Monthly Archives: June 2011

John Locke has self-pubbed an ebook that describes his marketing approach for his books - How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months

Passive Guy has bought it, but not read it yet. However, people who have read the book say it’s very useful.

Some indie authors subscribe to the idea that if they write it, readers will come. They’re absolutely correct in that belief.

The key question is, “How many readers will come?” It’s always nice to have Mom’s support, but you want to move on from that strong beginning sale.

That’s where marketing and promotion come in and that’s where John Locke is the indie-pubbing genius of the moment. Everybody loves Amanda Hocking, but Locke has reached the one million book sales mark and Amanda hasn’t yet.

Be like John - How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months

The Wall Street Journal reports a new survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that e-reader ownership among U.S. adults doubled from 6% to 12% between November 2010 and May 2011.

Excerpts:

The increase comes as e-reader makers compete against each other and makers of tablet computers by lowering prices and regularly putting out improved devices.

. . . .

Pew found that e-reader ownership exploded among Hispanic households, jumping from 5% to 15% during the six-month period. Parents of children under 18 saw a similar jump, from 6% to 16%.

According to the study, 22% of households with college graduates now own an e-reader, up from 8% in November 2010. Similarly, 24% of households with income over $75,000 now own an e-reader.

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (link may expire after a few days)

Robin Sullivan, who visits here from time to time, has written an excellent article about indie authors who make a living with their writing. We all know about John Locke and Amanda Hocking, but Robin introduces us to the successful indie writing careers of her husband Michael J. Sullivan, Siebel Hodge, Victorine Lieskie and others.

While John Lock and Joe Konrath can teach indie authors some valuable lessons, we can also learn important principles from the new midlisters. Robin has pulled together some very interesting numbers that should provide encouragement to lots of indie authors.

Excerpts:

Most authors can never hope to reach sales in the hundreds of thousands for a single month, but there are more than a few who sell anywhere from 800 to 20,000. While selling books at this level would seem extraordinary by traditional publishing standards, the mere fact that so many self published authors have achieved this goal (with more being added each month), indicates that it is not an unusual occurrence.

. . . .

High volume combined with good revenue is providing self-published e-book authors five and six figure yearly incomes allowing them to quit their “day jobs” and make a living by doing what they love most–writing.

. . . .

I regularly give lectures on the different options for publishing and up until recently my main point about self-publishing was the unprecedented control it provided. Recently I’ve had to change my presentations to also acknowledge that if you wish to maximize income then self-publishing, if done well, could provide the best revenue potential. A year ago I was definitely not making that statement — but a watershed moment occurred in October/November 2010. It was at this time that sales of e-books from previously unknown authors skyrocketed.

. . . .

To illustrate the dramatic rise in sales for these e-book mid-listers, let’s look at some real data that I’m intimately familiar with: Michael J. Sullivan. He is my husband and has five of six books of the Riyria Revelations published through my small press, Ridan Publishing. The release dates of them were: The Crown Conspiracy (Oct 2008), Avempartha (April 2009), Nyphron Rising (October 2009), The Emerald Storm (April 2010), and the forthcoming Wintertide (October 2010). In nine months, from January to September 2010, his income averaged just over $1,500 a month or around $10,700 in total (Amazon US Kindle sales only). Certainly not a wage we could live off of. After the tipping point occurred he earned more than $102,000 in just five months. For details on his monthly income see the following chart:

Link to the rest at Publishing Perspectives

The Dystel & Goderich agency has announced it will be assisting authors in self-pubbing. Unlike other agencies, however, it will be acting as an agent, not a publisher, and charging 15%, not 50%. Joe Konrath is a client and says he’ll use their services for an upcoming novel instead of going pure indie.

Excerpts from the agency announcement:

As an agency that has  prided itself on being a bit of a maverick among the stodgy old guard, we have always been more intrigued than scared about this new world of e-books.  The consensus among us, even after listening to the doomsayers, has been that e-publishing will re-energize our business and create more readers.  That’s right, instead of bemoaning the death of publishing as we know it, DGLMers have always felt that e-books and electronic media offer a tremendous opportunity to expand our reach and that of our authors.

. . . .

Over the past months and years we’ve come to the realization that e-publishing is yet another area in which we can be of service to our clients as literary agents. From authors who want to have their work available once the physical edition has gone out of print and the rights have reverted, to those whose books we believe in and feel passionately about but couldn’t sell—oftentimes, after approaching 20 or more houses—we realized that part of our job as agents in this new publishing milieu is to facilitate these works being made available as e-books and through POD and other editions.

