From The Digital Reader:
A couple weeks back I got on a tear about things Book People won’t say, including that B&N has been doomed by its senior and digital is killing print.
Today I would like to turn it around and share something that isn’t said enough in self-publishing circles.
There will always be book publishers.
It is axiomatic in certain circles that in 2017 that authors have all the power. Authors can hire they help they need and take their work direct to market, thus removing any need for a publisher.
While all of that is true, it does not automatically follow that book publishers are going the way of the dodo.
One detail that is often overlooked is that not all authors are equally imbued with the business skills – or the interest – required to publish their work and maximize revenues. There will always be some author who would rather focus on writing and hire someone else to do the packaging and selling.
. . . .
So yes, ten years from now we’re going to be able to point to something and call it a publisher. We’re probably going to even have many of the same names then as now – after all, there is value in a publishing brand – but that’s no guarantee that the future publishers will be the corporate descendants of the present publishers.
In the same way that the major publishers have killed themselves by ignoring ebooks, other publishers are rendering themselves irrelevant by refusing to adapt to the times.
Link to the rest at The Digital Reader
PG says Nate makes some good points.
A great many authors hire editors to help polish their manuscripts. A great many authors also hire cover designers and book/ebook formatting services.
Professional editors, designers, etc., tend to be service-oriented. If they don’t understand at the outset of their careers, they soon learn that, in addition to their skills at editing and design, they need to pay attention to their clients if they want to keep editing and designing.
Given the attitude of so many contemporary publishers toward authors, the question is whether employees or former employees will be capable of making the complete turnabout required to become service professionals. Some will, but PG suspects most won’t.
Additionally, a lot of the things publishers are good at won’t be necessary any more.
PG is not among those who believe that readers will always want printed books.
Due to his antiquity, PG remembers when serious music lovers were completely committed to their record collections, carefully preserving them and proudly showing pristine album covers to any who entered their listening abode. When CD’s were first introduced, serious listeners were aghast at the harsh quality of sound produced by early CD’s.
Of course, streaming music has even poorer sound quality than CD’s, but listeners seem to have adapted. Do major musicians release their music only on vinyl records? PG doesn’t follow that sort of thing, but he doubts they do.
PG is happy to have people listening to the sounds via the media they like best, but from a commercial standpoint, are any large music publishers staking their revenues on vinyl?
Some readers will continue to like printed books, but their numbers are already declining and will continue to do so.
One of the keys to low print prices are large print runs. 100,000 printed books cost much less on a per-book basis than 1,000 books. Mass production delivers the best prices when you can set up the machines and let them run for awhile.
Publishers are striving mightily to keep the prices of their ebooks close to the prices of their printed books, but that’s bound to be a failed strategy. For one thing, the accountants at the holding companies that own all major US publishers will complain about the wide divergence in profitability between ebooks and printed books.
Why would any sane business person spend a lot of money to print thousands of books that may never be sold, then pay storage and transportation costs for those books and finally pay someone to dispose of the unsold print books when, for almost nothing, the publisher can send a single electronic copy of an ebook to various vendors and watch deposits come into its bank accounts?
What reality-based business would not prioritize selling products with no production costs over selling products with high production costs?
What’s going to happen to Barnes & Noble?
Let’s answer a question with a question: What happened to Blockbuster Music, Camelot Music, Mediaplay, Music+, Musicland, Music Play, SamGoody, Tower Records, Virgin Megastores, Wherehouse Music, and a zillion other music chains?
I give up. Good talking to all of you here. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ve always noticed that there are very few industry professionals from traditional publishing in this forum. I’ve seen maybe two or three in the years that I’ve been coming here. I saw that Steve Axelrod was commenting here and I’m assuming that’s the reputable agent and not somebody else. I remember the confrontational tone when there was a post here that was torn apart about Lee Child, one of the most highly successful authors of all time. It was shocking to me. I’ve never seen another CEO from a larger publishing house here so I thought my insight might be welcome.
Many of you have emailed me privately, 23 people on this thread alone. But unfortunately most of you don’t want to share your opinions publicly when it goes against someone who is a regular contributor to this forum. So be it. I will go back to doing my work. I do appreciate all the good discussions I’ve had with many of you here over the years though. And I’ve learned a few things as well.
