because this creative person owns a copy of Photoshop, they think they are now also a designer and artist."
So true. Creating arts and a designs is my second profession, yet I still consider myself as someone who need to learn much in this profession (After 10+ years of experience). There is a huge difference between creating arts and arts, especially when you're creating a cover art. Using Photoshop is not making you to an artist at all.
"Vetted means that the darling sentences or chapters that need to go, must go."
But I can't agree with this one. The writer is writing sentences and chapters because of some reason. Who is the publisher or anyone else to tell the writer how to write and what to write. Writers are not puppets. It would be good if some people would stop handling us on this way.
"writers need a higher voice of authority and they can't even recognize this."
I have to disagree with this. Writers don't need any higher voice of authority, especially not any sort of self-proclaimed higher authority. If a writer want to hear higher voice of authority, they become a writer for hire or go to work into an office depot.
Cliff Burns says
Hocking, Konrath…these folks are DREADFUL writers and if you want to pay 99 cents to read drek, if you're just looking for cheap titles to stick on your e-book for down times, by all means, go for it.
However, for those of us who still value a good read and writing that is not the equivalent of a juvenile wet dream, the self-published marketplace is a no man's land. E-books and print on demand SHOULD be the domain of ground-breaking, literate authors who are either tired of the corporate publishing world or who want to breathe some life into their older, out-of-print efforts.
Unfortunately, those folks are nowhere in evidence as one skims through the various e-book catalogues–instead we find a world populated by newbies, wannabes and never will be's.
Ms. Hocking may be humble and sweet (at least, that's the way her supporters portray her) but she is also someone who publishes prose that is vacuous, painfully inept; the kind of writing a high school student might produce, if given the resources and the proper venue. As I've written elsewhere, scribblers like Hocking used to write "fan fiction", with a limited readership (groupies of "Star Trek", "Buffy" or whatever), except now, thanks to new technologies, she has access to a far larger audience and a cheap means of delivering it.
She's to be commended (I suppose) for making gobs of money but, in the process, she has committed grievous crimes against the printed word and merely exposed the fact that there are a lot of people out there who will read ANYTHING as long as it's CHEAP.
Is that admirable, even desirable? Is she to be emulated or condemned?
Your point of view will reveal much about your reading tastes, your intelligence quotient AND your respect for the legacy of fine writers that labored long and hard on their efforts, putting their heart and soul into their work.
Caveat emptor.
Cliff Burns says
P.S. I hope everyone is taking note of the fact that the discussion around people like Hocking and Konrath centers on how much money they make and NOT the quality of the work they produce. As a matter of fact, when one does criticize their semi-literate drivel, you're always taken to task for being "elitist" and "hurtful".
That's instructive, don't you think?
Anonymous says
Cliff. You may have a quality work if the corporate agents and pubishers are playing the excluding behavior, cartel type approach and they're not willing to read your work, because you're not in the gang. I do know many who actually writes better than most published writer and they never got a single chance because of the snob gatekeepers.
People also must live from something. If they must choose between 30-40% (Corporate style) or 70% (Self-publishing), they'll go with self-publishing.
Hocking and Konrath maybe not the best writers, but they have better incomes than most writer with publisher and agent support. Self-publishers also have full control over their property.
Jackie Barbosa says
The problem for this independent route, is that the work needs to be vetted.
Do some independent authors slap up books that aren't ready for prime time? Absolutely. But many of the "new" independents are authors who've been published by New York in the past but have chosen to self-publish for various reasons–because they can make more money at it (especially if they're midlist authors), because they have a significant backlist that's out of print, because New York wouldn't buy this book, or because they didn't get recontracted and aren't willing to take their chips and go home.
Despite what many authors (especially the as-yet unpublished) would like to believe, all good books donāt find a home in traditional publishing. Iām sure Nathan can attest to having tried and failed to sell books he thought were terrific. In fact, for every book that was deemed āgood enoughā to publish, Iād bet there are two or three others that are just as good and yet are languishing on the authorsā hard drive for want of a contract.
Traditional print publishing is get smaller. Shelf space is shrinking (it's not just Borders closing stores; B&N is not renewing leases on many of its brick and mortar outlets, meaning they are reducing their shelf space, too). Print runs have dropped by half in recent months, even on books by New York Times bestselling authors. Midlisters are either not being recontracted or are being recontracted at considerably less favorable terms than in the past. Fewer and fewer books by debut authors are being contracted and for much smaller advances.
