Amazon vs the Book Trade?
From writer-publisher Adam Lowe on The Darkleian, a site focused on independent publishers:
Online marketing is cheap and can be very effective. But there are so many books being promoted, people can switch off rather easily. Try searching the Twitter hashtag #free. About 80% of posts seem to be about books. That’s what you’re contending with. Ask yourself what you can do differently to wade through all that and reach your audience. ‘But my book is better’ isn’t a good answer. If no one knows about your book, how will they know that? The trick is to get them to notice the book in the first place. That’s the hard part.
The ebook revolution is a revolution in one sense only: that it gives an even larger share to Amazon and technology producers, rather than to writers and publishers. If you’re a digital-only writer, you’re competing with so many other books it’s hard to be heard. If we open the floodgates to anyone with MS Word or OpenOffice (which Amazon’s ebook publishing programme does), you’re not necessarily making it easier for readers to find good books or for good authors to find readers. You’re just widening the range of books that are out there. Most readers, however, won’t spend hours and hours trying to track down your book if they’re not even aware of it. Why should they?
So There’s No Point in eBooks Then?
Ebooks are a new way of reaching audiences which should be embraced, yes. Although, I’m still a big believer in supporting small presses and indie publishers, and they are the people who will support, nurture and promote writing talent. Amazon, on the other hand, while a great retailer, is first and foremost about the bottom line–not the worth of literature. Bear this in mind when you decide whether to go the traditional publishing route or self-publish through Amazon.
. . . .
[Derek] Haines’ summation is bleak:
It would seem to me that Amazon are intent on attacking the book industry from the bottom and the top. That is, enticing the ‘cream’ to their new publishing houses and undermining the traditional publishers. While at the same time, encouraging self publishing to enable them to have a huge stock of cheap and ultra cheap ebooks to use on ‘el cheapo’ advertising supported Kindles. Not a bad plan. Rake in the cream of publishing profits and add a new stream of advertising revenue from the other end.
Link to the rest at The Darkleian
It’s difficult to find anyone with a significant stake in traditional publishing who has much good to say about indie authors and Amazon.
None of these folks ever seem to slam Nook, however. It’s as if the Amazon critics share a secret knowledge that if Seattle suddenly disappeared, all the Nooks would go away and charming little bookstores would sprout everywhere like daisies in the spring.
PG thinks Kindles and Nooks and iPads and Kobos will be the salvation of books. Given the increasing prices of paper books from major publishers over the last twenty years, without inexpensive readers and ebooks, books sold for reading pleasure would be in a long period of decline. Paper books were losing the battle with the web before the first Kindle popped out of a factory in Taiwan in 2007.
In 1995, the American Booksellers Association had 5,500 members. In 2002, it had 2,191 members. In 2010, that number was 1,410.
“Here’s the reality of the book industry: in 2004, 950,000 titles out of the 1.2 million tracked by Nielsen Bookscan sold fewer than 99 copies. Another 200,000 sold fewer than 1,000 copies. Only 25,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. The average book in America sells about 500 copies” (Publishers Weekly, July 17, 2006).
Passive Guy understands the floodgate sentiments, but doesn’t buy them. These worries always seem to reflect a subconscious fear that readers are too stupid or helpless to find the books they want to read if a tasteful gatekeeper isn’t around to dole them out like mints sitting on doilies.
The floodgates have been open for anyone who wants to publish a blog for years and somehow blog readers seem to find what they want to read. Does anyone think shutting down all blogs is a step forward for readers or writers?
Regardless of anyone’s sentiments, Amazon is not going away. Should Seattle suddenly disappear, a dozen would-be Amazons would sprout overnight, each more aggressive than the next on pricing.
Sorry, the belief that writers make less money in the digital era is absolute crap. Every former NY writer I know who has gone indie is making FAR MORE MONEY! Seven exclamation points. And sometimes seven figures.
All the intermediaries ever did was take money from both ends without providing a whole lot of middle.
It’s interesting to see how emotionally charged folks are getting over the whole selfpub vs. tradpub matchup. Change can be a painful thing to endure, and there are a ton of traditionally-published authors out there who are suddenly seeing their hard-won validation swirling down the drain. Self-published upstarts are suddenly making some serious coin, in far less time, and it’s got to be hitting the “traditionalists” hard. And Amazon is only the first company to take a serious swing at stepping into the vacuum that’s being left in the wake of traditional publishing’s withdrawal from relevance.
No matter how you slice it, that’s gotta hurt some folks.
But…for those with a genuine entrepreneurial spirit–which essentially boils down to being able to divine opportunity and accept risk–there are rewards to be had. And that includes traditionally-published authors as well, if they can set aside their prejudices and rather rampant bias and come to grips with the fact the publishing landscape has changed. And the sooner the better. The only adequate response to a change as great as this one is to adapt…or perish. (He says, with a dash of melodrama.)
I think we all need, in this charged atmosphere of change, to be aware of generalizations. Not all traditionally published authors have ‘rampant bias’ and their heads in the sand. In fact, there’s a rather decent number that are looking at the big picture – which means a foot in both worlds, or wholeheartedly embracing self-publishing. It’s not a mutually exclusive choice.
