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?
Jaysonc says
To add, is the debate between traditional and self publishing more about money and less about producing some of quality. I'm not necessarily saying that traditional publishers always put out the best work but I figure if one of them buys, prints and sells my book I must have done something right.
On the other hand, if an author goes the route of self publishing he or she is the sole judge of their work.
YoungMasterCK says
"On the other hand, if an author goes the route of self publishing he or she is the sole judge of their work."
@Jaysonc
Actually, in the Self Pub world the reader is the judge. And aren't they the best judge of what they want to read?
Jaysonc says
"YoungMasterCK said…
Actually, in the Self Pub world the reader is the judge. And aren't they the best judge of what they want to read?"
Let me clarify, what I meant to write was that in terms of someone seeing value in the work that is to be published. In other words if say Random House decides to publish your book then they are deeming it worthy on some level.
On the other hand if you self publish then you as the author are the only one judging it's worth. Neither perspective is a bad one and while ultimately it's up to the read to judge whether or not the work is good I still think that any new author needs the opinion of professionals and not just money.
Marilyn Peake says
I wrote a long post, but Blogger says it's too long to post, so I'm going to break it up into two posts. It's in response to Mira's comments (yaaay, Mira!), so I'll start with the quotes from Mira…
Mira said:
"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…"
and
"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."
Marilyn Peake says
Blogger still won't accept the second part of my post. I'm going to have to divide it into more posts.
Jayson says
Marilyn Peake,
I wouldn't necessarily categorize it as apathy or lack of caring about their industry but as we've seen in the last decade any sufficiently large industry is often slow to change.
I mean how slow to change has the music industry been since Napster or television since the advent of the DVR and Hollywood since high speed Internet.
Basically, I think eventually the publishing giants will change but the change will be slow and painful but they will change.
basically
Marilyn Peake says
PART 2 OF MY COMMENT:
Mira, I was so delighted and amazed that someone actually noticed and remembered something that I said, and something from a while back, too. Thank you! You just made my day! Sometimes, as most people on the internet probably feel about their own comments, I wonder if I’m just typing into a void where all my words remain invisible.
Marilyn Peake says
PART 3 OF MY COMMENT:
Mira, I totally agree with your assessment of how much the owners of publishing care about what happens to it. I think they (and by owners I mean the top owners, the true owners, not the managers or heads of subsidiaries) care as much about it as the owners of the big oil companies really care about oil. As you said about the publishing world, I think the same is true of the owners of big oil: "Maybe they just want to squeeze as much money as they can out of it before it goes." If wind power was as profitable as oil, right now, today, most of those companies would abandon oil in a heartbeat. I don’t think they’re staying with oil for the benefit of their customers or employees any more than the owners of tobacco did years ago.
Kristin Laughtin says
Thanks for publishing these comments, Nathan. So much can get lost in a stream of 50+ comments, but all of these commenters had excellent points to highlight. I still plan to pursue traditional publishing someday, but as I get older and life gets busier, I find myself just wanting to tell stories, so Elizabeth Mook's comment was of great interest to me. I was also struck by the comment about midlist authors switching more to e-distribution, because, let's face it, most of us will be lucky to become midlist authors someday, so this affects us. But the marketing dollars needed to produce the next Nora Roberts still will probably come from traditional publishers, so it's a tricky issue right now. Hmm, we'll have to see how it plays out. I find I am way more likely to try new authors if their books are more easily affordable, and imagine that quite a few will end up racking up a large volume of sales on Kindle or similar devices in this way.
Marilyn Peake says
PART 4 OF MY COMMENT:
Most of the really big publishing houses are owned by a handful of people. I’ve noticed recently that Pulitzer Prize winning journalists are beginning to map out and discuss who owns what and how these companies are now connected to our politicians and our news media, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake (a few years ago, I had talked about billions of dollars, now there are hundreds of billions of dollars involved).
