Amazon is not your best friend: Why self-published authors should side with Hachette
From Salon:
Anyone who has followed the coverage of the ongoing Amazon-Hachette dispute knows that some of the most impassioned voices on the pro-Amazon side of the argument come from self-published writers. It’s easy to understand their impulse to defend Amazon’s e-book publishing programs, given that many had tried in vain to publish their books with traditional houses before opting for, say, Kindle Direct Publishing.
However, the dispute with Hachette has nothing to do with Amazon’s publishing programs and everything to do with the way traditionally published books are retailed, a distinction that self-published authors ignore at their peril. This is one quarrel where the self-published authors would be smarter to side with Hachette and the other “Big Five” houses.
One reason for the crossed wires here is that most self-published authors really, really, really hate traditional publishing, which has either rejected them or (in the case of authors who use Amazon to make their out-of-print titles available once more), let them down. The intense rage such experiences instill can lead to strange glitches in logic, such as the charge that it ispublishers who have engaged in “monopolistic” practices because not everyone who wants to publish with a traditional house has succeeded in winning a contract.
. . . .
In fact, it sometimes seems that self-published authors hate traditional publishing far more than they love Amazon, and because they believe Amazon will destroy traditional publishing, they’re happy to cheer it on.
. . . .
A quick glance at the Kindle e-book bestseller list confirms that the price of a newly released e-book from a traditional publisher — take, for example, Stephen King’s “Mr. Mercedes,” which is $11.99 — is higher than a new release from a self-published author — say, H.M Ward’s “The Arrangement 15,” only $3.99. Somewhere in the middle, at around $5 each, are titles from Amazon’s own genre-fiction publishing imprints, by such authors as Heather Burch, Peter David and Max Allan Collins.
. . . .
This suggests two things. One is that many readers remain willing to pay more for books by name-brand authors like King, James Patterson or the literary novelist Anthony Doerr, who squeaks in at No. 20 on the Kindle list.
The other is that even books by relatively unknown or unfamiliar authors have a shot at this bestseller list if the books themselves cost less than traditionally published titles.
. . . .
That’s why it’s in the best interest of self-published authors that traditionally published books retain their higher prices. Five-plus years into the self-publishing boom, many readers express wariness about self-published books; overlooked gems do have a chance to find an audience in the self-pub realm, but an awful lot of unedited dreck has poured forth, too. More casual readers have been put off, but others have embraced the task of separating the wheat from the chaff. Essentially, this active readership for self-published books has agreed to go through America’s slush pile, and they (rightly) expect that at least some of their labor should be subsidized by lower prices and the occasional e-book giveaway.
. . . .Most readers are not willing to read dozens of sample chapters in order to find something acceptable or to rely on consumer reviews of questionable authenticity. The smaller population of readers who are willing to wade through the self-published chaff in search of those precious few grains of wheat quite reasonably expect that they should not have to pay premium prices for the privilege.
. . . .That’s on top of the uncomfortable reality that the emergence of a viable self-publishing community has been — contrary to what many self-published authors assert — a great thing for traditional publishers. It provides a minor-league system where they can track the emergence of popular writers without having to risk any of their own resources in developing new authors’ careers. Then they can skim off the cream.
Link to the rest at Salon and thanks to Chris for the tip.
PG will note that the author of the Salon article is also pitching her book, The Magician’s Book: A Skeptic’s Adventures in Narnia
At the outset of the public spat between Amazon and Hachette, PG observed that higher prices for tradpub books were a competitive advantage for indie authors. However, Amazon has had quite a lot of pricing flexibility with tradpub as a result of the Price-fix Six and the court-ordered pricing scheme that replaced the illegal one they forced on Amazon.
Under this pricing model, we’ve seen the rise of the million-selling indie author, so that’s worked out nicely.
Regardless of what ultimately falls out of Amazon/Hachette, indie authors will always be able to underprice tradpub because, among other reasons, no indie author with whom PG is acquainted employs hundreds of people working in a Manhattan highrise.
The bigger story that PG hasn’t seen discussed anywhere is that if the Amazon negotiations result in lower net revenues on ebooks flowing to publishers, bigpub authors, who receive 25% of net on ebook sales, will receive lower royalties (and lower advances). This will inevitably accelerate the brain-drain of talented authors forsaking legacy publishing for indieworld.
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases. 
Oh FFS. Salon.com, the place where intelligent commentary is against their religion.
Oh, come on, just because they published articles talking about all the different names Jeff Bezos had been called, or trying to make nonprofits admit to feeling guilty for accepting Amazon grant money, or accusing Amazon of making Seattle’s nightlife dull with all those socially-inept geeks who work there…
…sorry, what was my point again?
Once again I’m being told I hate big publishing. Do I? Why? It’s done very little for me and nothing to me. Amazon on the other hand has given me a route to a readership and a second income stream.
Big publishing, you do not my hate, you have my mild indifference.
^^This.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the level of rage and hate I have in my heart. Because you mentioned big publishing.
Meryl, you always make me smile with your humor
Why, thank you, USAF.
I do have admit that I harbor an aversion to corporate publishing, but that’s what working in corporate publisher and retailer and watching the stupidity and arrogance of upper management did to me. After the ‘competence’ that I have witnessed, the thought of submitting something to a publisher never crossed my mind.
I’m with you, Elka.
And Hachette IS your friend? Think again. lol
I’m trying to figure out what makes her an expert on this matter. I don’t mean that in a snarky way–I mean it sincerely. Other than her one book, and let’s face it, it’s not a best-seller, does she have any credentials at all? Where is her data that proves readers are giving up on self-published works? (paraphrasing) Hugh Howey has his own experiences plus Author Earnings, Konrath has his experiences and he’s no doubt received many emails from authors who are leaving traditional publishers. Shatzkin and Wendig, from the other side of the debate, also have serious credentials. So, why should I take her opinion seriously?
I think she’s a professional critic, so she does has some credentials, I suppose. And to be fair to her, her book is six years old, so it may have been a best-seller once, who knows.