Of course not, but the majority of self-pub detractors are those hardwired to the traditional model…yes?
True enough – though I think that the most hardwired of those traditionalists are not necessarily the authors…
I’m not convinced of that. So many of them–so many! And they’re smart people, too!–still have a decidedly derogatory outlook when it comes to the whole self-pub paradigm. I suspect it’s borne out of fear as opposed to genuine intransigence, but it’s there. I see it almost daily among the “traditional” authors I follow on FB. Chances are good other folks see the same thing.
It doesn’t have to be that way. I’m sure most of them didn’t avail themselves of PG’s services, and they’re trapped by rotten contracts, so many of them might have to “reinvent” themselves with another pen name in order to hop aboard the self-pub train. That takes work, but if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. The longer folks wait to roll up their sleeves and get to it, then the longer it’s going to take to develop that new revenue stream.
And those who are going into self-pub can be going about it the wrong way. Check out David Brin’s entries on Kindle, like The Tank Farm Dynamo and Stones of Significance. Brin’s legitimately one of the luminaries of science fiction, but his covers are completely amateurish and the descriptions aren’t exactly compelling. A smart guy…why are his self-pub offerings so obviously different from the traditionally-offered ones? He couldn’t hire Jim Burns or Jeroen ten Berge to crank out a cover or two? Jesus, even I did that, and I’m far from being an intellectual heavyweight.
From the author’s standpoint, it should be treated as a business. I submit there are a fair number of those out there–both traditional AND self-published–who don’t get that, and their dithering about is only costing them.
Now agents, on the other hand…they’re TOTALLY screwed!
I think a lot of the derision is that self-publishing has made a complete about-face in the last couple years. It used to be that it really *was* a terrible idea for fiction writers to self-publish, plus so many people fell to the scams of vanity publishing.
It’s hard to make a U-turn if you’ve been barreling down the road as fast as you possibly can, attention straight out the windshield and ignoring the rapidly changing landscape. To flog a metaphor.
The numbers from the 2006 PW article say it all: publishing has always been a flood of crap. The only difference is that Amazon now lets authors keep more revenue for themselves. And there is a much broader selection available to readers. If those lamenting the decline of the printed book and the traditional publishing industry are so intent on saving that industry, there’s a simple, market based solution: publish better books.
But because that’s never really been an option for the industry (witness the million books that didn’t even sell 100 copies each BEFORE the Kindle) they just carry on whining about the sea change.
This just seems to be a variation on the “flood o’ crap” argument.
Going back to DWS’s 95% blog last week–not only will 95% of the writers not try indie publishing, I think 95% of those that do will quit when they don’t win the publishing lottery within six months. I’m starting to see the phenomenon in several acquaintances. They’ve put one or two stories up, don’t sell what they consider adequate numbers, and say ‘I’m not doing this again. It’s not worth it.’ Why? Because it’s WORK.
I’ve done enough business start-ups in my life to know that the owner needs to know their industry inside and out and the owner’s aim should be to hit a profit on Year 3, not Month 3. Hey, if you do show a profit by Month 3, then more power to you!
If the writer is looking at indie publishing as a business and works hard at their craft, all they have to do is outlast the competition.
Absolutely. Very nicely put~
I try to take the concerns of people like this seriously. I try not to make snarky comments. But I’ve got to say that this one gave me a very good laugh. Or maybe it’s just fall out from staying up late, watching the clearing of Zuccotti Park, but….
Oh my God, Amazon is attacking the not-a-all-elitist publishing industry from the bottom up! Amazon is Occupying Pubishing! Unwashed, drooling idiots with ad-supported Kindles (who never read a book before) will, gasp, be reading billions of books not published by the Big Six! Get out the riot cops! Where’s the pepper spray!
(Okay I did stay up too late last night.)
The problem with publishing pundits is that they don’t want to understand what’s going on in ebook publishing, so don’t look beyond their own little world — and don’t see that Amazon is not competing with them. Amazon is MOVING ON from them, because they didn’t keep up.
And reason they didn’t keep up is because they don’t understand modern concepts like Permission Marketing. They only understand the old spammy kind of marketing. They’re beginning to see that it doesn’t work, but they don’t understand that successful people are already doing something else.
This puzzles me.
I can understand the hostility that booksellers and large publishers may have towards Amazon. However small, independent publishers should realize what Amazon has done: level the playing field. Instead of fighting a (mostly losing) battle to get their books into stores across the country, they can now reach readers all across America for minimal cost and effort.
This is a good thing and should be celebrated (by them too).
Gah, I get so tired of this:
“He’s absolutely right. It’s true that there is a glut of cheap ebooks on Amazon, which I doubt anyone but Amazon is making money from. In the meantime, publishers’ revenues fall, writers continue to be unfairly paid, and many good books are overlooked by a reading public swamped by chaff.”
Putting on my reader’s hat, indie pubbing is the best thing since Skippy Peanut Butter. Years ago I foreswore ever accumulating a TBR pile again. Now that I have a Kindle, I have three pages of books to read (so much for that vow, but in my defense, I don’t have to dust this pile of books) I have absolutely no trouble finding books I want to read on Amazon. None. The same can’t be said for bookstores and other retail outfits where the traditional publishers have narrowed the selection to the latest paranormal YAs, James Patterson and whatever the publishers deem are the best sellers. It makes me wonder if the blogger who despairs of chaff has actually ever SHOPPED for books.