However, most people ignore the Pulitzer Prize winning journalists as booooooring. The regular media news (owned by the billionaires) hints at these stories, but only briefly. Most cable news features political arguments and petty bickering between politicians, celebrity news (Oh my God, Charlie Sheen!), and enough frightening images of world events to keep us too frightened to think clearly or speak up.
I feel we’re living in the era of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Most of us have chosen to completely ignore the oligarchy taking control and ownership, and how much greater control one person can exert with hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal. We talk about the world as if this situation doesn’t exist, as if the heads of corporations aren’t pulling the strings. Maybe because most people don’t really believe that there are people who own hundreds of billions of dollars, or can’t really imagine what you could do with hundreds of billions of dollars, that you could actually buy news outlets that report things you don’t like people discussing. Most people can’t even imagine hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s like the Pulitzer Prize winning journalists are saying, "Hey, faeries are real and they’re in charge." To which people say, "Oh, yeah right." To most people, hundreds of billions of dollars don’t seem any more reality-based than faeries.
And to answer Nathan’s question about where the future is headed, I think that bubbles will keep arising in areas that the billionaires are not yet squeezing for profit. That’s when common people like Amanda Hocking can become millionaires. Once the billionaires buy out the companies making those bubbles possible, the bubbles burst. A recent example is The Huffington Post which burst onto the scene as an alternative to corporate-owned media. Recently, The Huffington Post was purchased by AOL for $315 million. Now, AOL is not a single entity. It has merged with Time Warner, a merger that involved a $163 billion company merging with a $120 billion company. Time Warner owns 292 other companies, including CNN and Little Brown, publishers, and has joint ventures with some companies, including Amazon. After the purchase of The Huffington Post, I noticed that their tweets on Twitter had changed from hard-hitting news to celebrity news.
AOL is owned by Steven Case and Time Warner is owned by Gerald Levin. I doubt either spend too much time agonizing over the rise of eBooks at the expense of paperbacks or hardcovers.
I think, right now, books about celebrities and teenage girls' angst are huge because it keeps people occupied. It keeps them from reading hard-hitting news. I think that the top owners of news and book publishing benefit from this because it keeps people occupied with escapism, and I think that this bubble is being fed by adult customers who don't want to see the adult world as it is. If teenage girls’ angst ever becomes a threat to the oligarchy, someone will buy out those books.
Marilyn Peake says
Thanks, Nathan, for opening up a great discussion. And thanks, Mira, for taking it in a fascinating discussion. I wish my comment had fit in one post instead of four. 🙂
Anonymous says
Anonymous said…
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
Hear-hear. Thanks for getting our perspective out there.
Signed: Poor young publishing girl
Margo Lerwill says
There's a bit of a fallacy at work that all good writers have made it past the agents and editors and gotten published by the Big 6, and all indie authors suck so bad they've never had an agent and never made it to the point of having an editor pitch to his Big 6 employer. There are indie authors from both ends of the spectrum (and everything in between). Plenty of midlisters (who have that stamp of approval on their work already) are trying out the indie route. More writers are looking at indie without ever having approached traditional publishing. And in between you have writers who made it past the agent stage and maybe made it past the editor stage, only to get shot down by the marketing department. Which stage conveys the stamp of validation?
I think writers should stop worrying about what other writers think. (Ain't that an ironic statement?) Make your choices based on your own personal career goals. Go in with open eyes and without delusions. If you're going indie, don't do so because you think it will bring the Big 6 to your door. Do it because the indie model is the best for your goals. If the big boys come knocking, keep your head and make a business decision that doesn't involve ego.
It's also be great if we stopped acting like it's a competition and only trad or indie comes out alive.
Anonymous says
Anon @1:31 PM – The publishing company owners aren't the "young women working long hours and making low salaries" – Those women are the ones working hard to make the owners rich, while defending the system, kind of like the fifties secretaries in Mad Men.
Jaysonc says
Margo,
I think what it should come down to for any writer is a good story. To be sure, the business aspect is important but the story is what really counts and I suppose confidence in one's own written word is what really counts in the end.