Digital publishing, conversely, is on the rise. I read David Baldacci's most recent release (hardcover) sold 75% of its copies in digital format. Many romance authors are reporting print/digital sales breakdowns in the 50/50 range.
In this environment, authors who've acquired any sort of fan base at all in digital would be foolish not to give indie publishing a shot. New York is still offering pathetic royalty rates on digital sales (15-25% of list seems to be the norm), while Amazon will pays 70% (less a file transfer fee for each download) and B&N pays 65%, provided you price the book between $2.99 and $9.99. For authors who are already seeing fully half their sales in digital and print runs in the 20k-30k range, this is a no-brainer.
Will authors lose some sales volume by not being available in print? Sure, but when the print copies are only paying you an 8% royalty and the digital 25%, simple math tells you if you sell half as many copies at 70%, you're going to make WAY more money than you ever earned from selling more copies of that print book.
As for all this vaunted editing that's supposedly done to ensure traditionally published books are top-notch–um, in my experience and that of many of my traditionally published friends, it either doesn't exist at all or is minimal at best. Traditional publishers are, by and large, only buying books they feel are "good to go" with a few minor tweaks here and there and some copy edits. They don't buy books that they think have big plot holes that will have to be fixed (although that doesn't mean you can't find plenty of traditionally published books with plot holes big enough to drive an elephant on a semi through) or other issues that will need significant revision.
In short, the advent of indie publishing with truly favorable terms is finally giving authors options. It's not a shortcut to success, fame, and riches (hint: there are no shortcuts), but it does mean that authors now have a choice other than sticking their unsold manuscripts under the bed. That, in my book, is a win.
Harry says
I've been following this pretty closely as well, especially since Ms. Hocking lives near my area. I'm not sure I get why people seem to need to have their stuff "legitimatized" by the legacy publishers. Put it out there, and let the market decide!
That's the way every other business works……
Jackie Barbosa says
P.S. I hope everyone is taking note of the fact that the discussion around people like Hocking and Konrath centers on how much money they make and NOT the quality of the work they produce.
Frankly, the standard by which New York publishers determine whether books are "good" or not is by how much money they make. That's, quite honestly, the only standard that really matters, because publishers are in business to make money, not art.
Arguably, you get better art from independent artists than from corporate conglomerations. Charles Dickens had to self-publish "A Christmas Carol" because no publisher of his day was willing to take a chance on it. Most of the Impressionists were considered hacks in their own time. No one thinks independent musicians who haven't been signed by a major record label must suck. Indie films are typically considered higher "art" than studio-produced blockbusters.
So, honestly, if you want art, you might be better off looking to the independent author than the traditionally-published one, because the traditional publisher cares WAY more about money than "quality."
By the way, that's not an indictment of traditonal publishers. Publishing is a business. Publishers SHOULD care about money. Profit is what KEEPS them in business.
Cliff Burns says
Jackie:
The vast majority of books produced by traditional publishers are crap, BUT they also subsidize the work of fantastic literary talents like Don DeLillo, Colson Whitehead, Zachary Mason, Jim Shepard, Walter Kirn…where are their equivalents in the self-published world? Nowhere in evidence.
Yup, most of what the trads release is awful but almost ALL of the self-published stuff out there is embarrassingly bad, the worst muck, spewed out by people who either have learning disabilities or were dropped once too often as infants.
I want no part of being included with such scribblers. I abhor their amateurism, their greed and their arrogance.
Comparing those gits to Charles Dickens will have the old man spinning in his grave like a lathe. He deserves far better than that.
Chris Northern says
I could wait a year for a publisher to say no. Usually, I really liked this but… But what?!
I could wait another year for another publisher to say no.
And so on. And on. And on.
Or I could, and have, sp'd in ebook and sold copies right off the bat. No waiting. I am making MORE money because I am making some money NOW. No more maybe's, no if's no but's. Me, vendor, reader, job done.
So I don't make a living… so what? Most TPd writers don't either.
This isn't Monty Python's – What did the Romans ever do for us? eith a long list of answers. – There is no irony here. What did the industry ever do for us?
Nothing.