At the risk of being bashed, I’m starting to think he has a point. I don’t despair of chaff. I’m not afraid of change. But I still think this is a far more complex issue than those of us who are self-pubbing think it is.
There’s just a whole lot of stuff going on in the world of publishing right now and my Magic Eight Ball keeps saying…Reply Hazy, Try Again…
There may indeed be complexities waiting to reveal themselves, but pulling back from author-centered publishing while I wait for all to be revealed doesn’t work for me as a strategy. What would I be doing meanwhile? It certainly wouldn’t be continue to send mss to an agent or trad publisher. If the reply about indie publishing is hazy, how hard must it be to read the future of traditional publishing?
There’s not going to be anything tidy or certain about these disruptions for awhile, Julia.
And the rules for success will change about every six months.
But to decry it is like complaining about the weather or aging. Nobody wins the war when they’re fighting against cheap.
“The ebook revolution is a revolution in one sense only: that it gives an even larger share to Amazon and technology producers, rather than to writers and publishers…”
I’m sorry but that is such an idiotic comment that I can’t bring myself to bother reading the rest of it. It takes 30 seconds of basic math to figure out exactly how stupid that is.
Oh, dear, I keep hoping that this particular “too much crap” argument is going away.
Let’s forget that I am one of those indie authors that people keep saying don’t exist because I am successful despite not having a long successful legacy publishing career behind me, no initial fan base, no marketing experience, no professional editor.
Let’s just take me as a reader with over 50 years experience. Before ebooks and Amazon, I did not find the books I wanted to read by reading reviews or best-seller lists in newspapers (which still slight books by women and genre books–my main reading categories), or running across promotional materials by publishing houses.
I found fiction by browsing in the library (yes–free books), and when I found an author I liked, I then went to the book store and bought books by that author. Or I went to a books store and browsed. In both cases there were always hundred’s of thousands of books I could have chosen from (some crap, some not) but the size of the library or store did not inhibit me from finding books I wanted to read.
Yet, somehow the fact that you can find hundreds of thousands of books on Kindle (and some of them cheap) is supposed to inhibit my ability to find books to read. I just don’t get it. Amazon makes it easier for me to find books, because I don’t just have a shelf of mystery to browse through alphabetically, or a huge wall of just “fiction.” I actually have sub-categories, customer recommendations, and key word searches I can do, which narrows the number of books and makes it more likely that I am looking at books that fit my reading tastes.
The only thing I can figure out is that the people who write this sort of argument behave differently from me as a reader. They must depend more on what a book store owner puts out front on a table, or what their local newspaper reviewer recommends (and oh dear what are they going to do when the bookstore close and the newspaper folds). Or they are so technophobic they haven’t figured out how to do a keyword search on the Barnes and Nobel or Amazon websites. Or, maybe they are just making up arguments because they don’t like the idea that just anybody gets a chance to have their work judged by the readers.
Unfortunately I suspect it is the latter.
M. Louisa Locke
author of Maids of Misfortune and Uneasy Spirits
M. Louisa:
They may behave differently from you as a reader, or they may just be so wrapped up in how they _sell_ books that they never bothered to notice what they themselves do as a buyer. (Although they probably do acquire books differently, because they are publishing professionals, and the books in their TBR pile is thrust upon them.)
I knew a guy who swore up and down that he never used word-of-mouth, never read reviews or best seller lists, never listened to advertising, never was swayed by any method at all. And yet he read a lot of books.
I asked him how he found books… and he didn’t know. It was only after listening to a bunch of others talk about the specifics that he began to realize that he was making assumptions on how all those things he disdained work. He got a wrong idea from marketers:
For instance, marketers earnestly believe that a reviewer tells people that a book is good, and their loyal audience obediently buy the book. They also think that word-of-mouth means that people put peer pressure on each other to like something.
They don’t get that it’s not a push-button power thing. Reviewers have influence not because they give a stamp of approval, but because their reviews are interesting to read, and so people read them for entertainment. And after reading the review, they’ve heard of the book and author, and will remember that next time they come across that book or author.
Same with word-of-mouth: it’s not about peer pressure, it’s about familiarity. Your friend doesn’t even have to say anything. If she has that book on her desk or coffee table, you will be exposed to it.
The guy I mentioned above only bought books he already knew about and books which he had decided on his own he would like. He realized that he got to know about those books because other people talked about them. Sure, they didn’t influence him, they just brought the book into his realm of knowledge. It’s not an active process — it’s a passive one.
“Amazon, on the other hand, while a great retailer, is first and foremost about the bottom line–not the worth of literature. Bear this in mind when you decide whether to go the traditional publishing route or self-publish through Amazon.”
My God I’m really getting tired of this dreck.
Dude, it’s called A BUSINESS. If anyone who’s running a business tells you they’re not about the bottom line but instead about the worth of literature, or whatever touchy feely bit of squishiness appeals to you, they are COMPLETELY shining you on. And you are a gullible idiot who needs to go take an economics class.