Steve Zacharius
Pfft. Who are you kidding? 😀
We’ve heard you do your little “Fine, I’m taking my ball and going home, then!” routine far too often to take it seriously. You’ll be back. 😀
But “23 of you just emailed me”?
Seriously?
*rolls eyes*
you really need to get some new material for your act…
But unfortunately most of you don’t want to share your opinions publicly when it goes against someone who is a regular contributor to this forum.
Other than applause, I couldn’t have added anything to how you played this one. I confess. I didn’t know a remainder from a return. Now I know. Money.
I find it most interesting that I’m the one who is giving out incorrect information when I’m just reviewing this thread you had so many things wrong. Starting with books being remaindered in 30 days and remainders and returns being the same thing; to the inefficiency of the mass market business being unethical and the reason for the trade and hardcover business being more efficient simply because of Amazon. When you make a comment here there are people who are interested in learning about the publishing business whether it be indie, traditional or hybrid. There are many comments that are totally biased against traditional publishing or are simply spreading misinformation geared towards the base of the readers here. My point in coming in here is to share my experience from the traditional side of the business as well as what I know about digital first publishing. It’s not to start a war with someone but instead it’s to open a commentary or discussion about the topic.
If people don’t find my opinions and insight welcome, I will stop coming in and commenting. Meanwhile I’ve developed relationships with indie authors and even had a one hour discussion with data guy who attended one of our parties at RWA. So there are some people who are interested in hearing my POV just like I assume there are some that are interested in hearing yours. There’s room for both fortunately. I’m putting down an olive branch to stop arguing with you. We can continue to disagree in a civil manner.
Civil disagreement is fine.
And speaking for myself, your opinions are always welcome here or anywhere — even when they’re flat wrong or framed in a deliberately disingenuous manner.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
But nobody benefits from an echo chamber.
I’m sure that’s the case. I’ve never met a successful author who doesn’t use either their pen name or their real name when talking online or in a blog. There are several people here that use their real name. I saw you had a reputable agent here commenting as well using his real name. It’s amazing how people who have nothing to hide are actually out here discussing the industry in the open with full disclosure.
Whatever. Have a wonderful career.
First of all today is a holiday. I’ve been reading and working since 6:00am and I take breaks during the day. I don’t come on to insult people. I come on to correct misinformation or lend an opinion. The home page description says this blog is about publishing including traditional publishing. When I see misinformation given out that other people then think is incorrect, but accept it because it’s supposedly coming from someone who would know better; it disturbs me. Don’t worry about my grammar. It’s fine. I’m typing and writing quickly and making my point. I’m not here writing a book.
And anonymous is the keyword. Stop hiding behind a screen name and promote your writing and career if you have one.
You’re worried about me “not promoting my writing career” by being anonymous here? 😀
Classic concern trolling, Stevie.
In case you’re genuinely this dumb and clueless about the author world, let me spell it out for you:
1) This *isn’t* a blog where authors “promote their careers” (whatever that means)
2) It’s a blog where writers and other industry folk share info about the industry with their peers in a collegial, non-hierarchical setting
3) Nobody here is, per your bizarre claims, trying to “play to their base” (again, whatever that means)
But…
4) Many of the high-profile anonymous commenters here are well-known or at least recognizable names in the publishing world
5) We use our real names when interacting with fans, readers, or when engaging with publishers, agents, or retailers in an official capacity.
6) We “hide behind a screen name” when the topic is irrelevant to our fans and readers, and we wish to speak openly and freely without fear of jeopardizing current or future industry relationships.
But of course, if you prefer to dream up some sinister conspiracy-theory motive for the anonymity instead, then enjoy…
I forgot you know so much. Do you even know when the contracts were signed? Do you know if they were all for previously published books or perhaps they are new books and haven’t even been released yet. You’re knowledge is overwhelming.
What I find a little curious is a supposedly successful publishing executive that claims to work “18 hours a day” spending most of their Monday-afternoon working hours breathlessly typing childish, illiterate, and grammatically incorrect taunts in the comments section of an author-focused blog in an attempt to insult or one-up some anonymous commenter on the internet.
The world’s a strange place, though — to each his own. 😀
Only one who matters in this discussion is the book buyer, especially heavy readers.
If I see an e-book priced at nine bucks (US, even harsher for us poor Canadians), with the note that the price is set by the publisher, click, window closed, on to the next one. Tons of good fiction available to read in the five dollar range.