What I am so surprised about is just how many people are expressing such strong views on the subject-from both sides-when they don’t even have any skin in the game. I can understand Hachette authors getting all frosty, but why everyone else? I may be a little detached, but isn’t this just two big corporations battling over contract negotiations, albeit in a semi-public way? Where is the big news angle?
On both sides of the debate people seem to be clinging to the idea that Amazon or Hachette (depending which side of the fence you are on) is fighting some moral crusade, when in reality they are two big companies whose main interests are to their share holders, market share and customers. Let them get on with it. Whatever the outcome, I can’t see how it will be the end of the world as we know it for authors, readers, publishers or retailers.
Because I still harbor a grudge against the major publishers for so badly mismanaging e-books for 15 years before Kindle came along.
Every time I see the big publishers take a pasting in court, or at the hands of Amazon, it gives me an extra little burst of schadenfreude as I think back to all the times I wanted to buy the e-book of a $6 paperback only to find it cost $24 from eReader and Fictionwise because the publisher just didn’t give a s*** about keeping their e-book prices congruent with the paper edition.
In your face, Big Five nee Six!
I am a reader, not an author, and I tend to agree with you. I was reading e-books on a Palm III nearly a decade and a half ago. It wasn’t convenient to load up books, and there was a scarcity of books I could buy, but it had enough potential that I kept waiting for the technology to improve. (And waiting, and waiting, and waiting….)
Fair enough. She’s a book critic with a book out.
salon holds on by its fingernails, but that has gone on there for a long long time. Tried paywall, no paywall, paywall. Not enough reader demographic to pay big money… critics are selfmade not anointed. Can be thoughtful, biased left or right, larded with conceit, writing only to their own liter-isto friends– a circle increasingly shrinking by the web, honorable. Many attitudes. Frankly, I’d rather read various points of view in forbes and the economist and other rags that actually have deep contacts in the industry, as in face to face on a reg basis with the owners, not publishers, not editors who do not have the ultimate power– and are beholding to the owners. Just my .02. Wanna know the architectural slant and plans for the ascent/descent, go to the maker of mountains, not the diggers.
Because. Just because.
Who needs to be bothered with data? /snark
From a very long (and quite specific) one-star review of her book:
“Miller’s arrogant tone was hard to enjoy; at one point she claims that the Chronicles taught her nothing as a child; she merely recognized “her better self” in them (page 172*). In the section where Miller is discussing herself as a “bookish child,” the air of self-congratulation is very off-putting.”
So the arrogant tone isn’t something she trotted out just lecture self-published writers. It seems to be her M.O.
She lost me right from the start with her insistence that self-pubbed authors are all motivated by hatred of Big Publishing, because rejection syndrome of some kind. Clearly she doesn’t know much about indie authors at all.
“Clearly she doesn’t know much about indie authors at all.”
I agree. Many Indie authors were never rejected by big publishing.
They never bothered to jump through the Agent hoops in the first place.
You can’t get rejected (by big publishing) unless you actually GET to the desks of the big publishers.
“an editor-for-hire is much less motivated to displease her client even when demanding major rewrites would make for a better book.”
The new emerging meme about editors, they’re lying mercenaries who only tell self publishers what they want to hear to keep that check. I’ve seen versions of this in three different articles this morning alone. Why the people spouting this nonsense don’t think the exact same logic would apply to editors being hired by publishers is lost on me. I suspect this has a double purpose. “Self pubs are unedited” isn’t working as more and more indies are finding and hiring good editors, so let’s move the goalposts to “the editing can’t be trusted because they’re just doing what the indie wants.” And this is a not so subtle attack on editors’ professionalism, “We’re also going to impugn those who stoop to doing work for indies.”
Yeah. And really, ask the editors for Stephen King and other such big-name writers just how tough they were able to be with their authors’ manuscripts, especially later on once they got big.
I just finished King’s Doctor Sleep. I have to admit I found it rough going and several times thought “a good editor might have helped here.”
I have enjoyed his writing in the past – and especially his “On Writing”, but I think he’s lost touch with his own advice.
If I could edit that book right now, I would say “these parts are exciting/engaging/frightening so let’s have more of those parts.”
I’m slowly changing this attitude, because I’m coming to appreciate story over artifice, but for a long time (and so far, now), I have refused to read Stephen King anything because he (or his editor) insulted my intelligence (and taste for proper use of language) by publishing a book with THREE egregious errors in grammar, spelling, and syntax in the FIRST two pages of a novel.
At the time, I posted a rant about it on CompuServe and Jack Chalker tried to talk me down by saying in essence (“People like Steve and Me who write in the vernacular should be cut some slack.”) But farther down in the discussion floated the notion that the publisher’s copy editor may have been afraid to ding the Great Stephen King so frequently for such dumb mistakes.
“But farther down in the discussion floated the notion that the publisher’s copy editor may have been afraid to ding the Great Stephen King so frequently for such dumb mistakes.”
What?
That would be the dumbest thing they could do.
What good is an editor who’s afraid to point out an author’s mistakes? That’s what you want them to do. That’s what you need them to do! Imagine a president with advisors who are all afraid to get in his face and tell him that they think he’s wrong.* It would be a never-ending series of clusterf%$ks.
*No, I do NOT wish to start a political discussion.
Heh, I promise I won’t. But I’m reminded of Esquire’s dubious achievement awards back in the day. When Bret Easton Ellis was hot (yes, that far back), he was quoted as saying he didn’t want his publisher’s editors touching his deathless prose.
Esquire’s headline was “Why tamper with mediocrity?”
I agree with you.
I suspect no one wanted to be the person to tell King he needed a re-write. Angering King would be job-sucide.
I wonder. King doesn’t seem like the vengeful vindictive type who would get so ticked off if someone suggested rewrites or cuts or whatever. OTOH, I realize that he does in fact love his wordiness – witness the two versions of THE STAND.
I recently skimmed Piers Anthony’s BUT WHAT OF EARTH? which isn’t so much a novel (Anthony refers it to a middling work in his intro) but an indictment of damage done by copyeditors and editors and rewriters. It’s interesting.
