How a Traditional Publisher Could Harm a Writer’s Career
From the Smashwords Blog:
Follow the ebook numbers. Unit numbers, that is. A close look at the numbers indicates that those authors who continue to publish via traditional publishers might be harming their long term career prospects.
Most ebook market watchers fixate on dollar sales, which, while important, mask the true tectonic shift now underway in book publishing.
In 2012, ebooks in the US will likely approach 30% of trade book sales measured in dollars, up from about 20% in 2011, 8% in 2010, 3% in 2009, 1% in 2008, and 1/2 of 1% in 2007.
. . . .
One surprise, however, was that we found $2.99 books, on average, netted the authors more earnings (profit per unit, multiplied by units sold) than books priced at $6.99 and above. When we look at the $2.99 price point compared to $9.99, $2.99 earns the author slightly more, yet gains the author about four times as many readers. $2.99 ebooks earned the authors six times as many readers than books priced over $10.
If an author can earn the same or greater income selling lower cost books, yet reach significantly more readers, then, drum roll please, it means the authors who are selling higher priced books through traditional publishers are at an extreme disadvantage to indie authors in terms of long term platform building. The lower-priced books are building author brand faster. Never mind that an indie author earns more per $2.99 unit sold ($1.80-$2.10) than a traditionally published author earns at $9.99 ($1.25-$1.75).
The picture painted augurs well for indie ebook authors, but indicates that authors who continue to publish with traditional publishers might actually be damaging their careers. Look no further than the bestseller lists at Apple, Amazon or Barnes & Noble to see that indie ebook authors are taking eyeballs from the authors of NY publishers.
Link to the rest at The Smashwords Blog
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases.
J.K. Rowling’s new novel, The Casual Vacancy, is priced at $20.93 for the hardcover and $19.99 for the Kindle edition.
I know. And you know who the consumer will blame? Rowling.
Not the publisher who set the price. The author. She’ll reap the bad press and lose good will over this, not the publisher.
Here’s another way: Recently I saw a book from an author friend of mine who is published through one of the Big 6. The eBook version of this author’s novel was being sold for $2.99. I assume the publisher was probably doing a pricing promotion to get more sales/readers. All I could think was that he could be getting 70% of $2.99 instead of 10-15% of the same price and probably a similar number of sales and new readers.
This does seem a no-brainer in terms of pricing strategy. There is likely to be a sweet-spot (which might drift over time) for the pricing of an ebook. Numbers matter, and can offset, in terms of gross, lower prices.
The thing is, you don’t have to be self-pub or indie to optimize the pricing, at least in theory. Traditional publishers can easily work with this, if the mind set changes.
Not to mention that in ten years, the book from the traditional publisher will be LONG OOP, while the ebook will still be fresh and crisp!
Onward soldiers! Onward and conquer!
Calling b.s. on this. He doesn’t have the data on tradPub books. He is extrapolating.
“Back in April at the RT Booklovers convention in Chicago, I presented data (click here to access the presentation deck) that examined how price influences unit downloads and overall earnings for indie authors. It wasn’t a surprise that free books generated the most downloads, and lower priced books sold more units than higher priced books.
One surprise, however, was that we found $2.99 books, on average, netted the authors more earnings (profit per unit, multiplied by units sold) than books priced at $6.99 and above. When we look at the $2.99 price point compared to $9.99, $2.99 earns the author slightly more, yet gains the author about four times as many readers. $2.99 ebooks earned the authors six times as many readers than books priced over $10.
If an author can earn the same or greater income selling lower cost books, yet reach significantly more readers, then, drum roll please, it means the authors who are selling higher priced books through traditional publishers are at an extreme disadvantage to indie authors in terms of long term platform building. The lower-priced books are building author brand faster. Never mind that an indie author earns more per $2.99 unit sold ($1.80-$2.10) than a traditionally published author earns at $9.99 ($1.25-$1.75).”
That is not a statistical analysis. It is an estimate without real data. He has no figures for traditionally published books sold at the higher prices.
Yes, and purchasers from various platforms…vary. Also it varies widely with how you promote you work (if you promote your work).
I’ve seen enough people post stats to say that this varies a lot by audience and by book. (And it’s a moving target over time as well.)
Robin Sullivan did a great job of tracking different price points on her husband’s works, and found that 6.99 was the better price for him.
Which isn’t to say I’m hostile to the 2.99 price point, but there are too many other factors to figure in.
I think the biggest problem here may be that there is an implicit assumption in charts like this one that these books are fungible. In reality, some “books” are not worth more than 0.99 because they are actually short stories or of a lower quality. And at the other end, if JK Rowling put up all the HP’s in a bundle for 19.99 would that be too expensive? Would she make more at 2.99? I doubt it.