Right now, you’re thinking, oh, DGLM is going to be another of those agencies that has decided to become an e-publisher and charge clients whose books they can’t sell 50% of their income for the privilege of uploading their work.  Some of you may be mumbling, “Uh…that’s a conflict of interest.”    We get it and we understand how that can be the perception.  However, we have no intention of becoming e-publishers.  As we said above, we have too much respect for the work that publishers do and too much respect for the work we ourselves do to muddy the waters in such a way.

Again, what we are going to do is to facilitate e-publishing for those of our clients who decide that they want to go this route, after consultation and strategizing about whether they should try traditional publishing first or perhaps simply set aside the current book and move on to the next. We will charge a 15% commission for our services in helping them project manage everything from choosing a cover artist to working with a copyeditor to uploading their work.  We will continue to negotiate all agreements that may ensue as a result of e-publishing, try to place subsidiary rights where applicable, collect monies and review statements to make sure the author is being paid.  In short, we will continue to be agents and do the myriad things that agents do.

Link to the rest at Dystel & Goderich

Passive Guy has blogged before about the conflict of interest that can arise when an agent becomes a publisher, epubbing or otherwise, for an author.

Without looking at the Dystel & Goderich contract, he can’t be sure, but PG believes the agency may have structured their program to avoid most, if not all of the potential conflicts. The main ways they have done this are:

1.  They remain an agent and do not become a publisher, and

2.  They receive 15% for their work on indie publishing, exactly the same amount as they receive for working with traditional publishers.

The straight 15% rate allows the agency to be agnostic regarding indie pub vs. traditional pub. Unlike agents who become epublishers and receive 50% of revenues in that role, Dystel & Goderich will be in a position to recommend the avenues that will make the most money for the author because their financial interests are always aligned with the author’s.

Presumably, the author or a captive publishing company set up by the author will be the publisher under Dystel & Goderich’s proposed system. PG would expect the Amazon, Nook and CreateSpace accounts would be set up so the agency had access for royalty review purposes.

It would be interesting to know if royalty payments will go straight to the agency or not and whether the agency will  front costs for editing, cover design, etc., for authors who can’t afford those costs.

It still remains to be seen how skilled agents are at coordinating self-publishing activities but, assuming a reasonable termination clause in the agency contract, an author can probably give them a try for a reasonable percentage without betting the ranch on the outcome.

This is a follow-up to a previous Wall Street Journal article by Meghan Cox Gurdon critical of the state of YA literature.

Excerpts:

If the American Library Association were inclined to burn people in effigy, I might well have gone up in smoke these past few days. ALA members, mostly librarians and other book-industry folk, are concluding their annual conference today in New Orleans, and it’s a fair bet that some of them are still fuming about an article of mine that appeared in these pages earlier this month.

The essay, titled “Darkness Too Visible,” discussed the way in which young-adult literature invites teenagers to wallow in ugliness, barbarity, dysfunction and cruelty. By focusing on the dark currents in the genre, I was of course no more damning all young-adult literature than a person writing about reality TV is damning all television, but from the frenzied reaction you would have thought I had called for the torching of libraries.

Within hours of the essay’s appearance it became a leading topic on Twitter. Indignant defenders of young-adult literature called me “idiotic,” “narrow-minded,” “brittle,” “ignorant,” “shrewish,” “irresponsible” and “reprehensible.” Authors Judy Blume and Libba Bray suggested that I was giving succor to book-banners. Author Lauren Myracle took the charge a stage further, accusing me of “formulating an argument not just against ‘dark’ YA [young-adult] books, but against the very act of reading itself.” The ALA, in a letter to The Journal, saw “danger” in my argument, saying that it “encourages a culture of fear around YA literature.”

. . . .

For families, the calculus is less crude than some notion of fictional inputs determining factual outputs; of monkey read, monkey do. It has more to do with a child’s happiness and tenderness of heart, with what furnishes the young mind. If there is no frigate like a book, as Emily Dickinson wrote, it’s hardly surprising that parents might prefer their teenagers to sail somewhere other than to the lands of rape, substance abuse and mutilation.

But, to some, those are desirable destinations. Many of the angriest responses to my essay came from people who believe that a major purpose of young-adult fiction is therapeutic. “YA Saves!” was the rallying hashtag of thousands of Twitter posters who chose to express their ire in 140 characters or less.