Not knowing King, but thinking highly of him, I doubt he would throw a fit.
However, in parts of corporate America, the faintest breath of critism to someone that important to an imprint might mean the end of one’s job.
Ah…Mike has just confirmed my suspicions.
I was an editor for a large publisher. I was given explicit instructions that, under the agreement we had with a particular popular author, I was only to correct typos and make no substantive edits to his books.
As a freelance editor, this meme infuriates me. If I was just going to tell the writer what they wanted to hear, then I wouldn’t be doing my job, and I’d feel unethical to even accept their money.
Yeah, if I’m paying someone to $100′s to kiss my … I’d want it to be less figurative.
Because most of us have $1000′s to spend just to be told how wonderful we are. I’m sure there’s a gratuitous flattery service offered for far less on odesk or fiverr, or somewhere.
::shakes head::
I can do gratuitous flattery for free.
No no! Gratuitous flattery is an art form and artists need to be paid. Don’t give this away.
Only the first bit.
Excessive flattery will cost you.
Go to your corner bar. For the price of a few beers you can have a whole table full of people tell you how great you are.
Secretly what all us *amateur* writers really want are 40 one star reviews complaining about basic grammar and spelling.
Oh, and some free flattery
And you do it so, so well. It’s like poetry when you do it.
This part of the article made me laugh because I’ve been an indie for many years now, during which time I’ve worked with one of the hardest editors in existence. There is something wrong with every book for her, which is what makes her the best structural editor you can have. When it comes to finding the flaws in a story, she’s like a bloodhound.
Last year, I got picked up by a Big Five publisher on a couple of my books. I signed it because I wanted to see what they could do for me, which I think is why a lot of authors sign those deals. The answer, if anyone is curious, turned out to be the joys of:
*A ripped off book cover that has been used a hundred times before and has absolutely nothing to do with your story.
*A blurb that sounds as if a four year old wrote it in crayon.
*and on the editing…
My last indie book was edited perfectly by my hard-ass indie editor.
My last big five published book was only edited on the first three chapters because ‘it was perfect in the rest of the book’, according to the Big Five editor.
Now, much as I love being told I’m perfect, I don’t believe a word of it. I don’t think the Big Five editor even read the book. After all, she didn’t know the age of my MC when I asked her about it, which is mentioned several times in the story.
This is not to mention that when my big five book went on sale, it had another author’s name on it, which implies that proofing is also a thing of the past for the Big Five. They did fix it, but a release day with the wrong author listed on my book was a first-class service, if your business is royally screwing everything up.
Publishers offer higher quality books? Kiss my a**! I know for a fact that they don’t.
My indie books are fully edited, proofed and as perfect as they can get for the readers to enjoy.
My Big Five published books have been a car wreck so far.
I don’t see how any of this opinion has anything to do with making either Amazon or Hachette a BFF. This is business, not high school.
It is true that trad pub prices are a boon to indies, who can price books to sell. When you get past the A list, you’ll find that solid indie writers are outpacing their cousins in the trad world, at least in the digital space.
It’s also true that this is a place trad can troll for new blood, which it needs (insert vampire analogy here). But what the writer doesn’t recognize is that the frequency of successful indies turning trad pub down seems to be increasing.
And my BFF is my keyboard.
She also seems to be assuming indies are somehow sacrificing something by selling at lower prices, completely ignoring the overhead issue, which I think is the single most important factor right now. Lower overhead means higher profits at lower prices. Sure, I could sell at $9.99 but why would I when I can make the same or more at $3.99, and be more attractive to price sensitive readers to boot? I could get a smaller number of readers to give me that extra $6 but I choose to reinvest that in reader relations. Seems like a no brainer to me, especially since it doesn’t hurt my bottom line at all. She assumes sacrifice in what is actually a great area of strength. I can price very profotably in a far better and more affordable range than Hatchette. This entire argument boils down to how unnecessarily expensive publishers have made it to sell books profitably.
And my BFF is my keyboard.
+1
What James said!
yes, I don’t need a friend. I need a retail partner to sell my books. And the thought of traditionally publishing never crossed my mind. I have no animosity toward them. They matter not to me or my work.
I don’t need friends in this business. I want competence. This is not to say I want to partner with Grumpy Editor or Grumpy Kindlizer, either. But someone who can ask question about my work without fear he or she would get their heads nipped off, and someone I can ask my silly questions without feeling like a total doofus.
If we can have a good time doing it, wonderful. That’s a bonus.
It’s clear Laura Miller has not talked with any self-published authors. But then she wouldn’t be able to set up her straw-men (you’re all JEALOUS of Big Pub!) to argue against.
Yes James, a hundred times, YES!
What a hypocrite Ms. Miller is.
If Hachette wins, is she going to put her money where her mouth is and start self-publishing, since that means more people will buy her cheaper books that way? (And she’d even take home more of the royalties.) I rather doubt it. The whole thing comes off as a disingenuous smear, probably orchestrated by her publisher.
In fact, I’d turn it around and say that if Hachette authors knew what was good for them, they really should be siding with Amazon. They’ll sell more books at lower prices, and thus make greater royalties—Amazon’s discounts come out of its own margin, and publishers still get the same wholesale amount. Agency pricing resulted in lower sales. This was proven statistically over the course of the trial.
Of course, this only matters to the midlisters; a lot of celebrities (maybe even including Miller herself) are given advances so high that they’ll never earn out at standard royalty rates. So maybe Miller doesn’t even care how well her book sells—if she got one of those mega-advances for it, she’s already got her gravy.
Stockholm Syndrome in action.
And we’re back to the zombie ‘friendship’ meme again. How many times before this one dies:
We don’t need a FRIEND, we need a reliable BUSINESS PARTNER.
Also – the opposite of love isn’t hatred, it’s indifference. I might be persuaded from my indifference by a nice 8 figure, non-refundable check. But in my case I suspect there more chance it’ll snow on the surface of the sun.
I haven’t heard *anyone* in self-publishing claim Amazon was a “friend.” I’ve heard some delusional authors claim that Hachette cares about them though (right before they go on to list the ways they’re actually getting screwed over).