They trained me really well back in the day, when I was supposed to pay full price for a hardback that would be remaindered a few months later.
Now my books are making their way to the local Salvation Army and I use my bookshelves to display other stuff. Ok, I admit it, in my early fifties, still building Lego.
Books are not remaindered a few months later.
The AAP data disagrees with you.
Their monthlies show in unarguable black and white numbers that half of all mass market paperbacks printed by AAP publishers get “remaindered” each month (i.e. covers stripped, thrown out, etc.).
But perhaps that’s “fake news”, eh? 😉
There’s a word for that practice in the normal business world, boys and girls: it’s called:
“channel stuffing”
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:
It’s truly incredible with the moniker that you use that you have no understanding of traditional publishing at all.
There is a huge difference between remainder and returned. Remainders means the books are sold at a very low price, with the covers intact, and the books are marked with a stripe, to indicate that it’s a remainder. This does not happen after a month or even a year for that matter.
50% of mass market books being destroyed is a totally different subject which you clearly don’t understand either. The entire premise of the mass market business was that the books were so inexpensive to produce that it would still be economically feasible to distribute large quantities of them even though only half would end up being sold. They also are not destroyed after a month either. The process can take from 3 months to a year or longer depending on the type of account.
My comment was that books are not remaindered after a year.
I sure hope that people don’t listen to you for accuracy in your comments on traditional publishing because you’re loaded with constant misinformation.
You’re splitting definitional hairs that are meaningless in the real business world. Remaindered, “returned”, whatever.
The bottom line is that it’s a “deep discount sale” even if remaindered, thus pays zero royalty to author.
And the longstanding incompetence of such a sloppy, environmentally unfriendly, wasteful business practice as printing and then trashing 2x as many paperbacks as are actually sold is flat-out unethical.
Just ’cause you and your peers haven’t figured out how operate like a professional lean manufacturing industry in eight decades doesn’t mean your tree-killing wastefulness is a good or decent practice.
But glad you are so eager to “inform” us, brother.
Keep on preachin’ 😉
No. You have no clue what you’re talking about is what it comes down to. There is a huge differenence between the two. One is a destruct and is a pure loss, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with authors being cheated. A remainder is a book sold below cost. The publisher isn’t even recouping the cost of manufacturing the book. That is not a deep discount sale.
Yes you could say Publishing is inefficient in mass market. But the paper that’s used is ground wood paper, partially from recycled product. It’s also grown from forests that are super engineered to sustain the needs of the paper mill. The entire mass market business model is based on distributing a lot of copies and selling them at a low price. If we wanted to only distribute half, the prices would be substantially higher. Also the books wouldn’t have the visibility that they do now. But yes, mass market publishing is no efficient but it is certainly not unethical. Where the heck did you come up with that?
The trade paper and hardcover business are much more efficient sister. But you keep on going and misinforming people who think you have any idea that you know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you share you’re publishing career info with me?
Because it has zero relevance here.
An intelligent audience can judge each comment based on its own merits and logic, not the purported “authority” that comes with having your daddy leave you a publishing company that basically runs itself while you spend all your time trolling author blogs.
The facts presented either speak for themselves, or they don’t.
Such a big shot hiding behind a screen name. I happened to work with my father for 25 years and only joined him after his partner passed away. I believe I was appointed Chairman, President and CEO back in 2005. It’s called a family owned business in case you’ve never heard of them before.
I was already running a successful printing company doing promotional material for every major publisher, but then you know so much about me. Before that I spent years in the magazine business and was also Director of manufacturing and distribution for Rolling Stone.
I work 18 hours a day. I don’t need you commenting on my work habits. And thank goodness I hire good people. I’m not ashamed of that. What you’re speaking aren’t facts at all. Your comments are all misinformed to try to rile up support of your base here, much like Trump does, BTW.
You still haven’t given me a single reasonable reason as to why you don’t use your real name if you’re such a successful indie author. I believe I saw your claims on your income years ago, but I don’t remember the inflated number that you claimed. If I were a successful indie author like J.A. Konrath, or even Hugh Howey, or one of the others; I would certainly be blogging or posting using my real name to promote my career.
You know why that is, right?