If an author has just finished a book and thinks, “Okay, now where to price this thing?” then s/he cannot just look at this chart and pick 2.99 as the sweet spot for his/her book. In addition to length of the work, some books are in/from genres/authors which support different prices. Each author would need to experiment to make a chart like this specific to that book. And even that is fraught with uncontrollable factors. But I agree that in most cases the Big Publishers are not pricing to maximize ebook profits. If that is the point Mark Coker is making, then I agree completely. I just wish he’d stop trying to read more into the data than is there. I personally have seen *no* drop off in sales going from 2.99 up to 5.49 for indie books that I consider to be pretty high quality and well presented. They are at least on par with trad published works in the same genre (which IMHO needs more quality control). I certainly have not seen even as high unit sales at 0.99 for these same books. Perceived quality at work, I guess.
Another huge problem with that chart is that it appears to ignore the number of titles offered at each price point. I think that is just saying smashwords sold this many books at this price, not that a book at this price sold this much *on average*. If there are 100x as many books at 2.99 than at 9.99, then it would not be a big surprise to see more units changing hands at that price point. I only skimmed though. Maybe I am reading it wrong.
Actually, I think the biggest problem with this chart is that he reaches a conclusion that is utterly unsupported by the data.
In the world of facts, this is called “making sh*t up.”
Oops, actually in the bit that you quoted, I see he did say “on average” so I would have to look closer at what he is actually plotting.
But I agree he is effectively making this stuff up. He is assuming that Smashwords books behave like trad published books for which he has no data. That’s not gonna show him the truth. He has some data that nobody else has, and I understand his eagerness to try to mine it… But he is reaching waaayyy too far.
This analysis is self-serving. His data does not support his conclusion. In spite of all of that, he is probably correct for his target audience. All other things being equal, a writer publishing their* first novel is probably better off with the suggested pricing.
*See, is anyone confused by ambiguity there?
We’ll see. I’m not publishing my first novel at $2.99. I’ll have data for you in a month or so, William.
Well yeah, you used “his” and “he” earlier and now “their” is completely throwing me. Be consistent if you want to use the singular “they”.
What “singular ‘they’” is that?
Sorry. Editor snark. And I’ve had two cups of tea, too!
The singular they (doesn’t that just make your head hurt, though?) just always sounds like an oxymoron to me, a singular antecedent requiring a singular pronoun, an’ all that. It ain’t done in written English, but of course is quite common in speech.
Getting off my high horse now for some more caffeine
.
When he got to the “disadvantage” trade pubbed authors might face vis-a-vis indie authors, though, I started to listen again.
Deb, the problem is he has no data to back up his claims that tradpubbed authors are at a disadvantage from their publisher’s pricing model. You are listening to sheer theory.
I heard offline that some fantasy/SF imprints offer 50% of net ebook royalties, something I have not heard about here or in other writing blogs. I only hear about the 25% of net, or 17.5% royalties. If that’s true, then they’re making about the same on a $9.99 book as an indie would on a $5.99 book.
But without the data, I’m just blowing smoke.
Which is my point.
Perhaps, but I think the theory makes sense. In the long run, traditionally published authors at a higher price point will reach fewer readers because people won’t pay the higher price for a digital book. Yes, that’s just based on the experiences on my friends and I, but it seems to be the trend.
Maybe the writer should have waited for more data, but if authors wait on the data to confirm it, I think they’ll be behind the power curve and lose out on market share.
RD, when you have no data to support a theory, it is simply wishful thinking. Coker doesn’t need to wait for MORE data. He needs to have ACTUAL data before making his assertion that traditionally published ebook authors are losing money because their publisher charges higher prices. I mentioned above that I heard OFFLINE that some fantasy/sf imprints are still giving authors 50% of net on ebooks. That means they’re making far more on their ebook than a 99 cent author, and twice as much as a $2.99 author. BUT–I have no data, and no proof. So I’m just blowing smoke unless I find, you know, actual facts to support my contention.
The study also completely ignores the name/brand factor. I will buy anything Patricia McKillip publishes. A new author who is every bit as good as McKillip will not command my attention until she proves herself.
And lastly, well, the plural of anecdote is not data. You and your friends do not constitute a statistical analysis. I’m not picking on you, so please don’t take offense. I’m trying to point out that when people make broad declarations like “Traditional publishing ebook pricing is hurting a writer’s career!”, I want to see actual data to back up such a statement. Coker has no data to support such a statement. He is blowing smoke.