@John
“[T]he opposite of love isn’t hatred, it’s indifference.”
++1
Another great post – for reading PG’s contribution (glad you’re doing that a lot more lately, PG).
They (Hachette) should be careful to control their lesser authors – having them break into print with these weak defenses should be embarrassing to the ‘parent’ (of authors) company image they wish to put out into the real world.
Possibly what she meant is the ‘Amazon is not your friend if your are a Hachette author,’ in which case she should have said so. Possibly I could agree with her.
A case of ‘there is no bad publicity’? We should watch her sales rank.
My disgust for Hachette was earned by being published by Hachette. In what way? Let me tell you – by having my ebooks priced at 9.99, by their refusal to try sales, by their insistence that they knew how to get my books into the hands of readers, by their refusal to budge on contract terms (joint accounting) and royalty rates, by their stranglehold on my world and audio rights, by their inept editing department, by their lack of communication…shall I go on?
I’m not siding with Amazon or Hachette. I’m siding with myself, the author, and right now what’s best for me is to move to self publishing. Call me crazy, but I’d like to be better paid for the work I’m doing. Yes, I’ve had decent advances from Hachette, but I feel very certain I can make more self publishing. Especially since Hachette’s joint accounting makes it very hard, if not impossible, to earn out on some contracts.
Hachette Author wrote: “I’m not siding with Amazon or Hachette. I’m siding with myself”
GMTA! I write a monthly column for NINK, the journal of Novelists, Inc., and this is the subject of the July column I recently delivered: When two large corporations battle it out, each focused on their own profit margins, whose side am -I- on? MY side. And I’ve never met a big corporation that’s on MY side rather than strictly on its own side. So I’m not looking for a champion, a hero, or a best friend in this battle between two huge companies.
“One reason for the crossed wires here is that most self-published authors really, really, really hate traditional publishing, which has either rejected them or (in the case of authors who use Amazon to make their out-of-print titles available once more), let them down.”
And what of the increasing number of us who are neither? Many indie-published authors, myself included, have never submitted to the Big 5 publishers (some of us have even turned down offers from them) because we value creative control over our work, owning our IP rights rather than selling them into indentured servitude, and of course appreciate the sheer beauty that is 70%.
I don’t “hate” traditional publishers, and the only time I rage against them is in sympathy for the authors who are trapped and beholden to them.
In this respect, it pains me to concede the woman does make one valid point: it is to indie authors advantage for the Big 5 to continue pricing their ebooks above $10. Readers can buy 3-5 indie ebooks for the price of one Big 5 ebook – and they KNOW it. So perhaps we should root for Hachette – though the damage their pricing strategy does to the authors powerless to set their own prices makes it personally difficult to do so.
Bingo. I can’t think of any self-published authors I know who hate trade publishing; most just think the acquisitions process is antiquated and broken, and the contracts suck, and they can currently do better on their own.
She’s certainly right that we’re better off with trade publishers setting high prices for their books, but most of us would find such a self-serving move morally reprehensible if it means trade-published authors make less sales and less money.
The vehemence, loathing and degree of rage which she ascribed to self-published authors was quite surprising and far out of step with reality, that much is certain. In fact, people I know who have chosen the self-publishing route tend to be more rational and level-headed than most.
I recall a comedian who used to imitate the British guy who hosted Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous…he’d say “Look at this lovely house…it’s something you’ll never have!” That’s sort of how I felt about traditional publishing. It was something I would never have. So why bother with them? Take my chances, put my writing (and myself) out there and go for it.
It takes too much time and effort to query agents and publishing houses, in my view…at least for me. I don’t have any problem with anyone going that route, but I don’t really envy them, either.
I don’t hate traditional publishing. No, instead I did my research as a teenager who was curious about “what it takes to be an author”, read one too many books on query letters and agent *** kissing, and washed my hands of the entire business. I was born lower working class and didn’t have time to devote to attempting to have a career when I could be earning a paycheck. The only reason I’m willing to write now is that I can bypass the entire New York culture and sell directly to my readers.
I don’t hate the traditional publishers, but that doesn’t mean I want anything to do with them.
Excellent on you for taking charge of your life at such a young age. Far better to know what you want from the beginning and go straight after it than to regret the twenty years you spent fruitlessly running in circles.
Oh I did plenty of running around in circles, I just didn’t do it writing.
I’m blessed with an awesome wife who, thanks to our combined efforts, put us in a position where I could resign from my full-time job, return to college, and work part time. I went from being middle management in one of the biggest warehouses in America (not Amazon, fyi) to a college student, successful mid-level author, and, as of yesterday, apprentice brewer at my favorite brewery. I can hardly complain.
Awesome spouses are absolutely the best, and possibly the secret to a happy life.
Don’t feel bad about not complaining; instead enjoy it – which it sounds like you are doing!
Good for you. I take a certain interest in brewing, as well as in writing. Working with malt feels like a good counterbalance to working with words. Dej bůh štěstí!
What Dustin said +1000. I put my writing on hold some 30 years ago because I didn’t have enough energy to write stories and grade freshman papers. Now, only now, I am able to dream of returning to fiction. I love to tell stories! So far this year, I have published one academic book and have an online course and an accompanying workbook in the works for the fall. When all those are out of the pipeline, I will focus more on the fiction.
People like the quality of my work, and when I tell them “I did it all myself,” they are amazed. (Not that it is perfect, but good enough.)
More importantly, I have been spreading the word, quietly, to at least 3 more potential authors. Writers in general support each other, which is why I think we are pushing back against the “don’t go it alone” scare.
The headline has me laughing so hard, I can’t even read the article. Seriously, my eyes are tearing up. Is it April 1? Let’s see… nope, still June. Salon has apparently decided to make every day on the calendar a Fools’ Day.
I would read the article. Really, I would. If only I could stop laughing.
The sheer, unadulterated arrogance of believing you are such a superior human that you can tell others what to think and do. Quite repulsive actually.
+!
The needle on my narcissism detector is hovering way over the solipsist zone . . .
Who is Ms. Miller trying to convince here? And of what?