It’s because a high percentage (40+%) of US hardcover and trade paperback sales happen… wait for it… on Amazon. 😀
*That’s* why hardcover and trade paperback “returns” have come down to “only” 25%-30% — publishers can thank Amazon.
The fact that Amazon orders only the quantities of print books they know they can sell is what leads to that greater industry efficiency you are so proud of… (as if only 25% to 30% waste was something to brag about).
Mass market, OTOH, is a rapidly dying format, as evidenced by its collapsing sales #’s industry wide year-over-year — mass market readers (who are genre fiction readers, mostly) have already mostly gone digital.
No. Again that is totally false. You know nothing about traditional publishing so why don’t you stop spewing out this misinformation. First of all the trade and hardcover business were always much more efficient than mass market. Mass market was designed to be inefficient but very profitable when it first started. It was a way to get books into supermarkets where women shopped.
Trade and hardcover are more efficient because they’re bought by libraries in big numbers and Barnes and Noble, and of course Amazon as well. Yes Amazon does sell what they order because they actually under order and then fill orders from jobbers like Ingram and Baker. But the model was always much more efficient because publishers didn’t try to get these books into supermarkets. They concentrated on bookstores for these more expensive books.
I didn’t say it was something to brag about but it’s a function of the business. I never even brought it up. I was explaining the process. And no, the big mass market authors are still selling far more copies in mass market than they do in digital. Sorry to correct you again. The middle or lower market authors might do equally as well in digital but the big names still get out far bigger numbers in print.
Categorically untrue, but I’m getting bored with this discussion.
So please feel free to carry on on your own.
And the comment about remaindering had nothing to do with author royalties. The person said they didn’t pay full price for books and waited a few months for the books to be remaindered at a lower price. How you turned that into publishers cheating authors out of royalties is mind boggling and fake news.
Categorically untrue. Such a knowledgable answer. At least you didn’t continue to spew forth statements that were totally incorrect.
And no, it was real news. Also this is not channel stuffing. The accounts tell us how many copies they want to order. We don’t tell them. But then, you wouldn’t know that since you know nothing about traditional publishing. I don’t even know what you know about indie publishing because surely anyone who claims to be as successful and knowledgeable as you would be using their author name to continue the promote themselves. Maybe this is the fake news you were referring to.
When you have no intelligent rebuttal, you resort to ad hominems and straw men.
Typical. 😀
I have yet to see you have a post that was factually correct. I can assure you that my knowledge of publishing is far greater than yours. As I said, why not share your very successful career with us here so we can at least see if your screen name matches up with your sales. Or maybe share your own royalty statements. The amount of misinformation that you continue to spew is mind boggling. You just don’t like that someone is calling the false information out. I can back up anything that I say with years of experience.
Oh, *that’s* a convincing rebuttal. Very well, then… 😀
Really? Quid pro quo, then. Why don’t *you* first share your channel sales statements itemizing the “massive” paper sales you’ve been able to achieve for those “biggest” indie author names who you keep bragging signed (throwaway, print only) deals with you?
Yeah, I thought not… ;D
I am not the one hiding behind a screen name. I also don’t share private information that belongs to a specific author. If they want to share, that’s up to them. There’s nothing in our contract to prevent that. But you on the other hand claim to be an expert in all things publishing and I have no idea if you’ve even published a book. Why don’t you share your royalty statement and block out your name?
Throwaway print deals. You really are truly amazing. You want to tell Joe Konrath, Marie Force and Michael Sullivan that you know more than them. That they signed throwaway print deals. Go ahead. Go email Joe Konrath. I’m sure he’d like to hear from a no name possibly unpublished author who is an expert. And for your information, the first books in these contracts haven’t been published yet. But when they are, the numbers from most accounts will be available on Bookscan. There’s no hiding in this information other than the amount of copies that Ingram and Baker sell.
Ah, I forgot how slow the traditional release cycle was.
Very well, we’ll just have to wait and see.
I’ll check Bookscan in like, what… a year or so?
Their monthlies show in unarguable black and white numbers that half of all mass market paperbacks printed by AAP publishers get “remaindered” each month (i.e. covers stripped, thrown out, etc.).
What is the lag between production date and cover-stripping date? One month? Five months? One year?
Are half the books printed in March 2017 being cover-stripped in October 2017? Or is the October stripping targeted at books from January 2017? September 2016?