TP = a few houshold names who make serious money.
SP = a few houshold names who make serious money.
Next tier down the same, and the next tier down the same. Remind me again, someone, anyone, what exact difference is under discussion and why is anyone discussing it? The only difference is once there were a group of people who made a bunch of money in what they thought of as a comodity market. Then, not yet but soon, there were not. The buggy whip analogy comes to mind.
This is the last comment I'm making on this subject anywhere ever. The trial is over; the verdict is in. Goodbye publishers, you are not needed here.
Shevi says
Thanks, Nathan, that was very well written.
I've been struggling for nine years to get one of my seven novel manuscripts published. Nine years of rejection letters and banging my head against doors that won't open. Nine years of "We enjoyed it, but we didn't LOVE it."
I feel like a gambler who's been at the table way too long, losing time after time but still hoping the next roll will win it all back. No more. This is no longer the only game in town. Writers have options now.
The main advantage of ebook self-publishing is the main disadvantage too: it's all in your hands. I can't make publishers believe in me and my work. But I can believe in myself.
Regge Ridgway says
As with any new technology, there will be people wanting to test out their new Ipads and ĖKindles they got for christmas. That they chose Hocking over other great authors is due to feeder frenzy. If you see hundreds of others downloading an ebook, their is a spontaneous impulse to purchase without fully investigating the choice. Plus the price is right. I still get sticker shock when I go into Barnes and Noble and see a new release at 25 bucks. Seeing a book for less than 3 bucks and you don't even have to get out of your PJs is a no brainer. Anyway I just hope my books sell like that.
Ty Hutchinson says
I researched both avenues and I can't find a reason to go the traditional route. I'm self-publishing. I like having the control over my book. I think once it's published, it'll be just like any book. It'll have to fight for an audience.
To the people who say most self-published books are bad, well I'm sure there are a lot but last time I checked, not every book in a B&N was selling like hot cakes either. There are a lot of discounted books in the bargin bins that the author is not making any money off of.
For me, it came down to the royalty split and the control. I want to make money writing and I don't want to turn over the bulk of the profits to a publisher. When talking with other authors who want to go the traditional route, if their being honest, it's because they want the validation. They want someone in publishing to tell them they can write. In my opinion, I think I rather have the general public tell me I can write because they love my books.
Jackie Barbosa says
Cliff said:
The vast majority of books produced by traditional publishers are crap, BUT they also subsidize the work of fantastic literary talents like Don DeLillo, Colson Whitehead, Zachary Mason, Jim Shepard, Walter Kirn…where are their equivalents in the self-published world?
Since I've never ready ANY of the authors you mention, I can't possibly name or guess which self-published authors you would consider to be their "equivalents." Notwithstanding, all of those guys might be better off if they DID self-publish (do they really need trad publishers to subsidize them if they're so awesome and will their publishers even CONTINUE to do so in this shifting environment? I think that's a pretty big and open question).
More than that, however, unless you've read a wide swath of self-published books (maybe 10-20 times as many different authors as you mentioned above in similar genres), you can't claim with any authority that such quality doesn't EXIST in the indie community.
By the way, although I did digitally self-publish a short story which is otherwise only available in a traditionally published print anthology, I'm still pursuing publication through traditional means for some of my work. Notwithstanding, I LOVE knowing that my choices are not "sell to a publisher or put it under the bed" any more. I have another option now, and as an author, I appreciate that.
Marie Gilbert says
This story was an eye opener on the changing world of publishing. I want to thank you for giving out this information as I need to sit down and decide the road to take to publish my first completed novel.
Allen B. Ogey says
Looking at it from another perspective I see an opportunity for agents in this changing industry.
In the old days publishing houses separated the wheat from the chaff in the slush pile, then they provided every service required (editing, cover design, marketing, etc) that transformed a raw manuscript into a quality book in a reader's hands.
Some of that gradually shifted to agents plowing through query letters, chapters and manuscripts to select quality submissions, then many agents do at least basic editing and massaging before submitting to contacts at publishing houses. Part of the services provided by publishers have been downloaded to agents.
Now look at an unpublished writer deciding to e-publish: Every task has been downloaded to the author to move a manuscript to a(n) (e)book in the reader's hand. Amanda Hocking writes in her blog linked to by Nathan that she is so busy with all the tasking required to self-publish that she hardly has time to actually write. I looked at Nathan's recent topic of the web page, blog, Facebook and Twitter pages that I should be doing and heaved a weary sigh – I really just want to write.
