Thank you so much to everyone who weighed in on yesterday’s post about Amanda Hocking and the e-book self-publishing success stories!! It was a fascinating discussion, and I’m going to call out a few of my favorite comments in a second.
But first, I wanted to clarify a few things from the post.
– As Amanda Hocking pointed out to me via Twitter, I actually have read her work. When I was an agent I requested a full manuscript for Switched. I ended up passing, but suggested some changes (which she took and was super-gracious about yesterday, as is her wont). I had thought this was the case, but since I don’t have access to my old e-mail I wasn’t able to confirm. Well: confirmed!
– Some people were asking about the $1.50 figure for print and distribution. I was going off of my (possibly hazy) memory for that one, and it may be a tad on the low side for your average hardcover, though it may be in the ballpark for one with a very high print run. Back when they were blogging, HarperStudio pegged the average amount around $2.00 and Mike Shatzkin recently posted about how per-unit cost will inexorably go up as print runs fall.
But the general point remains: whether it’s $1.50 or $3.00, in the grand scheme of things losing paper/shipping isn’t saving publishers a boatload of cash when we’re talking $24.99 vs. $9.99.
Now then! Here is some more awesome food for thought from the comments section about what the self-publishing upstarts mean for the future of publishing:
I’m prognosticating that it’s not Nora Roberts and James Patterson who will consider leaving traditional publishing first. They have so much penetration into the print market, with their books in every corner grocery store, that it won’t make any sense.
It’s the midlist mass market authors who have the most to gain from this. Because, see, that 25-30% figure of print–that varies per author. For Nora, it’s probably closer to 5% (guessing), just because she is EVERYWHERE.
But for your midlist author who is no longer being carried in Walmart because Walmart halved their book section? The author who used to be in Target, but isn’t anymore because Target’s shifted more to trade paperbacks? The midlist author whose books may disappear from Borders? The midlist author who isn’t in the grocery store or the pharmacy?
For that author, electronic sales might end up close to 50-60% of her sales. For some authors, that point has already come. For others, it’ll be here in a few years.
If you get $1.40 from your publisher selling your e-book at 25% of agency net, and you get $1.99 selling your e-book yourself at $2.99, assuming that you sell as many copies of your book at $2.99 as at $7.99, you make more in royalties when e-books make up 53% of the market.
Of course, you may sell fewer copies because you don’t have a NY house behind you. And you may sell more, because your book is $5 cheaper.
Of course, you’ll have more expenses (like editing and covers). But you’ll also save on some of the money you spend on print promotion.
When USA Today Bestselling author Julianna Maclean/E.V. Mitchell announces that she has made more on her self-published book than she makes on a print book, print publishing is in very real danger of losing its midlist.
So, no. I don’t imagine that Nora Roberts will walk. What I do wonder is… Where is the next Nora Roberts going to come from?
I think the big problem with traditional publishing is they seem dead-set on making themselves irrelevant. You get several things with traditional publishers that are difficult to get self-publishing:
1) Professional editing
2) Placement on brick-and-mortar store shelves
3) Marketing
4) An advance
5) Cover design (art and copy) and layout
6) Stamp of approvalWell, more and more we’re being told that publishers don’t have time to edit books. We have to self-edit before sending them in.
Brick-and-mortar stores are going away.
The marketing budget of a book basically goes entirely into store placement (and maybe not for *your* book). Authors have been taking an increasing role in marketing for years and years—and it’s getting worse.
Advances are getting smaller and smaller.
It’s basically coming down to cover, layout, and that stamp of approval.
Cover and layout I can take care of if I need to. It won’t be as good as a publishing team, but they mess up sometimes, too. I’ll at least control the process.
I think it’s still worth it to go traditional—though having never been through it, I can’t say for sure—but it’s rapidly becoming a bad deal for authors who are not automatic best-sellers. The amount of work looks the same to me: I have to market my book single-handedly no matter what.
I think there is another perception to take into account as well- most authors currently perceive being published traditionally as providing the validation that self-publishing does not yet offer. However, as more authors head out west into the self-publishing unknown and strike it rich, the perception of self-publishing as a ‘last resort’ is going to wear away.
What I think all this means is that everything is going to shake up and shake out in the next couple of years. When I hear stories about the big publishers trying to nickle and dime libraries (of all buyers!) and holding out e-book releases for more hard back sales, I get the mental picture of a bunch of old dudes sitting around great marble tables clutching at piles of money ala Scrooge McDuck and bemoaning all those “meddling self-publishing upstarts.”
I think these old publishing dudes are going to have to start injecting some Apple innovation and imagination into their business images. Part of the reason consumers love buying Apple products when they could be paying lots less and why so many love Google is because of the inspired and creative image these businesses project.