Marilyn Peake says
Ooooops, Mira, in my last comment, I meant "taking it in a fascinating direction".
Marilyn Peake says
Jayson,
That might be true, but not in regard to mergers and buyouts – those are happening with lightning speed. What I find most interesting is that the large companies move very quickly in buying out any company that threatens it, and that includes news media outlets. Everything that doesn’t matter to them moves very slowly. For instance, newspapers switching from paper to online publication might be slow, but buyouts of hard-hitting internet news outlets happen very quickly once those outlets become popular.
This has even happened in the movie industry. Maybe change has been slow in regard to formats, but a couple of the big companies poured money into advertising campaigns against certain documentaries. I find this rather fascinating.
Jayson says
Marilyn,
So they quickly buyout the competition instead of actually adapting to it. It's the equivalent of sweeping the problem under the rug and blaming the rug when you can't hide any more dust beneath it.
Margo Lerwill says
Jaysonc,
I'm not sure where 'good story' conflicts with 'business decisions'. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Jayson says
Margo,
"There has always been a struggle between art and commerce and let me tell you, art is getting it's butt kicked"
I don't necessarily think there is a conflict as much as it is a side effect of selling your book and making a profit from it.
Marilyn Peake says
Jayson,
Actually, I think it's the equivalent of buying the rug and the dust and using both to make more money.
YoungMasterCK says
Also notice that you are talking about a "good story" being the most important part, that isn't necessarily "good writing". 🙂
The writing only needs to be "good enough" not to distract from the story. There are many best selling authors that I can't stand. I am sure we could all name a few. As an embarrassing example, I don't like Steven King, but I love Josh Lanyon. I know empirically that SK is a better writer than JL, but that really doesn't matter to me. I haven't bought a Steven King novel in about 20 years, yet I own everything Josh Lanyon has written. By the way that isn't about genre I do like horror.
Jaysonc says
Good point in that being able to tell a good story isn't the same as being able to write a good story. I know that so many people love "Sometimes A Great Notion" but I can't stand Ken Kesey's writing style but I love Dan Brown.
Margo Lerwill says
Jayson,
Ah, I see what you're saying. I think that's probably a bigger issue for some writers than other and for some genres more than others. It would depend on the writer's relationship to the writing, first of all, and how the writer prioritizes the story as art versus the story as a form of communication. I tend to think writers who strongly believe in the story as art would probably be more fulfilled as indie authors or (perhaps even more so) as web fiction authors.
Michael Offutt says
Your napkin math reminds me of dps discussions on Elitist Jerks website.
Julianne MacLean says
"On the other hand if you self publish then you as the author are the only one judging it's worth. Neither perspective is a bad one and while ultimately it's up to the reader to judge whether or not the work is good, I still think that any new author needs the opinion of professionals and not just money."
Just want to comment on this. I was talking to my agent today, and she told me the story about The Hunt For Red October, which was rejected by all the major publishers, then got picked up by a smaller press, and the movie deal happened.
Later, the agent who sold that book was having lunch with a big time editor, and the agent asked, "So what are you looking for right now?"
The editor said, "I'd love something like The Hunt For Red October."
The agent replied: "But I sent you that book the first time!"
The point here is that not all agents and editors are always the best judge of a great book. Sometimes they are wrong and they make mistakes. Most of them admit to this. (I don't need to mention Harry Potter here, but I will.)
And I would sincerely hope that anyone who self-publishes a book is savvy enough to have it edited and critiqued by someone worthy of the task. (Because I agree – you you are right about a new author needing the opinion of a professional.. or its equivalent. How else can you learn and hone your craft?)
If a new author doesn't have the book edited, and the book is not up to snuff, then the readers/consumers will be its judge. Which is not that different from decades past. Word-of-mouth has always been the best vehicle for selling books.