It is true that so-called problem novels may be helpful to children in anguished circumstances. The larger question is whether books about rape, incest, eating disorders and “cutting” (self-mutilation) help to normalize such behaviors for the vast majority of children who are merely living through the routine ordeals of adolescence.

. . . .

When you press a wonderful, classic children’s book into a 13-year-old’s hands, are you doing so in the belief that the book will make no difference to her outlook and imagination, that it is merely a passing entertainment? Or do you believe that, somehow, it will affect and influence her? And if that power is true for one book, why not for another?

It so happened that, as the Twitterverse was roiling over “Darkness Too Visible,” I received an advanced reader’s copy of an “edgy paranormal” teen novel coming out in August. Have a look at the excerpt on the back cover, where publishers try to hook potential buyers: “I used to squirm when I heard people talking about cutting—taking a razor to your own flesh never seemed logical to me. But in reality, it’s wonderful. You can cut into yourself all the frustrations people take out on you.” Now ask yourself: Is a book the only thing being sold here?

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (link may expire after a few days)

After some thought and research, Passive Guy has decided he will write a book about how not to get screwed in a book contract. The book will also discuss how to get unscrewed if you are already a screwee.

He’s looked at several books in this category and found some good information, but PG thinks he’ll bring a different viewpont to this subject.

For one thing, a lot of these books (maybe all) are written by publishing attorneys or agents. While they certainly have domain expertise, PG keeps seeing evidence that Publishing Capture (see his previous post) governs much of their advice. These authors often give the impression their recommendations are bounded by what will go over well with publishers, not necessarily what is best for the author. If, as an author, you’ll sign anything necessary to get a publisher, these folks will provide all you need.

As just one example, none of these experts seems to find the idea that a book contract should extend for the life of the copyright to be weird. Nobody addresses any practical issues involved in a contract lasting for over 100 years. As PG has said before and reiterated, he thinks this practice is bizarre. In the process of negotiating a publishing contract, PG would love to ask a publisher, “What are your marketing plans for this book in 2075? How do they differ from your plans for 2070? Will there be a special promotion for the year 3000?” But PG digresses.

Some chapters will expand on PG’s prior How to Read a Book Contract posts and others will be new.

As one example of something new, PG will include suggestions on how to break a book contract. He’ll also talk about methods of evading the consequences of some of the more onerous standard provisions included in book contracts. These chapters will include some potential litigation strategies and ideas about how an author might want to position him/herself to pursue those strategies.

PG hasn’t seen any evidence that authors of other contract advice books have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. This doesn’t make them bad people, but none that PG has read show evidence they understand how to use the “or else” aspect of a contract to resolve a dispute between an author and publisher.

What’s “or else?” It goes something like this, “Either you release me from my obligations under paragraph 18 or else I’m taking you to court.” Feel free to fill in your own paragraph number. PG will provide some ideas about how you might go to court on an author’s income.

While attorneys and agents may benefit from some aspects of his book, PG’s target audience is authors and would-be authors, including those who have already signed publishing contracts.

Understanding that snarkiness can get old in large quantities, he will tone it down a little, but the book’s snark quotient will be higher than zero.

So, here’s a question you can answer in the Comments or privately through the Contact page:

What topics would you like to see addressed in Passive Guy’s book? Your suggestions might include items not discussed in other books or subjects not properly explained elsewhere.

Ideas will be much appreciated.

From Emily Temple on Flavorwire who worries that authors just don’t insult each other like they used to.

Excerpts:

18. Ralph Waldo Emerson on Jane Austen

“Miss Austen’s novels . . . seem to me vulgar in tone, sterile in artistic invention, imprisoned in the wretched conventions of English society, without genius, wit, or knowledge of the world. Never was life so pinched and narrow. The one problem in the mind of the writer . . . is marriageableness.”

. . . .

15. William Faulkner on Ernest Hemingway

“He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.”

14. Ernest Hemingway on William Faulkner

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?”

. . . .

11. Vladimir Nabokov on Ernest Hemingway (1972)

“As to Hemingway, I read him for the first time in the early ‘forties, something about bells, balls and bulls, and loathed it.”

Link to the rest at Flavorwire

Brain scientist and author Livia Blackburne collected the Top Ten Posts from Year 2 of  her writing blog. The tippy-top of the top ten was a post entitled, Typing vs. Longhand: Does it Affect Your Writing?

Excerpts:

Do you write longhand or on a computer? How does this affect your writing process? I ran across a study with interesting results.