“We are always changing and thinking up new ideas” seems to be the motto of the current beloved brands. Consumers want this and I think the image of the moneymongering old publishing dudes holding onto the old ways is going to have to give way to something young and new and embracing of technology and change. Right now it seems like everyone else is changing the publishing field with new gadgets, applications, and ideas and publishers are being dragged along by their dentures. I wonder how much better it might be for them if they took control of the innovations and forced distributors (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, self-publishing authors) to chase after them instead?
(UPDATE: By request) Elizabeth C. Mock:
I’m a self-published author at the beginning of my career and I decided to self-publish right out the gate. I never searched for an agent or a publisher. It wasn’t necessarily because of the money I thought I could make, but because I have some friends in the industry and I know how much of getting published has to do with luck and timing. I just wanted to be able to share my story. I didn’t really care how. Less than a year ago, I published my debut novel (the first in a trilogy) and last month I breached 100,000 downloads/sales. My decision to self-publish had everything to do with wanting to publish on my terms. I don’t mean that to sound petulant in any way nor do I mean to demean traditional publishing in any way. I just love my day job and want the freedom that self-publishing affords me. I definitely agree with the sentiments that have already been voiced. I know a lot of self-published authors who have only sold a hundred or so copies of their books. I really think that with this low-priced e-book movement we’re seeing market forces determining the success of the self-published authors. People want good stories and if a story resonates with people, then it will sell regardless of its origins in traditional publishing or self-publishing. If a story isn’t good, it won’t sell. I will freely admit that it is a lot of work and requires the backing of a lot of good people to put out a good product with self-publishing. Though the name is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion. I just know that I have been extremely happy with my results and look forward to see what my sales look like this summer when I release book two in the series. I think when weighing self-publishing and traditional publishing what a person needs to ask is what their priorities are in telling their stories. I think both venues have strengths and weaknesses and that while Hocking’s story is not the norm, the potential is out there. As with any entrepreneurial venture, however, you have to be prepared to put in the long hours to reap the potential benefits.
Any more thoughts on these comments and where the future is headed?
Matthew Rush says
This is utterly fascinating. A little bit scary too, for those of use who are relatively new to the game, but still very interesting.
I find it incredible that Amanda became a millionaire off of $0.99 e-books. That would mean she would have had to sell more than a million copies. I wasn't aware that ANY book sold that well. Even if you count the $2.99 e-books, that's still a minimum of 333,000 sales.
Nothing short of amazing.
Sierra McConnell says
The more I read about self-publishing vs. traditional, the more I think I'll just write for fun and post it on a blog…
Because traditional publishers do sound like a bunch of stick in the mud jerks who have made their money, don't want anyone else to have any of it, and are beating away everyone who has a dream of telling their stories. They have lost the magic of why they got their in the first place and become greedy old cynics.
There is no room for business in art. And that's the problem.
author Scott Nicholson says
Anon of the six "advantages" offered by traditional publishing. There is actually only one, and it is rapidly becoming moot–presence on bookstore shelves.
Advance? No, you get paid by Amazon and BN LONG before a publisher's check would ever arrive, so if you consider the advance getting as "Getting paid beginning in two months," then ADVANTAGE: Self-pub.
Marketing? NY taught us for more than a decade to be our own marketers. We're better at it than they are, and we know our audience better All they have is somebody else's money.
Stamp of Approval? Nathan just admitted he (and many others) passed on Amanda Hocking. Millions of readers think otherwise. Whose stamp would you rather have?
I was traditionally published, but for the first time in my life I am a full-time professional fiction writer. I was one of those lucky midlist writers who scrambled when the getting was good, and luckily I had a stack of books that no industry professionals could be bothered to read but readers seem to find quite acceptable, and that's plenty enough for me.
Regarding pricing, it doesn't matter a bit what publishers or authors would wish it to be. Readers took control of this long ago and this is just a blip–in two years this current era will be as distant as 2009.
Scott Nicholson
https://hauntedcomputer.com
Josin L. McQuein says
One thing I've wondered about with Kindle especially is, since the content is completely controlled by the person doing the uploading, if someone could take say 3 chapters or 75 pages or whatever they chose as a good-sized sample, put it up as a free download and then, if the demand is high enough, put the full book up as a $.99 or $2.99 download a couple of months later.
It seems like that would build an audience of people who have nothing to lose by trying the excerpt for free and might find themselves a new author to follow.
You can't do that with a commercial publisher, but it might make up for the gap in advanced word-of-mouth that commercial publishers can generate with things like reviews.
I can see a lot of people toeing the water with trunk manuscripts under pennames to see if things work out for them or not.