And another thing. What exactly is “the worth of literature”? What the HELL does that mean? By whose standard do you establish what that worth is? Yours? Thank you, but, pun intended, up yours. You don’t get to decide for me what I should or should not find valuable. Maybe I like “crap” and find it entertaining. And maybe I like that I can find a lot more of it. That’s my business, not yours. And it’s not the end of the freaking world.
We’re talking about entertainment here, not cancer research or something truly earth shaking.
God, I cannot stand pretentious douchebaggery like that.
Grrr…..
I need a drink.
Where’s the “Like” button? Michael, you hit any number of nails square on. Well done you.
Lovely rant, Michael.
FULL OF WIN!
Love the “up yours” pun!
Is anyone else here old enough to remember when there were only three TV networks? Then, suddenly I had “13 channels of sh*t on my TV to choose from”. Now I have hundreds. Not to mention the infinite channels of YouTube.
Back when there were three networks, print guides to television worked great. Anyone ever tried to use a print TV Guide lately? It is less than optimal. Does anyone care? Nope, because we eventually developed electronic guides (among a bunch of other solutions).
My point here is that someone is going to solve the “how do I find good stuff to read”. Amazon is certainly solving it for their stable of authors. Smashwords has some good features. I am sure there are others. There will be chaos for some time. A few things are pretty certain. It seems unlikely that the traditional publishers are going to figure it out, although I wouldn’t be surprised if some ex-employees of a trad firm does. Also, becoming a successful author will be hard work and their will be a lot of luck involved in financial success.
I think it’s awesome to have some utter disruption for a change…
I could care less how anyone else publishes or what “route” they take (as if any of us ever move in a straight line to some fixed destination of our own, much less one ultimate destination for all). I say rock it however you do it, and let the party roll.
(Incidentally, publishing success has always been luck. Even talent is just a form of luck. Hard work can help, if you’re lucky).
Agent Steve Axelrod spoke at an RWA National conference about luck and publishing. He talked about what writers CAN control, which is your number of times at bat (to use a baseball analogy). Get yourself out in front of the ball. The more times you swing, the more chances you have of hitting it. “At bats” are everywhere these days, and each writer defines theirs differently (as you said, Scott). Figure out what your success is, and don’t quit trying. Sooner or later, you’re going to connect.
Nice Pink Floyd reference! I don’t understand how more selection is possibly a bad thing. Especially with metadata getting more detailed and specific, and search capacities that can narrow down results to a level of specificity previously unheard of.
From an author’s standpoint, I don’t buy the shrinking pie line of thought either. It assumes that there is a set, finite number of customer dollars out there, which is simply not true. I believe, with the advent of cheap, accessible readers and tablets, and falling prices of books, that the overall pie is going to increase. Besides, if a customer can get three or four ebooks for the prices they traditionally paid for one Big 6 book, that alone increases my chances dramatically of landing a sale even if the pie stays exactly the same. And I’m getting a bigger cut per book than the Big 6 author.
One thing the internet revolution has indisputably done is create a renaissance of reading. People may not going back to physical books, magazines, newspapers, etc, but they are consuming more words than ever before in human history. Ebooks are an industry with a giant upside, that pie’s just going to get bigger and bigger.
[...] http://www.thepassivevoice.com/11/2011/amazon-vs-the-book-trade/ Share this: Tagged as: Amazon, authors, ebooks, novels, publishing, writing Leave a comment Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post ) [...]
Interesting article about one author’s crusade to save bookstores: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/ann-patchett-bucks-bookstore-tide-opening-her-own.html
Patchett is trying to compete “… where Amazon cannot: by being small and sleek, with personal service, intimate author events and a carefully chosen rotation of books.”
This is the only way I see brick-and-mortar stores staying alive, but becoming personal where Amazon is impersonal, and event/experience based where Amazon is product based. But I still don’t know if an author-led sortie will really go anywhere for Nashville. Patchett admitted she has zero interest in retail and bookstores and is only doing it to avoid the nightmare of living in a city without bookstores. Sounds like the wrong way to go about it to me. If there’s demand, bookstores will spring up. If there’s no demand… good luck.
[...] = {"data_track_clickback":true};The Passive Guy had an interesting post yesterday recounting 2006 data that showed that the book industry was already well in decline before the rise of eReaders. Here’s the interesting part for those too lazy to click through: In 1995, the American [...]
There are some very interesting points here. I think, however, my original post has been taken out of context. This is probably my own fault, for not clarifying my position from the start. My gripe is with Amazon’s monopoly, and what that might mean for writers, rather than self-publishing and the validity of ebooks.
Julia Barrett’s comment, quoted here: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/11/2011/meet-the-new-publishing-same-as-the-old-publishing/, is a very important one.
As someone who has experience of both ebooks and print books (and has published in both), I do see the opportunity ebooks present. I think they’re very useful and it’s always a good thing that more people are seeing their words in print.
But many self-published writers who use Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing see ebooks as the be-all and end-all, and then wonder why their books aren’t selling millions. There’s lots of hype about ebooks, and while ebooks are selling in huge quantities, these quantities are spread over a vast number of titles. It’s only a small number of writers, as with traditional publishing, who are making a killing. In that respect, we need to temper this hype with a good dose of reality.