Re-enter the agent, who like everyone else is trying to stay standing while the ground shifts under her feet.
It seems to me that an agent could very well set up a template-style e-publishing option for her clients that would operate under a kind of label of its own, let's call it Hip Agent. Hip Agent winnows through queries, reads manuscripts, and offers representation just as before, then discusses with Author whether they will be seeking traditional publication, e-publication, or both.
If e-publishing then Hip Agent works with Author on editing, or sends the manuscript to her own editor contacts, works on cover art or uses contacts, etc. Then Author takes Hip Agent's internet templates, fills in her book's stuff, and starts blogging, etc.
The agency contract would cover such things as e-royalties, commissions, and how Hip Agent's out-of-pocket costs would be recouped.
With time and quality e-books I imagine Hip Agent's banner having marketing value at Amazon and other e-book sources because as a reader I am leery of investing my time in a self published book from an unknown, but if I've read a few good Hip Agent titles I'll start to look for them because I'll know that Hip Agent doesn't offer trash.
Among other things this would allow Hip Agent to market books she was unable to sell to a traditional publisher and she would be able to take chances on manuscripts she likes but doesn't believe she could sell to print.
As an author I would love to be taken on by an agent who could say, "If print publishing doesn't work out we will be able to go e-publishing if you choose, here's how we would make that happen."
With regard to e-publishing much of the load would be taken off the author's shoulders, the agent would still have a rice bowl, and consumers would have a way to find high quality e-books.
beverley says
I've had two book traditionally published, and now I'm going to self-publish my third book (and 2 novellas) this year. This wasn't my first choice because I was hoping my publisher would pick up my option book, but they did not. I can't tell you how happy I am now that they did not. I welcome self-publishing as an option and I'm so glad things worked out the way it did.
John E says
You're not factoring in a few things.
With paper books the Big Six publisher doesn't just pay for the actual paper. The publisher must also pay for:
– shipping to the bookstore
– returns from the bookstore
– insurance
– warehousing
– getting rid of returns/excess stock/overprints, whether it's sending unwanted books to the Dollar Store or recycle/shred.
So publishers' dollar profit per hardback is less. Especially with newly released hardcovers. They're like newly released movies. Maybe they'll go gangbusters, maybe they'll tank. A lot of returns happen.
Plus, with terms to bookstores for paper books, publishers have to wait 30-90 days, sometimes more, to get their money. With ebook sales, it's same-day.
Publishers make the bulk of their revenue on steady-selling-authors like Stephen King, etc, in paperback. Most of the Big Six's profit comes from those volume sales, not on supposedly high-margin hardbacks.
So if you start comparing a $8.99 paperback to a $8.99 ebook, it's a whole different number game.
In that comparison, both the publishers and their authors would make far more money selling ebooks.
Holly says
I congratulate these self-publishing authors. Ebooks have given writers options, particularly if your work falls into the non-commercial category. With some clever marketing, you can still reach your target audience. You might not make a fortune, but that might not be your goal anyway.
With regards to the standard of self-published material, I'm with the previous poster who said, "let the market decide."
Ross Slater says
Interesting analysis and totally agree with JohnE.'s comment that there are a number of other "costs" that weren't factored into your calculations ā like the return rate of books (25% or more), so the actual cost of a print book isn't as low as the $2 average.
Your point about the transition timeline rings true ā the transformation from print to e-book will take a long time. However, it is likely to be faster than the music industry transformation because there isn't a loss of fidelity (preceived or actual) in "quality". And consumers are technologically smarter and more comfortable now than they were 15 years ago.
Publishers need to figure out their value proposition because consumers are questioning it ā not a good thing…
P.S. Wrote a blog post about the 3-Format Future of Books a few months ago and it seems to be holding true ā https://www.highspotinc.com/blog/2010/06/the-3-format-future-of-books/
Anonymous says
It's called access; isn't it?
What's wrong with writing an entertaining story, securing good copy editing, and publishing it for readers? What's wrong with readers buying a good book for 99 cents or $2.99 or more? Nothing.