This article reads like it’s trying to convince musicians in 1999 that “music” is in trouble because mp3s are destroying record labels.
Only the labels were in trouble. Music is just fine. And so are musicians.
For the record, I don’t hate traditional publishing. I just have no interest in it. I was never rejected by them. I was never abused by them. I’m very lucky to have come to this business at the right time to have a choice. What baffles me is why so many authors who have so much at stake don’t see how obvious the choice is. Or refuse to see it.
Authors, especially new authors, all you need to do is drop your sense of awe as you petition the Great Oz and you’ll see the Wizard for what he is. It’s just Frank Morgan behind the curtain.
I started out doing the same thing every writer had to do. I went to conferences, I studied up on agents and editors.
In the few months I spent doing that however, I got a disheartening first look at an old, slow moving, and extremely top-heavy industry. Publishing was a corrupt government waiting for the inevitable revolution. And I seemed to have no a option but to petition the politburo, cap in hand.
Then I realized that a revolution was already going on. I have never looked back. Never been happier.
In a fair fight, quality work, low overhead and efficiency will beat the pants off of bloated and traditional every day of the week. The louder the cries get from trade publishing, the more convinced I am that we’re getting closer and closer to that fair fight. That’s good for everyone who maintains their flexibility.
My book was published by Penguin back in 2010, and I have nothing but good to say about it. Great cover by a New Yorker artist, good editing, some promotion, nice advance.
The only dark part was the lack of sales, caused by putting a neophyte (me) in charge of marketing, and the implosion of Borders the month the book came out. Goodbye book #2.
So I still flog the book when I can and publish the stuff I want, and I have the bonus of being a TradPub author as well.
So, no, I don’t hate NY publishing at all. This is a business, which LM doesn’t seem to realize.
Don’t hate traditional publishing. Quite the opposite. Don’t love Amazon. Quite the opposite. This is just nutty button-pushing. Whatevs!
Ridiculous. Just a great reminder of why I stopped reading Salon years ago.
We should start playing Publishing Meme Bingo every time one of these articles comes out.
Amazon is Evil.
Amazon is a monopoly.
Hatchette is being bullied.
Trad publishers nurture writers.
Tsunami of swill.
Indies are bitter because they were rejected by trad-publishing.
Article written by writer with one trad-published book under belt.
Readers hate indie books.
The only reason indie books sell is because they’re cheap.
[Name of best-selling indie writer] is an outlier.
Anybody got a ‘Bingo!’ yet?
You left out some:
Good writers move into trad pub
Indie writers are “excess baggage” shed by trad pub
Writers need agents
Self-publishing is too hard for writers
Writers aren’t good at business
Any use of the words “curate,” “curated,” or “curators”
Claims that the shift from print to digital is nearly over
De-valuing books/literature
The terrible things Amazon =might= do to indies “in the future”
Amazon is killing libraries
I didn’t want to leave a gigantic Shatzkin comment.
“Any use of the words “curate,” “curated,” or “curators””
and vet, vetted or verttors, or veterati.
you hit it
nowadays when I hear the word ‘curate’ I want to laugh. It is just so veddy veddy twee to say ‘curate’ re other people’s so many diverse talents. Reminds me of an awards dinner I was at, where a veddy veddy literoni person said he ‘mused onto the pages every day.’ I thought Immodium might help.lol. LIttle joke there.
ROFL Now I need to set aside the caffeinated beverage before reading any more of your comments, USAF.
1) Yes, I was rejected by traditional publishing. But to suggest that that’s my primary motivation for backing Amazon is to insinuate that I can’t take rejection, which isn’t true. The insinuation here is that because self-publishers can’t take rejection, they are (as a class) less professional and mature than traditional authors.
Even though I am self-published, I still submit my short stories to traditional markets, and still get plenty of rejections for them. Doesn’t get me angry at all–it’s all just part of the business. And my decision to partner directly with Amazon is also purely a business decision.
2) The accusation that “it ispublishers [sic] who have engaged in “monopolistic” practices” is not a “strange glitch in logic,” it is a recognition that the major publishers behave exactly like a cartel. Consider the price fixing, for example, or the lock-step contract terms such as the 25% net royalty rate, or the coordination of publishing schedules so that no two major releases are competing for the same spot on the bestseller list.
We accuse big pub for being monopolistic because they are, and to suggest that such accusations are a “strange glitch in logic” motivated primarily by our inability to handle rejection is to dismiss the argument without even considering it.
3) To suggest that “love” and “hate” are the primary motivations of self-publishers is to insinuate that we are emotionally charged and unprofessional. Instead, may I suggest that Ms. Miller take a good, hard look in the mirror.
The advantage of attacking self-publishers through insinuation (as opposed to direct accusation) is that she doesn’t need to provide any evidence to back her insinuations up. Instead, she just needs to get her readers to accept the premise, and without realizing it they will fall for the insinuation as well. For example, do many of us get a bit of schadenfreude watching Hachette shoot themselves repeatedly in the foot with these negotiations? Perhaps. But does that emotional response govern our business decisions as self-publishers? No.
4) To argue that indies need a competitive price advantage is to argue that indies can only compete on price, not on quality. Once again, instead of coming out with a direct accusation, Ms. Miller instead attacks us through subtle insinuation without providing any evidence to back up such claims.
Furthermore, Ms. Miller’s argument assumes that bookselling is a zero-sub game–that a sale for Steven King represents a lost sale for three or four self-publishers. Once again, she provides no evidence for such a claim.
5) Are casual readers being turned off by the “awful lot of unedited dreck”? Or are lower-priced books expanding the overall pie, converting non-readers into readers and increasing the average number of books that readers tend to consume? The evidence that I’ve seen suggests the latter, but I don’t have a source for that offhand.
Regardless, Ms. Miller fails to provide any sort of evidence to support her insinuations. Do self-publishers need to lower their prices to entice mild-mannered readers to wade into the pool of dreck? Or are lower overall prices increasing the population of readers, resulting in a more vibrant and diverse marketplace? Ms. Miller does not even consider the latter explanation because it flatly contradicts her insinuation that self-published books are of lesser quality than traditionally published books.