I would like those surging to Kindle en masse to consider what they’re sacrificing for their higher royalties and immediate publishing.
Modern mainstream publishing doesn’t always invest in writers and new talent as much as it should. But ebook self-publishing, while allowing new talent to be heard, can’t really be said to offer much of an investment in writers either (since it’s the writers who are doing all the investing). Amazon (and Nook!) isn’t giving writing classes, in-depth editorial support and career development to self-published writers. Traditionally, this is what publishers would have done for their own authors (although, it seems, many no longer do this outside the small press scene). As Julia says, it is this organisation (and support) that many writers will miss.
What is undeniable is this: bookstores are closing all over the world. Perhaps they need to adapt, yes. But those who don’t see that Amazon is developing a worrying monopoly over the booktrade, which is destroying local businesses and brick and mortar bookstores, are perhaps as biased as those with an investment in traditional publishing.
Without agents, who will argue for proper remuneration and rights for authors? Why should every author be forced to brush up on contract law just to avoid being exploited? Without editors, who will weed out errors, give feedback, and help writers’ work flourish? Is anyone at Amazon really doing all this for the self-published Kindle author? If we see traditional publishing die, every author will be a self-published Kindle author, and your fate as a writer will be in the hands of a *retailer* rather than someone whose job it is to develop and nurture your talent.
That is what worries me. I don’t want to see the livelihood of authors turned over to an online retailer who cares only about its profits and not about the creative talents who supply the goods.
Some great responses here. Thanks for opening up this discussion.
Adam, I do understand your concerns about monopoly. Remember, the livelihood of authors used to be in the hands of other large corporations who controlled the means of distribution, who cared only about their bottom line, who treated most of their authors with utter indifference except inasmuch as they lined the publisher’s pocket, who paid far, far more attention to saleability and market than to artistic merit, and who fostered a “produce model” of book sales that said your book had months or even weeks to prove itself before they jacked you up and put a hungrier writer where you used to be.
Worried about what Amazon MAY do? Then consider what major publishers have been doing for years, and are doing even more of now: ridiculously low advances for the midlist that pay for outrageous advances for top earners; royalty rates so low that it’s a given that a midlist book will never earn out (thereby justifying an even lower advance for the author’s next book), and worsening contract terms, particularly in regards to electronic rights.
Who will argue for our rights and remuneration? Smart writers are hiring IP lawyers to vet contracts; lawyers whose financial wellbeing is not tied irrevocably to the very publishers they’re negotiating with for favorable contract terms. Over the past 20 years I’ve had very good relationships with two top agents–one in the states, the other in the UK. I like and respect them both, but they are businessmen, and they know the rules of butter and bread. There are more hungry authors than major publishers by a factor of a million.
Who will weed out errors, give feedback, and nourish us? For errors and feedback we will hire our editors and proofreaders. In many cases they will be the same freelancers who edited and proofread our books all along; the same ones that major publishers have been outsourcing to for years.
And I will except certain honest and caring small presses here, but if you think a major traditional publisher’s job is to nourish you, you might want to prepare yourself to leave the table hungry.
Bridget, note that I didn’t specify major publishers. I’m more of an indie outfit man myself (I run Dog Horn Publishing, an indie outfit, and do freelance promotions for Peepal Tree Press, another indie outfit).
But let me point out some very real concerns I have with your points above.
1. If writers are paying for editors and proofreaders, they can expect to fork out a few hundred pounds for the privilege.
2. If writers are paying for lawyers, they will again pay a few hundred pounds. Remember also that publishing is a very niche subject, and most lawyers who are experts in this are confined to the big cities. In the UK, I’d have to go to London to find a decent lawyer who was an expert in these matters.
3. If writers are self-publishing their work, they’re also paying for printing, typesetting, distribution, etc. They also have to do all their own marketing, unsupported, which takes time away from writing.
To put a ballpoint figure on these costs, if you want to do it properly, it’ll cost at least £2,000.
Now bear in mind that 80% of books sell less than 100 copies, and most self-published books sell around 40 copies, and suddenly traditional publishing doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
At the end of the day, Amazon is not a publisher, and has no interest in writers except as producers of product. You may say the same of many major publishers (and in some cases be right), but you’re discounting the very valid and very hard work many publishers put in on a daily basis.
Publishing makes neither me nor my colleagues in the indie press world much money. We do it because we love books and we want to support and champion writers. We don’t do it to make huge profits and exploit people. Most of us are also writers and/or books lovers as well as publishers.
It’s interesting that most of those who decry traditional publishing have very little experience either of the behind-the-scenes work that goes on, or of the benefits many (but not all) writers receive.
Dear Andrew,
I think what debates like these reveal is simply how quickly publishing is changing, and how frustrating it is when one side or the other reveals in their argument that they are still basing their arguments on old information. You are writing from your experience-but I have trouble when so many of your assumptions and statements are inaccurate, or out-of-date.