It's called time to market, people. The big six think they still have nothing but time and they've circled the wagons around NYC to prove it, clinging to their agency model and keeping the gates closed. You need some kind of golden ticket to enter. Whatever. They don't own time and it will lead to their demise over time, just like Borders and others.
The publishers stick with their big name authors out of fear of betting on a debut author whose work might not sell. They refuse to take that risk too often, so traditional publishing remains with big-time authors for the most part while the majority of finished novels languish.
In the meantime, the Amazon's of the world (Google and Apple and Smashwords) are providing direct access for authors to their purchasing reading public and eclipse the time to market for any writer. (Bonus!)
Other than writing your best work and getting it to your readers; what else should you care about? The cocktail party in Manhattan celebrating your debut? Nah, they don't do those that often anymore. Giving fifteen percent to an agent you never even met because it is unnecessary? No. The only thing unnecessary might be what lies behind the gates in New York.
I've gone the query route, I've won the contest, I provided the fulls on my manuscript and still, I wait. For what? For someone behind the gate to tell me I'm good, sign me, and then take another three years to get my book out? Why? So my ARC copy has a imprinted page with one of the big six imprints on it?
Be careful criticizing Amanda Hocking, she's a success willing to share her story. Writing is an individual taste and personal thing, don't be bitter, Cliff, or judgmental. Just take away the lessons that you can and figure out what you're going to do with more wisdom.
Holly says
Anon,
"Other than writing your best work and getting it to your readers; what else should you care about?"
Precisely.
One of my favorite books is William Kotzwinkle's satire of the publishing industry–The Bear Went Over the Mountain. A bear finds a manuscript under a tree and heads to New York where he becomes a celebrated author. Bizarre premise, but it works. Sheer brilliance.
I just had a lightbulb moment. Maybe I should leave my manuscript under a tree…let a bear do all the legwork for me…oh wait…that'll never work…I live in a country where there aren't any bears…darn…
Holly says
But who needs bears when there are kangaroos! And they have that cute little tummy pouch which would be an ideal place to stash my manuscript and all those contracts etc, as they hop their way to fame and fortune…
Oh wait…that'll never work…I live in a country where there aren't any kangaroos either…bother…
Cyndi Tefft says
Nathan, you may not be an agent anymore, but you have a beautiful way of summarizing what's going on in the publishing industry like no one else can.
I am jazzed about Hocking success for a couple of reasons. First, she tried several times to get an agent and failed. That gives hope to those who have gone that route and came away empty-handed, that there is a way around the wall. Secondly, her success is helping to eliminate the stigma of being self-pubbed. All good things for authors.
As for ebook pricing, I believe that the market will drive it down. It does not cost the same to produce an ebook as a print book, and I don't want to pay print prices for electronic copies. Period. I think others will feel the same.
Not everyone will have the success that Hocking has had, but the future looks bright for those who were kept out of the party altogether before!
SphinxnihpS of Aker-Ruti says
Interesting post and comments. I believe that Hocking is more of an anomaly in self-publishing world like King and Rowling are in the traditional world. They happened to hit it off well with massive amounts of people. Most people on the bookstore bookshelves aren't bestsellers, either, after all.
But even so, I decided against traditional publishing. My books, though I believe are good, are not going to have the mass appeal the traditional publishers need. For one, I write shorter books than fantasy publishers require. For another, my books are more niche.
But I write what I love to read and what I try (and usually fail) to find on the book shelves. So self-publishing opened up opportunities for me I wouldn't have otherwise.
I don't think traditional publishing is wrong. Nor do I think it is the only validation worth anything. It works really well for some people. But for people like me, I think self-publishing works far better. Besides, with seeking the self-publishing route, the final validation comes from producing a good work after hard effort and finding readers that agree.
Jodi
Donna says
Anonymous @ 9:55 mentions: "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."
No, no, no. You are way off base. Publishers are editing books. Believe me, the difference between a self-published, self-edited book and a book put out by a publisher is easily spotted.
Yes, authors are being told to get rid of grammar, language and punctuation errors before submitting. OF COURSE. It is common sense to look as professional as possible. It does not follow that publishers are not editing their books.
Today, no one's book is not going to be "edited" the way Catch-22 or Look Homeward, Angel was edited… but that's a whole different thing. Most authors would scream at that treatment, anyway.