Now a book can get out there if the author has the "entreprenurial spirit" that Nathan mentioned in his blog yesterday. That's a huge part of this, because it is without a doubt a huge risk to take such a leap of faith, and believe in your own work, when NY rejected it.
Sadly, business and art do have to gel together in this day and age if an author doesn't want to fall into the category of a "starving artist."
On the upside, it's really not necessary for an artist to starve these days with the internet so readily available for any artistic venture. And I love that.
ENTREPRENURIAL SPIRIT. Let's remember, that's how each of the big publishers got started so many years ago.
Marilyn Peake says
I haven’t read the excerpt yet, but I found it as I Googled online to add to the discussion on Nathan’s Blog today. The excerpt is from a book by Ben Bagdikian, a journalist and author with impressive credentials, including The Peabody Award which is equivalent to the Pulitzer in broadcasting. His credentials are too many for me to list, so here they are: Ben Bagdikian. He’s been published through mainstream outlets. In 2004, he published a book through indie press. Here’s an excerpt, THE BIG FIVE, from his book, THE NEW MEDIA MONOPOLY: THE BIG FIVE. I read part of the excerpt; and it is so incredible, it’s almost as though he’s saying, "There are faeries." But here are Ben Bagdikian's credentials. One of the awards he’s received is a Citation of Merit as "Journalism’s Most Perceptive Critic" from the American Society of Journalism School Administrators.
Marilyn Peake says
OK, last comment from me, and then I’m heading back to my science-fiction-writing cave. I have not followed all the mergers and acquisitions in the past few years, apparently. I was wrong about Gerald Levin still owning Time Warner and Steven Case still owning AOL. (Where the hell have I been these past few years? Oh, yeah, right, I’ve been working on my sci fi novel.) AOL and Time Warner spun off from each other after devastating losses a few years back when the stock market crashed, and apologies were offered to investors who lost money. Jeff Bewkes is now CEO of Time Warner and Tim Armstrong is CEO of AOL. However, mergers and acquisitions continue, e.g. AOL recently acquiring The Huffington Post. Jeff Bewkes doesn’t like Apple’s 99 cents model and he doesn’t like Netflix, comparing it to the Albanian army, saying it won’t take over the world. I know one thing: the 99 cent model for becoming a millionaire through Kindle eBooks is probably a bubble that won’t last forever. It’s hard to even keep track of who owns the bubble. Once a bubble bursts, the owners sell the bubble-making equipment and move onto other things. OK, now I better get busy, finishing the writing of my 99 cent novel.
Vegas Linda Lou says
Great comments here. After querying for two years, I self-published my memoir, Bastard Husband: A Love Story, and am happy I did. The incessant marketing is a pain in the ass and I could do a lot more if I had the time, but I sell a couple of books whenever I do stand-up and many more when I speak to women's groups. I've found having a low ($2.99) Kindle price seems to work well, and my hard copy Amazon sales have increased since it's been on Kindle.
I haven't quit my day job as a technical writer, so we're not talking a ton of money. Self-publishing is a lot of work, but the satisfaction of hearing from readers who love your creation makes it all worth it.
If you truly believe in your product, make the effort to get it out there somehow. Don't give up! And if you don't believe in your product enough to make that effort, better to take up something like tennis.
Marilyn Peake says
So, I left the discussion here and checked into Twitter. Has anyone else seen this story? … Apparently, Rupert Murdoch has made a bid to buy half the British mass media, which would apparently result in Rupert Murdoch owning half the world’s media. Does anyone else here know about this? This would be a huge development that could change everything we talked about on Nathan’s Blog today.
Tricia says
It's important to note (and I can't see all the comments so forgive me if someone already has) that if you use a self-publishing service such as iUniverse or CreatSpace they do, in fact, offer every service that traditional publishing offers. Of course it's all at a price but you can get some pretty good deals if you contact them. I did and wound up with a great deal that included editing services and cover work. I decided on self-publishing after figuring out that I didn't want a mystery agent deciding whether or not the public would want to read the story. I think I'll let the public decide for themselves.