6) Is self-publishing a “minor league” that benefits traditional publishers, who can “skim off the cream” without having to “risk any of their own resources in developing new authors’ careers”? Or are we living in the year 2014 now? There’s been quite a bit of discussion on this blog about how it’s been more than a year since a successful big-name indie author signed a traditional publishing deal, and how the new norm seems to be for indies to turn such deals down. In contrast to this, Ms. Miller seems to be stuck in the year 2011.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly have no desire to be “skimmed.” And judging from the fact that I’m actually making a living off my books, while so many traditionally published authors aren’t, I would hardly characterize self-publishing as “the minor leagues.”
Joe, I don’t want to be skimmed either, especially since skimming involves skinning as well.
“Ms. Miller seems to be stuck in the year 2011.”
This is something I’ve noticed about all these types of articles: everybody seems to be stuck at least two years in the past. I’m not sure what’s causing this, seeing how fast ebooks have changed over the last few years — in a very public way.
I know I have no hatred of traditional publishing. I found self-publishing while researching the latest news in publishing. I was out of work and figured I might as well see if I could become a writer (a life-long dream).
I never got around to submitting to a “real” publishing company, because I found Joe Konrath’s blog and got converted.
I have no great love for Amazon, or any retailer that I may chose to sell my books. It’s a business deal, which Ms. Miller and her ilk can’t seem to wrap their brains around.
That’s on top of the uncomfortable reality that the emergence of a viable self-publishing community has been — contrary to what many self-published authors assert — a great thing for traditional publishers. It provides a minor-league system where they can track the emergence of popular writers without having to risk any of their own resources in developing new authors’ careers. Then they can skim off the cream.
I know PG has talked about this before. It was true; I doubt it is any longer. This digital revolution is my second chance at writing. A decade ago I gave publishing a try, and realized it was just never going to happen and moved on to greener pastures. Two years ago, when I published my first book, I had dreams of publishers coming to me a la Amanda Hocking. And, with a handful of rejections behind me, I was happy to skip agents the minute I realized I didn’t need one. Apparently, I DO hold a grudge.
BUT, big publishers were too late to scoop me up (or skim me off the top) right around my fourth published book (about 8 months ago) when it dawned on me that I love every d*mn thing about self-publishing. When I realized that I was seeing trad-published books hovering in the rankings right beside mine. When I couldn’t see what publishers were bringing to the table for their cut.
Hard to skim for cream when the cows have figured out they don’t need (or want) you.
Suppose that I apply for a job at corporation X, as a plumber, working on a piece-work basis. They don’t hire me, so I go into business for myself, also as a plumber. Corporattion Y agrees to handle some of my business related office work, while I concentrate on being a plumber (i.e. they handle client’s money, do some marketing, store some inventory, etc., for a fair price).
Would I now hate Corporation X? No, but I would consider them a competitor in the plumbing business and I would hardly be expected to cheerlead for them. Would I now love Corporation Y? No, but I would consider them a valued partner, at least as long as the business relationship seemed fair to me.
So it is with Indies, Trad Publishers, and Amazon. This applies to those that have tried the Trad route and given up on it, at any rate.
What’s going to be next: Articles asking for donation for the poor little Hachette?
“no indie author with whom PG is acquainted employs hundreds of people working in a Manhattan highrise.”
Exactly. I only employ a few dozen fictional characters and they all work for free. Oh, and my wife pitches in once in awhile.
By the way, I wasn’t rejected by traditional publishing. I published twelve books with them (under various names), worked full time and had a decent run.
The thing that attracted me to indie was this: I saw that all my friends who had gone indie were selling books like crazy and making A LOT OF MONEY. Add to this that they had total freedom and control over their work and I have to say that’s a pretty strong case for abandoning New York.
Unfortunately, I had to wait until my current contract was fulfilled, and I’ll tell you, it was a long, tough wait.
Thanks for my morning chuckle.
Okay if you dig in, the only actual downside for indie author is that if Amazon starts selling Big Five books at a reasonable price… indies will have to compete on quality?
I don’t see this as a down side.
As for her assertion that indie publishing becomes a “farm system” where the big five can skim the cream…. dream on. Even within the logic of her own argument, those indies HATE big publishing.
The elephant in the room of these arguments is this: SUCCESSFUL indies make more money than they would at big publishing. They aren’t going to be easy to skim, and the nature of the deal with them will have to be much different than the publishers insist on now. (And every day I hear from another author who turned down a deal from a major publisher.)
The actual low hanging fruit that the publishers can skim off are those who aren’t successful and want to be. But it would take work to turn a profit on those. It would require more dedication to discovering great new voices among the unknown, and much more investment in real nurturing.
Because unlike the slushpiles of the past, the easy wins in the indie “slushpile” are already out of reach of the big publishers.
Why would self-published authors be angry with trade publishing?
Authors not being selected by Big Publishing gatekeepers were a huge, mostly untapped market some years ago. Amazon responded by developing the Kindle Direct Publishing platform, which allowed self-published authors to get their work out to the e-reading public at no cost. They also responded with CreateSpace, which did the same for print books. Both of these profit only when books are sold, thus helping money flow to the writer.
How did Big Publishing respond? By buying, and using, Author Solutions, which sucks money away from writers.
So, again, who’s doing more for self-published writers? That insult by itself is enough reason to be angry with Big Publishing.
Oh, thank goodness you linked to this Salon article. My trad-pub friend posted this today and, after reading, I came over here with my trembling fingers crossed in hopes that the comments were already up and running. I can’t post on her account because our views are so very different and I don’t want to start a feud.
Augh!
I have never been rejected by Trad Pub. I have, however, watched my father deal with the big guys for over two decades. When I told him I wanted to write (oh so many years ago) he said, “Write for love, not money. If you want money, become a publisher.”
Now, I can do both. Thank goodness for TPV and the thoughtful and articulate comments.
Friends don’t let friends embarrass themselves in public the way she has.