First of all, where did you get the idea that those of us who have problems with traditional publishing have no experience? You aren’t reading the blogs I am reading then!!! At this point it seems to me from what I know (personal experience, reading blogs, reading articles, etc) the majority of us who are self-publishing successfully do have experience. We are either authors who had traditionally published, or authors who had spent years trying to traditionally publish, and we have a very detailed, very accurate idea of how traditional publishing works, both its strengths and weaknesses. It may be that in time lots of newbie writers will be entering the field, but I can bet that they will either do their homework or their books will sink like stones.
Second, when you talk about the costs of publishing and include cost of a lawyer for a contract, and printing, typesetting, distribution, all this does is suggest that you haven’t been doing your homework. Where self-published authors are making their money is in ebooks, most selling through Amazon and Barnes and Noble, and guess what, no need for lawyers-because contract is simple, and non-exclusive, and no need for printing, typesetting, etc.
Yes it is a good idea to pay for a cover designer, and if you don’t have professional writers and editors as part of your community (as most of us do), then paying for a professional editor is a good idea, but that’s all. The capital investment is small. For me it was under $500 total for first book-including review copies, and cover design. And this mean I had to sell 250 books to break even. I have sold 15,000.
And here is where your lack of up-to-date information again is lacking. That 100 copies average is old news. It is based on the old system where most self-published authors used author service companies like iUniverse. We don’t have good statistics yet, but any perusal of the best-seller lists on Amazon, or Kindle boards, show you how many indie authors are selling very well.
While most self-published books are not successful, just like most ms didn’t ever make it past the gate-keepers. What is different is that those books that didn’t make it past the gatekeepers died, were never read. What is true for self-published books is that if they are good, in time they get discovered, and then read, then talked about, then more are sold, and then success comes. Or the writer gets feedback from those who read their book and didn’t like it, and does better the next time.
And, frankly very few indie authors who write about this issues ever say no one should ever traditionally publish. They say there are alternatives, or that in the midst of rapid change, maybe it ins’t a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket-particulalry if this means locking up your work in contracts with agents and publishers that won’t let you adapt to those changes.
And very few of us who are making these arguments are saying all publishers are bad, in fact most are saying it is the system that isn’t working and needs to change, or fewer and fewer authors are going to feel the benefits outweigh the liabilities. Because we love books too, and want to be able to make a living (not a fortune) doing what we love, just as you do.
Yes, I did except publishers like yourself, because I know a few people in that line of work, and I used to lose a bit of money myself, publishing Aeon Speculative Fiction. Beleive me, I don’t say any of this in ignorance of what goes into bringing a book to market.
It’s good to know small presses like yours are still out there helping a few of the vast majority of writers who will never go the author-as-publisher route, or who will choose it for some projects but not others.
If I pay £200 to a lawyer to vet a contract, that not only saves me the 15% of my sales I’m not giving to an agent in perpetuity, but also the person negotiating for me is not dependent for his or her livelihood on the third party in the negotiation–the publisher. To me, this is a smart move. Pay once, not forever. I’ve had good relationships with two very good agents, but they’re not ignorant of the laws of bread and butter. I’m with Dean Wesley Smith on this one: in the present publishing climate, avoid agents.
Self-publishing paper books can be done for considerably less than £2,000 these days, and even less for electronic books, which are outselling paper, at least in the US. There’s a learning curve to making a really decent-looking book, but it’s not as overwhelming as many might suppose.
Many people at publishing houses put in a lot of effort to bring books to market; I don’t deny it, and I wouldn’t want to invalidate their efforts. That isn’t a reason to keep writing books for a tiny percentage of cover price (many midlisters never see 15% -15%. I did it for far less). Publishers like you give me faith, but I know and you know that you do things very differently from the “big boys” in London and New York.
I agree that Amazon isn’t looking out for me, any more than my publishers did. Writers have been seen for some time by major publishers as “producers of product,” and product with a very short shelf life that had months or even weeks to prove itself in the market before newer, fresher product was put on the shelves in its place. It was that way when my books came out 20 years ago, and it hasn’t changed except to get worse for authors.
Bridget, we agree on many things. I guess we differ on whether we see self-publishing or traditional publishing as providing the best option for most people. Most people commenting here clearly see self-publishing as the only option, which is perhaps to be expected because of the nature of this website. But visit other website and you’ll see the exact opposite. Who’s right? Perhaps we both are. I’m not actually entirely convinced traditional publishing is the best way for writers to make money either, but I also don’t think self-publishing is the Holy Grail of writer. I am convinced, however, that indie presses in particular contribute to a literary scene that can and does support writers in a number of ways.
But more things to consider for those who haven’t made their mind up either way:
When I speak about price, I refer also to the cost of your time. If I spend a day marketing my own books, that’s a day I could have earned £350 doing an appearance at a festival or university (based on the Society of Author’s minimum day rates). If I spend 5 days preparing my own book for publication (which is a very modest underestimate), that’s £1,750 right there. Also, the Science Fiction Writers of America’s minimum recommended advance for an author is $2,000. I’m not sure which genre(s) you write in, but I tend to argue for professional rates in any contracts where it is appropriate.