Anonymous says
There's something missing here in NB's assessment of the profit margin of dead tree publishing vs digital and that is: overhead! Sure, the dead tree publisher may be making a few more bucks per copy sold, but he is spending many more bucks on his real estate, distribution costs, warehousing costs. The overhead for the e-publisher is astonishingly low. A publisher like Open Road Media or Avon's new e-line can produce their books for minimal costs then spend a hefty amount on promotion while sharing generously with the author on royalties. Producing for minimal costs means more room for failure and taking a risk. That equals more chances for more unknowns. So effectively, the author gets the best of the old world (expert editing, professional packaging and promotion) plus the best of the new (online retailing and social network publicity). Sorry, NB. The dead tree guys just can't compete. . .
Sarah McCabe says
I don't understand this attitude some have that people who write a book shouldn't be allowed to try and sell it directly to their real customers: readers. What is the difference, essentially, between going through the publishing houses and getting rejected there because you didn't write a good book and making your book available to readers and not doing well because readers didn't like your book? The answer is: the difference is who holds the power. In the first case the publishers hold the power and in the second the readers do. I think it's a good thing for readers to be the gatekeepers since they're the ones buying the product. I think they should be the ones deciding whose books succeed and fail and I think every writer deserves the opportunity to either succeed or fail on their own merits. That's capitalism.
You can go on and on about art, but once you start trying to sell your art and make a living by it your art has become a product. Let's not be so high and mighty about it, please, and let the customers sort out the wheat from the chaff based on what they arbitrary standard.
Sarah McCabe says
*based on what they like, not some arbitrary standard.
Adam Minter says
Fantastic discussion. Just a quick note, however, that the world of publishing extends far, far beyond the shores of the US and other developed countries. And that's worth keeping in mind. For example, here in Shanghai, e-books have pretty much zero penetration, while the bookstores are overflowing. Yes, e-books are cheaper than printed copies, but e-book readers are not. So long as the fastest growing populations of readers are in places where gadgetry is out of reach for hundreds of millions of people (if not more), traditional publishing will have a future. It just may not be in the US.
Anonymous says
I think New York publishing is now for folks that want to buy lottery tickets. Unless the book is going to sell lots and lots of units, a writer is better off going the self-pub route. This is especially true of mid-list writer. You know, the writers that you cannot find at the airport bookstore. The advances are just too low, and New York overhead is just too high.
As for the quality argument. This is completely subjective. Ultimately, it's up to the readers to vote with their dollars. And if you're not being read, then what's the point?
Anonymous says
Adam . . . Shanghai is irrelevant because China doesn't recognize our copyrights. Neither does Russia, and neither do many other countries.
If your book would sell in Shanghai, it will be immediately eclipsed by a pirated version, under a legal system that doesn't consider that a problem. So worrying about how to penetrate that market's a waste of time.
Other Lisa says
@Marilyn Peake:
I feel we’re living in the era of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Most of us have chosen to completely ignore the oligarchy taking control and ownership, and how much greater control one person can exert with hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal.
Are you channeling me or something? 😉
(or maybe I've been channeling you all this time!)
It's a very interesting discussion. What I take away from it is that there are a lot of options for writers now that didn't used to exist, that successful self-pubbing still takes a crap-ton of work, and that we should all be wary of the potential for a monopoly in this model as well as any other. Because I do think to some extent that the window for Kindle millionaires may not be open indefinitely, not if one large corporation controls the distribution, if this is a tool to help drive down eBook prices to both sell devices and establish an overwhelming presence in the marketplace.
It also seems to me that this model works best for authors who either write quickly or have a large backlist for which they control the rights.
Of course other channels for distribution can arise, and the whole situation is very fluid right now. It's going to be interesting (and kind of stomach-clenching) to watch what develops.