“Reedurz iz dumb, publickers iz smartz.” – signed, ADS
A sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy is “proving” your key points by citing a random blog comment or unidentified personal email as indicative of the thinking of any group of people. It is right up there with unsupported assertions of what “readers” think.
She isn’t very persuasive via Twitter either. I don’t think the nice lady truly understands what she wrote (she definitely doesn’t understand self-publishing or the authors who self-publish).
*sigh*
Aside from the heated rhetoric, on both sides, the Amazon-Hachette negotiations are part of the everyday business conducted between a supplier and a retailer. Since contract negotiation is a boring affair, why do we get so steamed up about it? Unless we want just to vent. Or maybe there is something in the deal that may affect us, the Indie Authors. The best thing could have happened for the Indie Authors would have been the Agency Pricing, because the Trad-pubs would have established a minimum price ceiling at $9.99, which in my opinion is high. Also the more expensive the Trad-pub eBook prices are the better for us. Agency pricing didn’t happen, but what if the Trad-pubs, Hachette in this case, are trying Agency Pricing Part 2. Price competition is cruel for suppliers. Trad-pubs have agreed long ago not to compete on price, but now they have competition from the Indie Authors. What the Trad-pubs really want is not only to dictate the eBook prices, but to dictate the Indie eBook Prices. There are very few markets where selling for higher prices is a good business model, and the book market is not one of them. But higher prices can work when everyone maintains higher prices. Hachette wants to go back to price ‘stability’ meaning no competition on price. That means all prices need to be the same, including mine and yours, Indie Authors. Amazon wants Kindle to succeeded and sell more books on a slim margin. What if there will be horse-trading? Hachette gives Amazon a higher margin on eBooks, let’s say 50% instead of 30%, in exchange for Amazon to agree on setting the minimum eBook prices for all? In the end money talks and everything else walks. Amazon has an advantage in the eBook market over the other competitors at this time and it could enforce higher price for more profit. Would you buy a Kobo reader, and discard your Kindle, even if Indie eBook prices, and only Indie eBooks, are lower than Amazon?
This may sound anti-Amazon, but Amazon is a business, and Amazon will do what’s good for Amazon. Currently it happens that Amazon strategy of low book prices benefits us, the Indie Authors, but the Big 5 are big and they will not lay down without a fight. I said in previous responses to blogs that the Trad-pubs have no chance competing in the inexpensive Indie eBook priced market. The rules must be changed, and all rules are subject to change when better profit is available.
Yes I am on Amazon’s side, because what Hachette wants is me and you, the Indie Authors, dead. Hopefully Hachette won’t be able to sweeten the pot and Amazon is not done with the Kindle expansion.
“What the Trad-pubs really want is not only to dictate the eBook prices, but to dictate the Indie eBook Prices. ”
Mit, I initially agreed with this argument, since what you’re saying makes so much sense… But then I took a reality check, and now I think you’re mistaken. Not in theory (in theory, this still makes sense), but in this situation…
Because the reality is, I don’t believe the big publishers recognize indie publishing or pricing as a threat or a market factor.
No, I don’t think that makes any SENSE–not when you see the rapid growth and fast-rising profile of the indie movement/industry. But I nonetheless think it’s true.
I think there is at least one way in which all of the attitudes and commentaries we see from major houses and self-appointed pundits from traditionaly publishing are completely genuinely and an accurate reflection of what they’re saying in private, too: Their dismissive contempt for the indie market.
I think they all genuinely believe that the price competition represented by books priced $0.99-$5.99 is relatively unimportant. ANNYOING, sure, but largely irrelevant, because in their worldview, those prices are entirely based on a “tsunmai of crap” by “untalented unknowns.” They additionally believe (despite a growing body of evidence to the contrary–see my post below) that anyone in that tsunami of crap who’s any good or has any commercial merit will migrate into traditional publishing, from which time forward their pricing will (in the world the publishers -are- trying to craft) be controlled by the publisher.
Since lower prices among indies are something they publicly complain about, I think, sure, the big houses would like it to go away… But I don’t think they think the indie market is important or relevant enough to merit their attention in trying to control, affect, or eliminate indie pricing strategies.
I, for example, think it’s really annoying that people leave cigarette butts on the sidewalk of my street. I even sweep away the butts directly outside my house once ecery week or two. I wish people wouldn’t drop their butts on my street. I wish law enforcement or good manners would make them stop. But do I care ENOUGH about this to invest myself in policing the street, posting signs, and mounting a campaign to put an end to it? Well, no. I have too many other things–things much more important and relevant to me–to focus on to spend any of my time or energy focusing on THAT.
I think this is how the major houses feel about indie pricing. They’d be pleased to see it managed according to rules THEY like… but they don’t think the indie market is important enough to bother making an effort to control or affect indie pricing.
I hope you’re right
“Because the reality is, I don’t believe the big publishers recognize indie publishing or pricing as a threat or a market factor.”
Sure they do. They lost substantial market share to independents, and are still losing it.
I think Laura is right. Big pubs don’t think of self-publishers as a threat and that’s because of their ignorance and arrogance; because they are listening to the people like Shatzkin and because as Joe likes to say, self-publishing is a shadow industry and they have no idea (despite self-publishers occupying the slots on bestsellers list and despite Author Report) how big that shadow industry is and how much market and money that industry has claimed for itself.
“Would you buy a Kobo reader, and discard your Kindle, even if Indie eBook prices, and only Indie eBooks, are lower than Amazon?”
Many people read on iPads, other tablets, and phones. So, a good chunk of the reader market could transition to Kobo, for example, if the price differential was significant. I think Amazon knows this, and would be leery of tempting fate this way.
Yesterday, Shatzkin was (yet again) the latest sample of poorly informed and wholly unconvincing commentary from self-styled publishing pundits. Today, I see, it’s this writer in her Salon article. I don’t have time or energy to repeat what I said yesterday, so I’ll just post a link to it, instead, since it applies equally well to this equally silly piece.
06/2014/much-as-i-like-hugh-howey-i-disagree-with-just-about-all-of-this-recent-post-of-his/#comment-219445
Pfft.
from Salon:
All I needed to read to realize this was going to be pure bullshit.