Monica-Marie Holtkamp says
While I see the e-publishing business booming like cell phones had once upon a time, I also see that print copies will more or less likely NOT go out of style. Why you might ask? Simple. There are many many authors out there that can't see publishing with a self-publisher due to marketing issues. While I'm not published (I am actively seeking it.) I've been told time and time again that marketing will fall ultimately on MY shoulders. Granted, I don't mind that per se, but if you don't have the "resources" to self-market, then there's just no point in trying to go that route. Yes, social media has stepped up our outreach as nothing else could have, but you still have to be able to "rub shoulders" with the "right" people to get your product out there.
There is also the people that someoe else had mentioned, those people that ARE best-sellers that have their books in every brick and mortar store from bookstores to the grocery store check out. They are doing quite well exactly where they are, why would they change this?
Personally, I think that it will be the authors themselves that hinder e-sales. If you can get more from traditional publishing, why not hold out for it? Yes, there will probably be a ton of authors willing to go that self publishing route & I wish them all the best, but since someone like myself can't bank on being able to sell her own work, well forgive me while I hold out for that traditional publishing. Now, except when I'm writing I'm not an uber creative person, so I'm thinking that there are quite a few authors out there that feel the same way.
Hopefully there will be a way to have both venues co-exist happily with each other and not have that rivalry that's famous in our armed forces. All in all we'll be working for the same people, the readers.
Heidi C. Vlach says
Sommer's "old dudes dragged along by their dentures" impression rings true for me, anyway. I started querying about five years ago, and I found it strange that so few agents and publishing houses accepted electronic queries. Some of them didn't even have a website or an email address. Seriously, I thought? You'd rather stick with pieces of paper that will take days to physically deliver than make use of technology? It definitely made me wonder what the heck traditional publishing is thinking. If that industry is so slow to adopt new advances, I can see why the current market might seem like the end of days.
Neil Vogler says
Following up on a comment I saw yesterday, I too am waiting for a high-profile agent to wade into the self e-publishing market and make a huge splash with an author that has produced something that the traditional publishing houses believe they can't sell.
It may be that self e-publishing eventually becomes the "second marketplace" when the primary marketplace passes on the manuscript. This theoretical agent, perhaps working now with a slightly different agreement in place with the author (let's say, a percentage of net profits for argument's sake), goes to work with a niche team of e-marketers — or goes to work themselves, if skilled enough — to publish the ebook and get eyeballs upon it and ebook users clicking "buy". The economics will be wildly different in the second marketplace, but if the agent believes the book is good enough to sell, then theoretically it could be worth the effort.
It would only take one or two high-profile agent/writer success stories to change the whole landscape of the market — wouldn't it?
The tough nut to crack would remain the same, however: how do you market your book effectively without the support of major publishing houses?
Perhaps writer/agent/niche promoter teamups operating in the second marketplace are one possible future?
Kathryn Packer Roberts says
Good points being made. I especially like the idea that Publishers should be the ones coming up with new gimmicks to have Amazon etc. chase after them. I'm not sure they 'have time' (if they already don't have time to edit), but it would make more sense.
crow productions says
It seems to open up the possibilities especially when someone like me is looking to find an agent. With every reject letter comes the realization of what a silly frivolous pursuit it must be. All the snarky snobbish ego destroying agents are telling me I suck. Yeah, I could see why we would turn to self publishing. It's just that no matter how hard they knock me down, I still believe in my story.
bowenwriter says
I have written two novels. I sent query letters, partial manuscripts and full manuscripts to many, MANY people. Only once out of those times did I get anything more than a form rejection letter and that one time led to a three month wait to say the book wasn't good enough.
So, I decided to start my own marketing. I use Lulu.com for my books and they have info on their site for electronic publishing. My books can now be found on Kindle, Nook, iPad and in eBook format.
I have sold a few hundred books so far and I am beginning to think that publishers won't really help me anyway. I have enlisted the help of a few editors who have agreed to provide their services for a percentage of the total sales up to a certain amount.
As for providing a "free" sample, it is easy to do this on Kindle. Anyone can read the first chapter of my books at no charge. I also allow the book to be "shared" once. This means that you can transfer it to one other Kindle for free. I charge 9.99 and have had readers say they would pay 9.99 every time, rather than pay 20 or more. Storage of previously read books can be an issue for someone who reads a lot.
Next, I suggest donating books to libraries. It is a good way to get your name out there in your community and I had three libraries do a display that included my books. I think of it as an investment that could lead to better sales in the future.
Finally, write because you love to write. Don't sit on new ideas because you haven't 'sold' your first book. Keep writing, practice makes perfect.
-Shane Bowen
Megg Jensen says
I find it interesting to watch the traditional publishing community debate over the validity of e-pubbing when some of us have already taken the leap and gained a foothold.
I released my book, Anathema, less than a month ago. I've already hit the top 100 on the teen list for Barnes & Noble's PubIt! list (features more than 2,000 books, by the way).