I'd like to propose another model that I think has a good chance of success in this new era (whatever it turns out to be), and that is the well-equipped but lean indie press. I think that companies with a basic infrastructure and resources for design, marketing and distribution, but that are still nimble and lower on the overhead are a great way to go.
Marilyn Peake says
Other Lisa said:
"@Marilyn …
"Are you channeling me or something? 😉
"(or maybe I've been channeling you all this time!)"
——————-
HaHaHa! I love it when I find others on the same wavelength as me. 🙂 Must be why I love following you on Twitter and why I love your insights in ROCK PAPER TIGER.
I agree with your statement that the window for writers to make millions on Kindle will work "best for authors who either write quickly or have a large backlist for which they control the rights." I don’t have a large backlist. I'm sucking at writing quickly right now, but I am trying. Nathan's Blog and all the discussion the past two days has me very excited … and not because of the millions that can be made because that is such a crapshoot, but because there’s a very exciting new indie way to publish.
Tominda Adkins says
I read an article recently about the "disappearing stigma of self-publishing". In it, there was mention of a growing opinion among agents: "We're starting to accept and represent formerly self-published books, if they've proven successful."
Am I the only self-publisher who finds that insulting? I was under the impression that it was an agent's job to recognize a marketable work and then find a publisher for it. Not sit back and wait for me to spend money, time, and elbow grease to prove first that my work is marketable. No thanks.
No offense, Nathan. You're clearly a helpful, thoughtful, and encouraging exception to the stereotypical "snobby agent". But with the advent of self-publishing as a standard, aren't many agents panicking? Losing relevance? I just wish the publishing industry was healthy enough to support more of you, more innovative agents in general, so there could be less competition for sure best-sellers and more focus on finding promising first-time authors.
Jaysonc says
Having some time to think on it, I think self publishing is a good thing. I don't believe it's a sign that the end of traditional publishing is nigh but it simply represents another option.
Anonymous says
"But with the advent of self-publishing as a standard, aren't many agents panicking? Losing relevance?"
They are panicking because writers realized they should and must dictate. Agents are getting 10-15% for nothing. Most of the publishers also rip you off, delaying your work for a year or two, then they ruin it with loosy, rookie marketing. With self-publishing you get 70% and your work will be released immediately.
"published by the Big 6"
Sounds like a cartel. People hate cartels.
Hillsy says
I’ll keep it brief as, lets be honest, I’m writing to myself here.
Overall I’ve got nothing against self-publishing as a mechanism. Its people I don’t have any faith in (a projection of my opinion of myself many would say). If you have faith that authors will not self-pub a book because, after all the money, editing, sweat & promotion, they think it’s not good enough, well, I hope you’re correct. I’ve no doubt that good writers will pull out all the stops and be utterly professional about it, but I fear their credibility will be undercut by a factor of 10.
This is why peer reviewing in Science is so vital, because they cannot let their credibility slip or everyone suffers.
Just some other points that have either been missed or not really delved into that I think anyone with a forthright opinion on this should consider.
Before/After:
Hugely ignored by almost everyone is the fact that a publisher will have read the entire book before deciding if it is worth the money. If kindle worked that you paid a fee if you thought the book was worth the money, comparing sales to the publishing stamp would be fair.
Safety:
There is another point that’s been overlooked: the safety net. A talented Author makes a plot mistake (it happens) and the book bombs. With publishing an agent/publisher might see the talent and sign the author purely because of it, having no intention of pitching that particular book, but the next one the author writes. In self-pub the book goes out, gets 1 star reviews, and the author will get skimmed over in any book search because he’s at the bottom of every list. Ironically, you’d actually be better off selling zero copies of a flawed book than drumming up support, making sales, but being ultimately disappointing.
Inequality:
A constant gripe of the average anti-publishing is that publishers only want hack, and those that don’t fit into a narrow band of genre/style/vampires find their inherent talent ignored.
In self-pub, those that have success will be their own or buy their own marketers, editors, salesmen, lawyers. Therefore anyone who doesn’t fit into the narrow band of forthright, confident, law savvy writers, or has the money to buy all those things instead, will find their inherent talent ignored.