I don’t need to know all that much about retailing traditionally published books, because I’m not in the business of retailing traditionally published books. I’m selling indie books.
Although, ironically, I probably do know more about the business of retailing traditionally published books than this author who is shilling her Hachette title, because I like to study the book industry.
And if readers are so “willing” to pay more for a “brand-name” author, then why was Hachette screeching and flailing over Amazon daring to sell their books at the MSRP, instead of DISCOUNTING THEM?
“if readers are so “willing” to pay more for a “brand-name” author, then why was Hachette screeching and flailing over Amazon daring to sell their books at the MSRP, instead of DISCOUNTING THEM?””
YOu just attempted to apply logic and consistency to this article.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Salon.com, where context goes to die.
“It provides a minor-league system where they can track the emergence of popular writers without having to risk any of their own resources in developing new authors’ careers. Then they can skim off the cream.”
To date, independents have taken a substantial market share from the publishers. If even more independents take even more market share, will that make an even better minor-league for the publishers?
Thou doth protest too much, methinks. I read a lot of forums filled with self-pubs ranting about trad publishing, usually basing opinions on a thimbleful of skewed information and a lot of incorrect assumptions. From the outside looking in, one can only conclude that the Salon writer nailed it. The snark and anger on this forum follows the same path. Why are you fighting this battle? No one is against self-published authors. Most of my author friends are hybrids. Go and self-publish. Good books are good books. And as for what the article writer said about prices; yes, readers pay more for authors they value. It’s a fact. They pay more for books they believe are worth more, regardless of how those books are published. I see this as a small press publisher all the time. It’s a huge mistake to devalue books on the premise that readers won’t buy them any other way.
So raise prices.
i think the anger is similar to what many feel when Big Brother speaks, snarks and makes angry assaultive remarks against innocents, in this case, indie authors, who many in trad pub at Book Expo, in print, in PW runs, in pundits online FOR the trad pub industry– continue to demean. In public and in private. What I’ve heard in private would burn the hair off a boar hog.
As an author pub’d by two of the big five and knowing many peeps in the industry who are hardworking angels in editing, sales, and marketing [but traits definitely not found in many top top money sweepers and owners], I’d say the pushback against trad pub is completely understandable given many of trad publisher’s “ambassadors” continued mocking and denigrating of indies.
I see that indies are pushing back against the machine, a bloated machine that wheezes and whines and is clumping and tilting about whilst claiming it is the finest animal in the jungle. Against the truly fleet indies: no contest. The clang of repeated untruths amongst the trad pubs’ ambassadors [in print, in blogs, in rags etc] is noted as repetitious insult after insult to thoughtful and observant human beings… such as indie writers. They’re an original lot and not much for the “if trad pub says it long enough, somehow it will be true, come true. ” Not.
To me, just my .02, the indies are understandable not as riff raff but as gifted people who whether comporting with trad pub or indie or both, will not suffer falsehoods meant to prop leaning houses of publishing, rather than supporting truths that are supportive to authors. All authors.
Tried raising prices, found that my revenue was higher when they were low. The only sure way to “devalue” my work is to price it out of the market. And speaking as an insider, I can only conclude that self-publishing is the best way for a beginning writer today to launch a successful, sustainable career. Salon articles be damned.
I would like you to consider the possibility that you are suffering from confirmation bias. I have no doubt that what you say is true from your own experience, but I wonder if your experience is entirely representative of the larger picture. There is indeed a lot of ranting on self-pub forums, but that doesn’t really tell you much about the Amazon-Hachette just as the ranting on political forums wouldn’t tell you much about whether or not Eric Cantor was going to lose his primary.
It is very easy to write off snark and anger when you don’t know much about the people and their experiences. I am sure some folks are operating off of “a thimbleful of skewed information and a lot of incorrect assumptions” and others know more about the industry than you do.
When you say no one is against self-published authors, I wonder what you mean by that. I would say that a publisher who would prefer that self-published books be segregated from his and other traditional publishers’ books are against self-published authors. The fact that most of your author friends are hybrid tells me that your experience is decidedly not typical. In fact, you are a real outlier in this respect. Nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that you should be careful about reasoning from that experience to the bigger picture.
With respect to prices, I think your perspective is preventing you from seeing the situation clearly. I have no doubt that your customers behave exactly the way you describe. That information may or not be relevant to most of the people here. Their potential customers may behave in a completely different way. Readers aren’t a single class who behave the same way. Individual readers don’t even apply the same analysis to different types of books. I will use my own behavior as an example.
I read 100+ fiction books a year. That makes me atypical, but there are a few million people like me in the U.S. I buy very few non-fiction books a year, but I often pay 10x per book for those titles. Do I value those titles more than the novels? I wouldn’t put it that way, but some people would see it that way. I don’t think of the non-fiction books as being in the same product category as the fiction I buy.
The issue isn’t whether or not readers pay more for books they believe are worth more (like all mental models that is partly true and partly false), the issue us whether that model of reader behavior is useful to self-published authors, small publishers, and the Big 5. The answer might be different for each group or even for different people in the same group. My analysis of reader behavior is that it is a generally unhelpful idea. It confuses the different types of value that different readers derive from books and leads to poorly informed decision-making. I don’t know your situation so I cannot say whether not it is harmful to you and I would encourage you to take a hard look at what value readers derive from the books you publish and where that value comes from.
Oh no, but she’s got it all wrong. I LOVE traditional publishing, for having the good sense to reject me. Because now I have my rights, and a platform, and control, and 70%! SEVENTY PERCENT! I am grateful to traditional publishing. Truly.
What I do resent is her assumption that indies are only selling well because they’re priced low. Erm, did it ever occur to her that the reason we’re selling well is because we’re writing books people actually want to read? Traditional publishers can lower their prices all they want, but they’ll still be publishing stuff that isn’t in demand.
And what is it with this idea that we should be on anyone’s side? This isn’t my fight, and it has nothing to do with me. Why do I care what one company is doing to the other? As long as Amazon continues to pay me on time, I’m good.