I didn't give up on traditional publishing, I simply chose a different path. I don't hate agents. In fact, I'd still love to nab one who can handle audio, foreign, and movie rights.
In the last three weeks, I've gained 100 FB fans, more than 300 people have marked my book as To Read on Goodreads, and my blog is gaining followers too. Doesn't sound like much to you? Considering I had zero followers at the beginning of February, I'm happy.
It's not about taking down the established publishers. I like to think of it as blazing a new path to readers. I'm not a traitor, a cheater, or a loser (yes, I've been called all three by traditionally published authors). I am simply a writer choosing to try something new.
Will I ever be a millionaire? Don't know. My goal is to make readers happy and so far, I feel I've done that. I hope I can continue to do so. 😀
Megg Jensen
http://www.meggjensen.com
K.L. Brady says
I originally self-published my novel, and a publisher acquired it in a two-book deal. I can see the pluses and minuses from both sides. On the plus side for the major houses, not having to worry about the book cover, editing, distribution, etc., I could actually spend a lot more time writing. Since signing my contract with my publisher I’ve written two books and two screenplays. That’s huge for me. I know I couldn’t have done it otherwise. On the negative side, the traditional side much slower in terms of getting your work out. I feel like I’ve lost a lot of momentum since pulling my novel off the market and it’s A LOT of work trying to build that back up. Moreover, I have two additional books that could be on the market right now that are just collecting dust until I’m told what their fate will be. As a self published author, they’d be on the street right now. No question. Of course, as a self-published author, I might not have finished both novels either. Catch 22.
My main reason for going with my publisher was distribution. I felt like I had a chance to reach a broader audience with a traditional publisher. My book is due out in 21 days, so soon I’ll see whether, in this market, my perceived benefit meshes up with the actual benefit.
One thing I know for certain is that I have choices. My writing career is not dependent whether an editor falls in love with my literary brilliance (ha ha). If I hit a dead end on the traditional publishing route, I will not hesitate for a second to go back to indie publishing.
As a matter of fact, I have a YA novel that didn’t get picked up that I will soon put out myself because I love the story. In this day and age, there’s no reason to let your work collect dust. If you believe in it, put it out there and let the audience decide.
Mr. D says
Never was interested in self-publishing. I promised myself I would never spend a dime to get published. And I'm glad I will be able to keep that promise.
Anonymous says
For everyone imagining publishers as old dudes counting their money… you may want to revise your vision to young women working long hours and making low salaries. All the publishing folks I know feel lucky to be doing what they love, but they're definitely not cigar-smoking villains.
I think Amanda Hocking's post on this was incredibly gracious and bang on — it doesn't have to be self-publishers vs. traditional publishers. There's room for both.
Ted says
Whether you self-publish, or go with traditional publishing, step one remains the same: write a really good book. The issue is being able to identify, in a very subjective arena, what a good book is, and who is the filter to manage the slush pile. Once, it was the publisher, but at some point, they outsourced it to the agents. Now, ereaders are moving that to the general public. One future may be that ebooks become something of a proving ground, and traditional publishers will offer print runs of books doing well in electronic format. What better predictor could traditional publishing have that a book will sell, which is clearly their main concern, than the fact it is already selling well in e-format.
Henri says
I read a lot of yesterdays blogs, something I rarely do at this site. This topic is very hot right now, for 2011 may well turn out to be the year that the e-book market takes off. Even Andy Rooney was talking about e-publishing on the CBS program 60 minutes.
D.G. Hudson says
The discussion yesterday was enlightening, reading the comments from those who have self-published. I think self-pub is starting to lose it's bugaboo image.
In time, we may even rise above the 'caste system' that now exists by which many judge your book's success (trad or self-pub?).
I think there's room for both, and self-pub seems to be a good testing ground if one wants to test the waters (as Josie mentioned).
I'm concerned though that quality isn't always an issue. Teens & YA just want to read about people their age, and most don't care about grammar or typos. This could set a bad precedent for future writers. Is accepting 'lesser-than' quality another knife in the literary heart of writing?
Anonymous says
I have a feeling there's going to be an explosion of self-published books in the next year that might even surpass flipping houses.
Jeff says
I posted my reply to this on my blog yesterday. Your math is fundamentally flawed because post-scarcity goods like ebooks don't conform to supply&demand economic theory.
https://www.jeffkirvin.net/2011/03/ebooks-and-the-post-scarcity-economy/
Carolyn says
As of today, it's been 17 days since I put one of my recently reverted backlist titles on Kindle (and elsewhere). I'm about to break $1000 in royalties just from Amazon. In 17 days.
I have 4 more reverted titles to get out there.
L.C. Gant says
I love the dialogue on this topice. Both of the Anon comments you posted brought up some fascinating points.