Is that really progress?
Contract Vs Exposure:
Self-pubbing to take control of your finances and self-pubbing to give yourself a better chance of reaching readers. These are not the same arguments. It almost seems the major difference between Konrath & Hockin: Konrath was published, but wanted money/control/freedom, whereas Hockin tried to sell, couldn’t but self-pubbed and came good. Put simply buying a self-pubbed book from a published writer is utterly different than buying from an unpublished one.
As one final anecdote: I read 155 comments yesterday and counted 15 authors mentioning their unpublished books by title. Oh, how I loathe your egotism and envy your confidence.
Istvan Szabo, Ifj. says
"In self-pub the book goes out, gets 1 star reviews"
This sounds as a cartel system, just as anonim mentioned above. If you're not willing to work with the "book cartel", you will get one star reviews from our paid reviewers (I get this, based on your response.). What publishers forget, this will fire backward at them, just as it did yesterday with a great gaming publisher. Paid newspapers gave around 80-90% for the product as the great publisher spent a lot for advertisements on those sites and their operatives are also trying to write nice reviews about the product… but the user reviews are mirroring the truth; app. 30% on Metacritics on all three platforms (PC, X360 and PS3).
Publishers believe they can fool the customers and control them. The reality is; they can't. The same applies for novels. If a novel is a quality product, published or self-published, it will get the proper review from the readers. Now, if publishers are willing to play dirty and paying people to give one stars, the readers will play dirty too, that's a guarantee. The difference is; the readers' word will be the last one.
Hillsy says
@istvan
I meant 1 star reviews from the readers who bought the book. That will kill a new author's career deader than anything the media can do.
At least in the paper publishing model someone else is looking to turn your talent into better-than-2-star reviews: a death knell for a writer.
Sometimes not printing a book is better than printing a bad one. And can you honestly say there will still be as many first novels in the trunk with self pubbing? because without them you cuold be the 1.3 star reader rated novellist no one will read.
Istvan Szabo, Ifj. says
I know how you meant, but this is how it sounded.
"I meant 1 star reviews from the readers who bought the book. That will kill a new author's career deader than anything the media can do."
It can happen with published authors too, because of various reasons (Copy-cat works, expanding a franchise without innovation are primary reasons.).
"At least in the paper publishing model someone else is looking to turn your talent into better-than-2-star reviews: a death knell for a writer."
Do they? I'd like to see that one day…
"because without them you cuold be the 1.3 star reader rated novellist no one will read."
With them you can be the same too. And because of them your novel can be the one that people want to read, but they can't (Personal experience.).
Anonymous says
Hugely ignored by almost everyone is the fact that a publisher will have read the entire book before deciding if it is worth the money. If kindle worked that you paid a fee if you thought the book was worth the money, comparing sales to the publishing stamp would be fair. It's possible to ask for your money back on a Kindle purchase from Amazon if the book has formatting problems or you think it is worthless. It shows up as a return on the author's royalty statement.
Anonymous says
Hugely ignored by almost everyone is the fact that a publisher will have read the entire book before deciding if it is worth the money. If kindle worked that you paid a fee if you thought the book was worth the money, comparing sales to the publishing stamp would be fair. It's possible to ask for your money back on a Kindle purchase from Amazon if the book has formatting problems or you think it is worthless. It shows up as a return on the author's royalty statement.
Anonymous says
Hugely ignored by almost everyone is the fact that a publisher will have read the entire book before deciding if it is worth the money. If kindle worked that you paid a fee if you thought the book was worth the money, comparing sales to the publishing stamp would be fair. It's possible to ask for your money back on a Kindle purchase from Amazon if the book has formatting problems or you think it is worthless. It shows up as a return on the author's royalty statement.
Anonymous says
Sorry for the double post- it may become a triple post. I kept getting a Google "Server Error try again" message.