Mister Snitch! says
I think you did a good job putting the money and soaring sales of a few new authors into perspective, and balancing that out with the real sea-change that's underway.
One aspect of epublishing is getting ignored in all this noise. (That is – as far as I can tell, it's getting ignored. or at least getting short-shrift. But I have not read every single post on every blog on this subject, so let that serve as full disclosure.)
That aspect is the ability of writers to build their own reading audience, as opposed to signing with a traditional publisher for a share of THEIR audience. That's been the role of publishers vis a vis writers, after all: You need readers (to pay you, to connect with, etc.), we have them.
In a similar vein, I once worked for an ad agency whose owner privately said: "We control the client." By which he meant he (and his account execs) was the conduit between the paying client and the creatives who actually did the work being paid for. The owner maintained his circumstance by positioning himself between the clients and the creatives.
Agency heads can't always prevent their clients from building relationships directly with their creatives and account execs, and so they do make off with the clients from time to time, and open up their own shops. It happens (see Mad Men). It's been a lot tougher, though, for a writer to connect directly with readers – for reasons that are probably pretty obvious. The writers' 'enabler' – the publisher – had a secure position.
The tools for writers to build direct connections with readers have existed for decade or so now. What's changed is the end product. That is: A bound book was once the preferred medium of product delivery, even over laptops (with their instantaneous delivery).
In a similar way, CDs were vastly preferred to online downloads for years. Not so today.
What changed in the music business was the acceptance of iPods as a device for listening to music. That's exactly what's changing in publishing: Tablets have reached the point where they are not only being accepted instead of books, but they are being PREFERRED to books.
It's no coincidence that Amanda Hocking's meteoric rise coincided precisely with the rise of iPads.
Writers are now free to build their own audience, and then (if they wish) offer their audience to the publisher of their choice, in a classic reversal of roles.
That's the big news here. Not that you might become a millionaire (as Hocking says, most won't), but that your fate is now, truly, in your own hands.
jeniferj says
I'm very curious why, if paper, ink, machinery, storage, machine maintenance, machine labor, storage, and shipping of a physical product is just pennies of a book price, is there such a big descrepency between a $24.99 hardback and a $7.99 paperback? Doesn't that tell us that publishers could sell ALL ebooks for $7.99?
kc lauer says
Kudos to Hocking and J.A. Konrath. I hope to follow in their footsteps with my book Bad Girl Gone Mom.
I wanted to get the book out there as fast as I could. For me it is a platform to help other girls who struggled with growing up.
It was published 12/10/2010 and I have sold about 50 soft and hard cover and another 20 ebooks.
Anonymous says
I don't know that the .99 cent e-book works for children's books (not Young Adult, I'm thinking middle grade or lower).
A quick overview of the top 100 e-books on Amazon for 9-12 year olds shows no self-published books that I could see. I didn't check, but I imagine that trend is true for lower ages as well.
Curious to know how many self-published books are out there in non-fiction, biographies, sports, etc.
There are lots of genres other than vampire fiction or murder mystery thrillers.
Paul R says
Critics of ebooks citing Hocking and Konrath as exceptions don't understand that many mid-listers are making good incomes with ebooks, and that those who do not have to be compared with the slush pile of authors who never get an agent or print publishing contract. Not everyone will succeed — in print or ebook.
The difference is that for some authors, the personal control, especially on the marketing side, can be a big plus.
Cliff Burns says
K.C. Lauer said:
"I wanted to get the book out there as fast as I could. For me it is a platform to help other girls who struggled with growing up."
Judging from the sub-literate standards one associates with romance writing, the risible quality of most chick-lit, there are a quite a few female scribblers out there who have "struggled with growing up".
How about instead of writing and releasing work FAST, you concentrated on spelling, punctuation, syntax, editing, worked long and hard to release a GOOD, well-crafted book that might just pass as literature?
Maybe then you'll be taken seriously as a writer.
Mister Snitch! says
Nathan Lowell wrote:
"Does mainstream do a better job of vetting content? Possibly."
What actually happens, though, is they homogenize content. Their collective (if not individual) POV is "what will sell?". And this is of course based on what HAS sold in the past, and this naturally filters out the New, the Groundbreaking, and the Different.