Personally I think the traditional vs. self-pub debate can only mean good things for authors, regardless of who wins in the long run. As self-pubbing grows more popular, traditional publishers will have no choice but to find new ways to stay relevant for writers (i.e., offering higher advances, better marketing, etc.) or risk going the way of the dodo bird.
By the same token, if self-pubbing continues to produce higher-quality work and more success for new and midlist writers, we'll see more and more authors getting their shot at the limelight with (potentially) bigger paychecks. Either way, I'm one happy camper. No complaints from me!
Dan says
Bookstore distribution is the primary advantage of commercial publication. There's almost no amount of hustling a self-published author can do to get a book on the shelf of a Barnes and Noble 3 states away. Independent booksellers are also a huge segment of book sales, and possibly the centerpiece of marketing efforts if your book is the kind of book that independent booksellers would hand-sell to people.
Publishers have the institutional knowledge to get books placed in these stores nationwide, and that capability is extremely valuable as long as bookstores sell most books. That's why you haven't seen an author like a James Patterson break off from a publisher.
If bookstores are on their way out, the publishing model as it exists is going to have to transform radically as well. I don't think it's necessarily going to put power in the hands of writers, either. Publishers are right to be concerned that these cheap e-books are undermining the idea that stories have value, and we're going to see repercussions of that.
The $2.99 price point is possible because of Amazon's 70% royalty, which is the lever Amazon is using to convince authors who might pursue real publication to sell the cheap e-books that are driving Kindle sales. But once $2.99 is established as the value of the book, that perception will be much harder to strip away than the 70% royalty, which Amazon may reconsider once it has weakened its competitors.
The Internet "democratizes" publishing by offering ways for people who could not get published commercially to give their writing away for free or near-free. As we've seen in the newspaper and music industries, the internet creates a few opportunities for a few people to break through from the margins to the mass audience, but what it does for most people is erode the perception of value.
McKenzie McCann says
Thanks for posting the average royalty rates. As an agentless author, that was very helpful. I read her post on the matter too, and there was something oddly elating about her saying agents and editiors don't really know what is going to sell. Next time I find myself shaking my fist at the sky going "why editors? WHY?" I can remember that statement.
Munk says
A digression…
Referencing your current read–Into the Wild is awesome. Krakauer's internal dialog while hanging from the Devil's Thumb is pitch perfect.
Shauna Granger says
Dude, Nathan, how did you not bring up the comment from the woman who's approaching her 100,000 e-book self-pub sale?
Jackie Barbosa says
Despite what many authors (especially the as-yet unpublished) would like to believe, all good books don’t find a home in traditional publishing. I’m sure Nathan can attest to having tried and failed to sell books he thought were terrific. In fact, for every book that was deemed “good enough” to publish, I’d bet there are two or three others that are just as good and yet are languishing on the authors’ 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, midlist 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 your print runs are in the 20-30k range, pretty typical now for midlist mmpbs from what I hear), 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 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.
Julianne MacLean says
Hi Nathan – I enjoyed your post yesterday and today, and yes – I'm making more money on my self-published book than what I make on my traditionally published books.
After 3 weeks, I have already earned double the advance I receive on a contracted book (which is paid out in thirds, over a period of a year and a half, vs the check that will come from Amazon in its entirety in 60 days). And at this rate, by the time I recieve that check, it will likely be five times my normal advance.
While this is all very exciting, and I love Amazon's royalty rate and the opportunities they are providing for authors, I certainly don't want to see the publishers disappear, because if Amazon becomes the only game in town, that would not be good for authors. I really hope the publishers can remain viable and compete for the author's work, and that B&N remains a strong competitor with their Nook, and Apple works everything out so that there are options for readers and authors alike. Competition is good for everyone.
Avon/HarperCollins announced yesterday a new digital line called Impulse, which will not pay an advance but will pay a higher royalty rate on books sold (50% after 10K copies, which is an improvement over the usual 25% rate). I think this is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad to see them making changes. It's not perfect, but at least it's progress.
Anonymous says
I've got nothing against epublishing and self-publishing, but am worried about the growing attitude that simply writing a book entitles one to publishing success.
Someone above commented that no one cares about art anymore. Can't the same be said about authors who spend more time talking about marketing and networking than character arc?
Jackie Barbosa says
Julianne MacLean wrote: Avon/HarperCollins announced yesterday a new digital line called Impulse, which will not pay an advance but will pay a higher royalty rate on books sold (50% after 10K copies, which is an improvement over the usual 25% rate).
That royalty rate is a little misleading, though. It's 25% or 50% of NET, not list, which works out to a "real" royalty rate of somewhere between 12.5%-17.5% and 25%-35%. Not what I'd call a smashing deal for the author, although it certainly does offer a platform for a new author with the Avon "cachet", and that might be worth something.