The researchers wanted to know how computer writing differed from pen and paper writing. They recruited university faculty and graduate students to write two reports, one on a computer and one on pen and paper. The participants were given background information for the reports (about a new system of bank charges and new company regulations) two days beforehand. When they came in for the experiment, they had three hours to write each report, and the researchers used keystroke tracking and video cameras to record their progress.

. . . .

2. The computer writers wrote texts that were approximately 20% longer.

3. The computer writers had a more fragmented writing process than the pen and paper writers. They paused more, and more of their pauses were in the middle of a sentence (as opposed to sentence or paragraph boundaries). However, in the instances when pen and paper writers did pause, it was for a longer period of time than the computer writers.

. . . .

The researchers found that there was quite a lot of variability between writing styles, even within the same modality (computer/pen). The researchers also found that almost everybody changed their writing style when switching from pen to computer. The participants didn’t all change their writing styles in the same way, but almost all of them did something different. This makes me think that it’s worth experimenting with yourself in different writing modalities, just to see how it affects you personally.

To see the rest of the science on Typing vs. Writing, click HERE

Here is where to read Livia Blackburne’s Top Ten Posts of Year Two

Passive Guy predicts one of the Top Ten Posts of Year Three will describe how Livia came to rule the world.

From author and former agent Nathan Bransford and current agent Kristin Nelson, here are some terrible ways to begin a book.

From Nathan:

A character looking in a mirror: I know what you’re thinking. Namely: “How in the heck am I going to show the reader what this character looks like when it’s a 1st person narrative? Hmm… Mirror!” Don’t do it. There is another way.

Extended dialogue with insufficient grounding: It’s difficult for readers to ease into a new world and get their bearings. It’s even more difficult to feel grounded when you’re watching two characters talk and you’re not exactly sure who they are.

and from Kristen:

1. Characters inexplicably getting sucked into a portal for no apparent reason – This is mostly a YA fantasy device and yes, I realize there is long tradition of portals into other worlds in young adult fiction (Chronicles of Narnia and all that).

All I’m saying is that portal needs to be really necessary and not just an excuse to transport characters into another world so you can now finally tell your story

2. A person gathering herbs in the forest – Honestly, it can’t happen as frequent as I seem to see it in opening chapters.

If you don’t read the rest, you may choose one of the 15 other starter no-no’s.

Link to Nathan Bransford

Link to Pub Rants 1 and Pub Rants 2

Passive Guy barely finished this post before he was sucked into his mirror while shaving and is now fighting a nearly-irresistible compulsion to pick the herbs that grow in the forest on this distant star.

Thank goodness the forest has good WiFi so he can respond to comments. PG would really like to trade his basket of herbs for a Big Mac. If he ever gets back home, he’s throwing his razor away and growing a beard.

That’s strange, there’s a wardrobe in the forest. It’s big enough for PG to crawl into.

Okay, so J.K. is an indie author and you’re an indie author. Then it must follow that since J.K. had her books made into movies, it’s time for you to do the same thing.

Dave Farland tells you how much your movie option is worth:

So let’s say that you’ve written a short story or a novel, and a producer
comes along and wants to buy your movie option. How much is it worth?

That’s a good question. Right now I’m negotiating a large contract. When I
first spoke to one producer, he was surprised that I’d ask for so much for
the movie rights to a book (we’re into seven figures). But when I explained
the reasoning behind the valuation method, he said, “You’re absolutely
right. This property is worth millions-probably more than you’re asking
for-, and I’m happy to sign.”

So you, as an author you want as much as you can reasonably get. The
producer will of course will want to negotiate as good a deal as he can get.
There will almost always be some dickering.

. . . .

In Hollywood, an “idea” for a motion picture is worth a minimum of about
$25,000. I know this because a few years ago I met a writer who went to
studios and pitched one-line concepts. If the studio liked the concept, “A
story about a homeless man who lives under the Statue of Liberty,” they’d
pay him $25,000. Now, this was eight years ago when I met the pitch artist,
so if you adjust for inflation, you might be able to get that raised a bit.

. . . .

Next, you have to consider, how large is your audience? So you’ve got a
property-let’s say a book-that has been a nice hit. It’s sold two million
copies. Guess what? Those copies put bodies into theater seats. How many? I
don’t know exactly, and movie producers will argue on this point. But we do
know that a reader who liked a book is very likely to go see the movie. Even
if the reader bought the book and never finished it, he’s likely to pay to
sit in the theater. And if you’ve got two million readers talking to friends
about how great this movie is going to be . . . then you’ve got great
word-of-mouth advertisement.

Link to the rest at D. Farland’s Daily Kick