Case in point: The iPad. Nothing of its kind had been successfully done in the past. Therefore, anyone flying such an idea past the 'gatekeepers' of the consumer electronics industry would be not only shot down, but ridiculed for 'not understanding the marketplace'.
As it happens, Steve Jobs is both a visionary AND a gatekeeper, and that's why you can now buy an iPad – the biggest out-of-the-gate seller in electronics history.
But wait, you say. The gatekeepers will learn! They'll adapt, they'll change!
Well, the gatekeepers of consumer electronics did not learn, adapt, or change because of the iPod preceding the iPad. Oh, they copied. They know how to copy. But they did not adapt, and they certainly did not change.
Gatekeepers are what they are. Change won't originate with them. Ever.
Anonymous says
While people are commenting on the 'quality' of writing or lack thereof of our Indie powerhouses, we seem to be neglecting something.
Technique/Craft is one thing. Poor Dialogue. Stiff descriptions. Editing. Even plot holes all speak to technique and craft.
What people find appealing about these books despite all that (I'm not commenting on their quality one way or another) is that they enjoy good STORYTELLING. We have forgotten that sometimes people just want to have a good story. A story that is fresh and relatable.
I've heard indie writing today compared to the pulp days of yester years where storytelling ruled a lot.
For the record, I find Hocking's style readable. But I don't like her paranormal romance genre, so it doesn't appeal to me at all. But then again, I'm also someone who doesn't care for Stephanie Meyers writing ability at all and I've long held the belief Stephen King wasn't great either (so watching him bad mouth Stephanie Meyer just left me blinking). Yet, he's lauded as super amazing by many. So one person's crap….
Stefanie says
You know the reason people will pay $12 for a movie(even though they can't touch it) is for the experience. Well, really, they are touched by the experience of it. $12.99 for a book is understandable because you can hold it, the book itself explains the cost. However, an e-book is digital and holds far less value. What the book is about has value, but not $9.99 worth. .99 for the ebook meant to people there wasn't much to lose if it was bad so they bought it. Now she is a millionaire. Simple to understand really.
Anonymous says
I read about Amanda Hocking and she reminds me of this book my sister downloaded for free. She called me, I downloaded it and then I told several co-workers and so on. Nicky Charles is self-published and The Mating is one of the best books I have read in over a month hands down. I just wish she would do it in print because I like to hold my books. My point is that there are alot of great writers out there and only so many slots available for printing. I cheer the really great books by commercial publishing and self-publishing. If the book is good, the word gets around. Free or low priced, quality is quality.
J. T. Shea says
33,000 words, people! Nathan and we 200 or so commenters have written half a book. Not the most comments on a Nathan post by any means, but this must be one of the highest wordages.
I may have finally reached the end of the Long Tail.
Anonymous says
So is Jacob Wonderbar going to be available as an E-book?
If the answer is no… then somebody please shoot Nathan for me.
(Huh? You've got to be kidding me? I go to publish this comment anonymously, as is my right to do so, and what do I discover – only that I have to enter a word verification in order to do so. And what's the word verification? It's this: "Gotoamzaonandpreorderjacobwonderbarandthecosmicspacekapow." Yeah, whatever.)
Such a type-A. Such a type-A.
J. T. Shea says
Anonymous 8:01 pm, you spoiled my solitary Long Tail's End Party! Now I have to comment again.
Be careful trying to shoot Nathan. He could belong to the MG Mafia, who make the YA Mafia look like school kids.
Now, I'm going to shoot the next commenter.
Fawn Neun says
I've met Joe Konrath, he's saavy and works his butt off. He's also incredibly prolific. None of these hurt his ability to make a profit.
But even with the support of a publisher, the onus on the author to promote is pretty heavy. Writing, editing, designing, distribution AND promotion – well, that's an overwhelming amount of work.
Self-pubbing is fabulous for backlist. And Amazon is supposed to be coming up with a new program for digital shorts. Once they're published elsewhere (or even if they aren't), that's going to be a great market for people who love shorts.
Rita says
According to the Kindle information sheet, authors receive only 35% of revenue. What does the author of the article know that mere mortals do not?
J. T. Shea says
Looks like I haven't reached the Long Tail's End after all. Maybe it's back home in Kansas, Toto.
BTW, it's been St. Patrick's Day for an hour and half here in Ireland. Best wishes to all!