Zoe Faulder says
I know this is one point out of many but I'm very surprised at the comment about publishers not having time to edit. We take editorial very seriously and strive for the highest quality book possible.
Personally I don't see eBooks shouldering physical books out of the market entirely. There will be a lot of change in the way things are done – no doubt – but books and book stores may still be a factor when authors are looking to be published.
Nathan Bransford says
Jeff-
I agree that e-books from major publishers aren't yet priced on e-book economics. As I said in the post, they're focused now on not letting prices erode in part because print is more profitable. You're right that you don't have to make as much of a profit on e-books per copy because there's no scarcity. But what my post hopefully illustrates is that publishers have a lot of costs that go into a book irrespective of paper and distribution. The price at which they can make a profit per copy probably isn't as high as $10.99, but it's not $2.99 either.
It's like that economics joke about taking a bit of a loss on every copy and making it up on volume.
Nathan Bransford says
Shauna-
Thanks for the suggestion, added that one.
Jackie Barbosa says
I know this is one point out of many but I'm very surprised at the comment about publishers not having time to edit.
I suspect this was directed at me. However, my experience with traditional publishers (and that of many of my traditionally published friends) has been that all CONTENT revisions occurred either prior to sale or were made not at the editors' request, but due to input from critique partners or our own sense about what parts of the book weren't working. We all had a round of copy edits and a final galley, but I have been edited "harder" in terms of content by my small digital press than by any traditional print publisher I've worked with.
I genuinely feel that editors at most print houses won't OFFER contracts to books that they feel have any significant flaws. Why would they? That's not to imply sloth or meanness, but rather to say that given the range of books they have to choose from, it makes more sense to publish the books that require the least amount of work. Unless there's some hint of "blockbuster" in the core of the story that trumps the other issues with the book, I have a hard time imagining editors/publishing houses offering a contract on a book they consider to be significantly flawed, especially since I've received plenty of rejections for books that were praised as well-written, but simply not "marketable" enough.
Eric Christopherson says
I recently had an exchange with Shatzkin in the comments section of his blog in which I suggested that before long the Big Six would only be publishing big books, i.e., 7 figure deals and such, because it's only there that a barrier to entry exists and the Big Six would only compete with each other. They'd also cherry pick the best sellers from among the self-pubbed ebooks and offer to distribute for a cut. They'd take after the big movie studios, in other words. Shatzkin did not disagree, but cautioned vaguely that the Big Six are not without weapons. Well, they better whip 'em out fairly quickly here, whatever they are.
ICQB says
I have some self-published ebooks out there, but I'm not breaking records in sales yet. The process takes time.
It's hard work building a platform and making your name and your books known. Very hard work, and it's all the harder when you're on the shy side.
For everyone out there who is considering self-publishing, realize that you will spend HOURS each day with your bum in a chair trolling for reviews and smoozing all over the internet.
If everything you do clicks, then your book may sell well. But you need a solid presence.
Going 'indie' obviously works for some people. Just make sure you're able to put in the work that it takes to get there. I'm still working on my presence and platform. Success doesn't come overnight.
Kim says
It's as if with self publishing, authors start with 100% royalty and contract some of it to the online distributor they choose. What if editors and agents, cover designers and marketers were willing to work with similar contracts with the author, each earning a percentage per book sold. Then everyone would make money directly connected to book sales. Wouldn't everyone involved work harder to sell more books? I know there's only so many ways to divide 99 cents, but if you have a team working together to sell more, it might work.
Jackie Barbosa says
Traditional publishers do have a lot to offer in terms of helping a new author to build a following. The fact that the books is published by a major house gives most readers some confidence that the book has been vetted and is "good". This, in turn, makes it easier to market and sell when the author is as-yet an unknown quantity. Starting as an indie and "breaking out", though entirely possible (in addition to Hocking, there's HP Mallory, who just signed a 6-figure deal with Random House after failing to sell the exact same series to NY through an agent just a few years ago), is undoubtedly harder than starting in traditional publishing and then taking your audience with you to indie.
My prediction for where traditional publishers will go is as follows:
– Advances and digital royalty rates for the reliable bestselling authors will go up. The last thing publishers want is for their moneymaking authors to jump ship when their print:digital sales ratio start to tilt consistently in favor of digital (and they will).
– As Eric Christopherson predicts above, publishers will court bestselling indie authors (again, already happening) and try to woo them into the traditional publishing fold with contract terms similar to the bestselling authors. What remains to be seen is whether their audiences will follow them to higher-priced traditional formats. I suspect some of these will be reasonably successful, but an equal number will be spectacular flops.
– Midlist authors will either fail to be recontracted or jump ship of their own volition. We're already seeing it. For example, Bella Andre *chose* to self-publish her most recent book rather than to sell it to NY at what she and her agent saw as less than favorable terms.