I agree it’s better to pay for a lawyer once and not again and again, but most writers won’t make back that initial investment anyway. I personally don’t have an agent and have little interest in getting one. As a publisher I’m pretty clued up on contracts, and I’m happy with that. Some of my colleagues, however, enjoy the support of having an agent. Indeed, my friend R. L. Royle, who started off as a very successful self-publisher, went from doing everything herself to having an agent and seeking a traditional publisher. She’s much more happy with this arrangement because even when she was selling thousands, she was constantly fulfilling the role of a publisher rather than the role of a writer. Now she writes full time and makes a living from it. She doesn’t have to design any more book covers, copyedit one more thing, or send out another advance information sheet–ever!
I understand there are those who enjoy publishing who also write (I’m one of them), but writing is a very different skill to publishing, and not every writer wants to be a publisher. For those writers, traditional publishing will usually be a better deal than self-publishing.
It is also a pity that many major publishers are dropping their mid-list authors. This is a particularly challenging time for those writers who sell less than 4,000 copies of a book, but still have audiences and consistently publish good material. But those writers are and should find support from indie presses instead, where they get much more one-on-one support. I think we agree, though, on the value of indie presses, and so I don’t think we need to go into too much detail about this part of the argument.
Speaking as a person who has marketed, edited, designed and written books, it’s a much more attractive position to have the weight and support of a team behind you. A team that believes in your book enough to bring it to print (even though they may know it won’t make them huge amounts of money) and will help you develop, hone and market your work. That kind of support is completely absent if you self-publish, and while it’s true that some people are very successful self-publishers and have a great amount of success, as with mainstream publishing, those few remain the exception and not the rule.
In general, I wouldn’t recommend anyone to rely on booksales to make their money. Some people get lucky and do just that–many more don’t, however professional they are or whatever route they take. Becoming an author or a publisher is an insane choice, but we do it for the love, not the money. (There are, of course, other ways to make money. Such as appearances, commissions, and residencies, which I go into some detail about here: http://www.nawe.co.uk/DB/young-writers-news-3/earning-your-crust-part-one.html and http://troglodyterose.blogspot.com/2011/07/gregor-dallas-vs-soa-vs-publishers.html. In the latter I actually discuss why a changing literature economy might be a good thing *and* defend the kinds of publishing we’re talking about here.)
Ms Locke: you assume I base my arguments on old information. The figures I give you are pretty recent. It used to be that 85% of books lost money. The figures aren’t much different now–it’s just that less money is going to the mainstream publishers and now it’s being distributed across a wider number of publishers and self-publishers. W
Can you, however, provide figures that contradict mine? If so, I’ll happily accept that I am wrong. You make vague generalisations, but don’t point us to anything specific, except your own experiences (which are exceptional for either print or ebook sales, but do not in themselves constitute a trend).
I’d agree with you that your information isn’t old, but I’d also say it’s based on a lot of hype. Show me the figures that say self-published authors are consistently doing better than traditionally published authors, and I will agree with you. That, I might also add, is different to saying ebooks are outselling print books. Ebooks can outsell print books 10:1, but if there are a million ebook authors and only 10 print authors . . . well, you get the idea.
Yes, some self-published authors are doing especially well under current models, and do indeed have experience in publishing. But as you say, it tends to be those with some experience that have the success. Most self-published authors, however, have not had that experience and do not have that success. I simply object to self-publishing being labelled the *only* way to succeed when quite clearly that’s not true. Self-publishing works for you, and that’s great. But it doesn’t work for everybody, and so you shouldn’t decry those who defend traditional publishing for what it offers them.
Also, to follow the point I made to Bridget: while $500 may be the actual cost in monetary terms for producing your book, you’re again missing out the time commitment, which not every writer can afford. I imagine you’re doing all your own marketing on top of your writing.
Bridget, we agree on many things. I guess we differ on whether we see self-publishing or traditional publishing as providing the best option for most people. Most people commenting here clearly see self-publishing as the best or only option, which is perhaps to be expected because of the nature of this website. But visit other website and you’ll see the exact opposite. Who’s right? Perhaps we both are. I’m not actually entirely convinced traditional publishing is the best way for writers to make money either, but I also don’t think self-publishing should be hailed as the Holy Grail of writers.
But more things to consider for those who haven’t made their mind up either way:
When I speak about price, I refer also to the cost of your time. If I spend a day marketing my own books, that’s a day I could have earned £350 doing an appearance at a festival or university (based on the Society of Author’s minimum day rates). If I spend 5 days preparing my own book for publication (which is a very modest underestimate), that’s £1,750 right there. If I was marketing someone’s book, I would expect to get paid. Self-published authors are doing this job (and it is a job) for free, and that’s something to consider.
Also, the Science Fiction Writers of America’s minimum recommended advance for an author is $2,000. The associations for horror writers and romance writers agree on a similar minimum advance, which isn’t too shabby.
Now I agree it’s better to pay for a lawyer once and not again and again, but many writers won’t make back that initial investment anyway. In fact, I’d venture that the majority don’t.