– Debut authors will receive rawer and rawer deals. Publishers cannot do without new authors, even if they slash the number of books they are printing. But they will not be willing to pay much for those new authors, because 1) a fair proportion of those authors will take even the most appallingly bad terms because they want the legitimacy and credibility of being published by a "real" publisher and 2) the publishers will know that a significant number of those authors will "use" them to build an audience and then leave to self-publish. (By the way, I expect many publishers will start adding clauses to their bolerplate contracts that specifically prevent the author from self-publishing under the same pen name or from self-publishing at all for some period of time after the last book in the contract is released.)
In other words, I see this whole publishing revolution as a mixed bag for both authors and publishers. As always, some will do much better than otheers. But publishing has always picked its winners and losers in a manner that seems capricious and unfair.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
lotusgirl says
Great comments. What an interesting discussion.
YoungMasterCK says
"but am worried about the growing attitude that simply writing a book entitles one to publishing success. "
@anon
What other criteria should be used, other than writing a popular book? Notice I didn't say "good book", I said "popular book". That is and should be the ONLY criteria for publishing success or any mass media.
Mark Terry says
One of the things that doesn't get discussed too much is the reality of traditional print publication the majority of writers. The figure that often gets bandied about is that the average first novel advance is $5000. Assuming that's true (and I'm somewhat unconvinced), you have to realize that when you have some first novel advances that are 5 and 6-figures and the AVERAGE is $5000, then there are an awful lot of novelists who are getting $1000, $2000, $3000 advance–or less. And their books don't sell through and their agent takes 15% and you spend 30% of what's left on taxes and then you're supposed to maintain and support a website, travel to conferences and/or booksignings and do other types of marketing.
And I'm afraid that this describes MANY, MANY, authors. Many who you may have assumed were actually making big bucks.
So they look at e-books and think, "Hmmm, I can get cover art done for $100 to $250, and pay someone to do really nice layout for $150 or less, and I can e-publish, sell the book for $2.99 and get a $2.00 royalty."
Since the author was only getting $1000 or so, how many e-books do they have to sell to make that much money? 500. And they get the money every month and they really don't have to do much if any marketing. And although they probably won't sell 500 copies right away, it's quite likely they'll make at least that much money in the course of a year or two and continue making money. And every time they e-self-publish another book sales increases a little bit, generally speaking.
No, it's not the same story as JA Konrath and Amanda Hocking, but it becomes a fairly persuasive argument if you're on the bottom end of publishing's bell curve to take a hard look at your options.
Allen Appel says
I'm an author who has published 12 books in paper editions. My agent has two novels that over the last several years he has been unable to sell, so a few days ago I put one of them up as a Kindle edition. It will be interesting to see what will happen, though I'm sure it will be nothing like Konrath and Amanda. I'll be blogging about this process as it goes along on my Thriller Guy blog, https://thethrillerguy.blogspot.com. I am also blogging about a young writer I helped with editing and marketing to an agent; last week his first novel sold for one million dollars. So it still happens. The writer's dream is still alive.
Gisele says
Josin L. McQuein said…
"One thing I've wondered about with Kindle especially is, since the content is completely controlled by the person doing the uploading, if someone could take say 3 chapters or 75 pages or whatever they chose as a good-sized sample, put it up as a free download and then, if the demand is high enough, put the full book up as a $.99 or $2.99 download a couple of months later."
Josin, perhaps you are a little unfamiliar with eBooks. Take a closer look at the Kindle store on Amazon or; the Nook store on B&N and you will notice that ALL eBooks already have a free downloadable sample available.
eBook readers are already used to downloading a sample of the book and if they like it they will purchase the book as a whole. So it's necessary to have the sample and the book available at the same time and not, as you mentioned, available a "couple of months down the road." Otherwise, you'd loose the sale…
I suggest you take a look at one of the eBook samples to get an idea of how it all works. You can download eBook samples to your computer if you don't have an ereader.
Also, while I have your attention, I'd like to suggest you take a look at the book pitch for "Run" by Blake Crouch. Something about it sounds very familiar to me. I have a feeling you'd agree…
https://www.amazon.com/Run-ebook/dp/B004PGNF0W/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299608034&sr=1-5
Mira says
Great – really great – discussion – and I'm glad you continued it to today. And I thought the comments you selected were just terrific and made great points.
It's totally fun to be involved in such an intelligent and complicated debate.
Sadly, I think I have nothing more to contibute, everyone is pretty much saying what I would say….
Well….I guess I will say one more thing. This is totally out of left field, but it's something I've wondered from the beginning.
A long time ago, Marilyn posted a whole list of who owned publishing. The REAL owners. The BIGGIES. And when I see how slowly publishing is moving to deal with this – so slowly they are hurting their image, like Sommer says…..