I personally don’t have an agent and have little interest in getting one. As a publisher I’m pretty clued up on contracts, and I’m happy with that. Some of my colleagues, however, enjoy the support of having an agent. Indeed, my friend R. L. Royle, who started off as a very successful self-publisher (whose first editions regularly go for £85+ on Amazon now that she’s given it up), went from doing everything herself to having an agent and seeking a traditional publisher. She’s much more happy with this arrangement because even when she was selling thousands, she was constantly fulfilling the role of a publisher rather than the role of a writer. Now she writes full time and makes a living from it. She doesn’t have to design any more book covers, copyedit one more damn page, or send out another advance information sheet–ever!
I understand there are those who enjoy publishing who also write (I’m one of them), but writing is a very different skill to publishing, and not every writer wants to be a publisher. For those writers, traditional publishing will usually be a better deal than self-publishing.
It is also a pity that many major publishers are dropping their mid-list authors. This is a particularly challenging time for those writers who sell less than 4,000 copies of a book, but still have audiences and consistently publish good material. But those writers are and should find support from indie presses instead, where they get much more one-on-one support. I think we agree, though, on the value of indie presses, and so I don’t think we need to go into too much detail about that part of the argument.
Speaking as a person who has marketed, edited, designed and written books, it’s a much more attractive position to have the weight and support of a team behind you. A team that believes in your book enough to bring it to print (even though they may know it won’t make them huge amounts of money) and will help you develop, hone and market your work. That kind of support is completely absent if you self-publish, and while it’s true that some people are very successful self-publishers and have a great amount of success, as with mainstream publishing, those few remain the exception and not the rule. Plus we’re yet to see the likes of J. K. Rowling in the ebook realm, which is the ultimate proof that for many traditional publishing is still the most enticing option.
In general, I wouldn’t recommend anyone to rely on booksales to make their money (whether as retailers, authors or publishers). Some people get lucky and do just that–many more don’t, however professional they are or whatever route they take. Becoming an author or a publisher is an insane choice, but we do it for the love, not the money. (There are, of course, other ways to make money. Such as appearances, commissions, and residencies, which I go into some detail about here: http://www.nawe.co.uk/DB/young-writers-news-3/earning-your-crust-part-one.html and http://troglodyterose.blogspot.com/2011/07/gregor-dallas-vs-soa-vs-publishers.html. In the latter I actually discuss why a changing literature economy might be a good thing *and* defend the kinds of publishing we’re talking about here.)
But onto the next issue raised here.
Ms Locke: you assume I base my arguments on old information. The figures I give you are pretty recent. It used to be that 85% of books lost money. The figures aren’t much different now–it’s just that less money is going to the mainstream publishers and now it’s being distributed across a wider number of publishers and self-publishers.
Can you, however, provide figures that contradict mine? If so, I’ll happily accept that I am wrong. You make vague generalisations, but don’t point us to anything specific, except your own experiences (which are exceptional for either print or ebook sales, but do not in themselves constitute a trend).
I’d agree with you that your information isn’t old, but I’d also say it’s based on a lot of hype that hasn’t yet stood the test of time. Show me the figures that say self-published authors are consistently doing better than traditionally published authors, and I will agree with you. That, I might also add, is different to saying ebooks are outselling print books. Ebooks can outsell print books 10:1, but if there are a million ebook authors and only 10 print authors . . . well, you get the idea.
Yes, some self-published authors are doing especially well under current models, and do indeed have experience in publishing. But as you say, it tends to be those with some experience that have the success. Most self-published authors, however, have not had that experience and do not have that success. I know this because most people do not have experience of publishing (whether they write or not) and most people who write are not bestselling authors.
I do object to self-publishing being labelled the *only* way to succeed by many self-publishers when quite clearly that’s not true. Self-publishing works for you, and that’s great,. But it doesn’t work for everybody, and so you shouldn’t decry those who defend traditional publishing for what it offers them.
Also, to follow the point I made to Bridget: while $500 may be the actual cost in monetary terms for producing your book, you’re again missing out the time commitment, which not every writer can afford. I imagine you’re doing all your own marketing on top of your writing. You may not feel the need to typset, but even ebooks should have interior design (the number of ebooks I see, even from major publishers, that have typographical errors and spelling mistakes is attrocious). Uploading a Word document to Amazon’s Kindle store does not guarantee a clean, professional-looking EPUB or MOBI every time. That many writers and publishers insist on doing this is another reason I rarely buy ebooks, just as the regular mistakes and low production values of many self-published print books means I rarely buy those either. At least with a traditional publisher I know I can expect some kind of consistent quality (and where I don’t get it, I regularly send the book back and ask for a refund). Your books may indeed be an exception, but I don’t have the time or inclination to give every self-published book that benefit of the doubt. It is very rarely a concern at all with traditionally published books . . .
But I fear this has turned into something of an essay, for which I apologise. You can tell I’m enjoying taking part in a good discussion about books, can’t you?
To cut a long story short, I guess what I’m trying to say is that self-publishing works for some, while traditional publishing works for others. To say one is the *only* way to do things is shortsighted and overlooks the needs of the individual writers involved.
Oh, I clicked enter too soon! Sorry for the double post (read the second one).
Can someone delete the first one for me?
[...] There are some very interesting points made about my Amazon vs the Booktrade post, most notably at The Passive Voice. [...]