I sort of interpret today's post, Nathan, as your attempt to bash publishers over the head with a club to get them to wake up. I could be wrong with that interpretation, but that's what I see, and then I wonder if even that will work.
Here's my out of left field thought – I wonder if the people who REALLY own print publishing care about saving it. Publishing is such a small drop in the bucket for them, and they have their fingers in so many pies. Maybe they just want to squeeze as much money as they can out of it before it goes.
Frankly, I can sort of see it. I suppose the big publishers do have some good weapons, but they aren't using them. Why not??
Yes, publishing is slow as molasses, but if the powers that OWNED publishing really wanted to light a fire, they could. There is no question about that. They didn't earn multi-zillion dollar mega-corporations by sitting around and crossing their fingers.
I just wonder if they care.
Anyway, just a thought. Thank you so much, Nathan, for hosting this dicussion and letting people like me share their sort of off-the-wall thoughts! It's so interesting!
Gisele says
Sorry the link isn't working but look for the book on Amazon.
Mira says
Oh – quickly –
Who owns Amazon? Who owns Barnes and Noble? Who has stock in Apple?
Do the people who REALLY own print publishing also own some of e-publishing?
Just another thought.
JaysonC says
Having been on the long and winding that is my novels first draft I realized something. I think only a handful of people have enough serious dedication to make being an author i.e. to make enough money at it to never work again and dedicate them selves solely to their chosen craft.
Having written that, I don't think money is the issue here, it's prestige. Personally, I would choose to go through a traditional publisher because of well, the tradition. Brad Bird who directed The Incredibles said this at his first day at Pixar.
"Pain is temporary, animation is forever"
I think that quote also applies to publishing in that money comes and goes but your words remain till the end.
Anonymous says
I looked over at Amanda's blog and saw that she has published nine books so far. That's roughly 110,000. a book. That sounds more reasonable and also still above and beyond most self-pub expectations (so far).
One thing for sure, in this economy, I can't buy the more expensive books, for myself or my daughter (who just got an off-brand e-reader and is eager to acquire e-books for it), so at this time, I am looking through,perusing, the unknowns in the more affordable waters.
This is the MOST hope I have had for myself as a writer. Just losing the stigma of self-pub as necessarily the stamp of the amateur is a huge liberation.
So I am cautiously optimistic. I still strongly believe that most self-pub writers will have to go the way of a pro-team (editing, layout,cover and advice) to avoid that above classification, but God, there are writers in the water saying" "come on in!"
Stuart Clark says
It seems funny to me now that writers forum boards a couple of years ago all seemed to be warning people off from self-publishing citing there was a certain stigma that came with it. It seems that Konrath and Hocking have well and truly buried that stigma. But whereas Konrath used his platform as a traditionally published author to then go it alone, Hocking seems to be an altogether different story and a case in point.
I think Hocking's success is more of a commentary on technology use than it is about ebooks. I think we will hear other success stories like hers and here's why…
I think popular thought is that traditional publishing offers some degree of "gatekeeping" ie, only good books make it into print – I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but I think the general feeling is that if you buy a book that's been traditionally published you're going to get a "good" end product – whether or not it's a good book is a matter of taste, but you will know that it's been well edited, proofed, given a decent cover and put together nicely.
However, with self publishing you never know what you are going to get and with anyone and everyone able to self publish a book, I think it's safe to say that very few of them are going to be really good. So how do you find that diamond in the rough? Same way that you always have – word of mouth, although these days word of mouth has become word on the net. Whilst both of these can snowball and grow exponentially, word on the net is infinitely more powerful than simple word of mouth because it reaches so many more people in such a short period of time. The difference with ebooks is, if someone says this is a gem and it has an extremely low price, it's easier just to go buy it than wade through mountains of other, unknown work. It's for this reason that successful ebooks/series will literally explode on the web because people will want a recommendation instead of having to go look for something.
Like it or not, columns like yours also spread the word across the net. I had no idea who Amanda Hocking was until I read your posts but already I've looked her up on Amazon, read her reviews and sampled some pages. I'm not a sale, but I'm sure there are plenty of others who are willing to drop $2.99 just to give it a try.
Mira says
Nathan – fyi – your twitter links don't work.
But your Switched link does. I clicked on it and thought – "It looks fun, it's a buck, and I enjoy this genre". So I bought it, and I'm going to read it.
Cathryn Grant says
Someone above commented that no one cares about art anymore. Can't the same be said about authors who spend more time talking about marketing and networking than character arc? @anon
The industry changes over the past few years pushed authors into this situation, as it became commonly accepted that new authors bear most of the responsibility for marketing their work.
I expect most of the discussion around character arc goes on in critique groups and on writers' blogs devoted to craft.