One detail that is often overlooked is that not all authors are equally imbued with the business skills – or the interest – required to publish their work and maximize revenues. There will always be some author who would rather focus on writing and hire someone else to do the packaging and selling.
That describes a supplier who can’t compete with other suppliers who are more capable. Suppliers lacking business skills typically fail when confronted with suppliers who do have business skills.
When one supplier can produce at a lower cost, he usually wins the market competition. Note the shift of fiction market share over the last few years.
Absolutes rarely rule in markets. (We still have someone producing those buggy whips because someone else drives buggies.) Publishing will continue to lose market share, and the future will see them as one segment among several.
The biggest advantage publishers have is non-fiction. eReaders currently are awful for many kinds of nonfiction, and publishers have a superior paper product.
So, of course there will be publishers, and there will also be bookstores, with both playing a significantly diminished role in the market.
https://www.amazon.com/Intrepid-International-Driving-Whip-53-Inch/dp/B000FFDVLU/ref=sr_1_14
lol – I remember when publishers were called scribes and the pages of books looked like paintings…my how times have changed. 😀
“There Will Always be Publishers”
Sure there will, just like there will always be stores.
“What the (New) Book People Won’t Tell You:”
Funny, I must have missed the memo. Though I do keep hearing about these indie and self publishing types. And then there’s that vanity press stuff. Oh yeah, and there’s still those trad-pub types trying to pretend that they are still the end-all be-all when it comes to publishing.
“What the (New) Book People Won’t Tell You: There Will Always be Publishers”
What the OP hasn’t figured out is that the scene is shifting and changing.
Like music and video. Anyone remember that guy (was a monkey or beetle or something) that many decades ago made a music video with him playing/singing in 60+ positions at once (and I think his wife in four more)? The kids are doing things like that now on their computers.
Publishing is the same, the times they are a changing.
Any writer can get their story digitalized, sent off to an editor, get a cover made and have something to sell. (and both the editing and cover can be done ‘in house’ if the writer has the ability or friends/family that can do it.)
The writer can of course ‘pay’ to have some or all these things done for them (heck, I hear there’s a Peterson/Parterson or something guy out there that doesn’t even do the writing part – he farms that out too!)
One main difference is writers are now able to keep the rights and control of their work. Where before a writer sold their soul and all the rights and control of their story to trad-pub (where they then couldn’t control/correct the editing or argue about the cover – or about their ebooks being priced to not sell), the indie/self-pub types still have their rights and control (and can change/fix things if it isn’t selling for them.)
Ebook or print? There’s now PoD and of course you can pay the same printers the big boys use for small/mid/large runs (if you’re sure you’ll be needing a lot of them!)
There are even a few indie/self-pub types that are letting trad-pub have printing rights – but only the printing rights.
“What the (New) Book People Won’t Tell You: There Will Always be Publishers”
And what the old book people won’t tell you is that the new publishing won’t look at all like the publishers of old …
Printing POD is not a viable business model if you’re doing more than a few copies. There’s also only one digital printer who can do mass market size. But besides doing the manufacturing by POD, you still need a way to distribute those books. Without a publishing deal or distribution deal you’re only going to end up with small sales of POD in your local stores or copies that you sell yourself. Retailers are not going to order POD copies because they’re generally non-returnable and they won’t take the risk.
I’d like to chime in with what might be an unpopular opinion here: I don’t think of POD books as worth the money. They tend to be lower quality than offset-printed paperbacks, and they cost more too. I bought Robert Aickman’s The Late Breakfasters from Valancourt Books and was disappointed that it turned out to be PrintOnDemand. On the other hand, Faber & Faber put out Aickman’s other works in beautiful paperbacks that cost $5 less.
If I’m going to spend up to $20 on a paperback, I want it to be well produced, no matter who published it. I am optimistic and believe that POD quality will improve, but I’m not sure the costs will ever be truly competitive. Anyway, that’s just my worthless opinion. Maybe a few others might feel the same way.
Enjoy the colorful leaves. 🙂
If POD is done properly it should look even better than offset books. The paper is better because it has to be to run through the machines. The ink is consistent because it’s digital and not subject to fluctuations like regular ink. But the covers aren’t as good and no special effects unless they are binding leftover covers. And photographs don’t look nearly as good as printing by offset.
Paula, what aspect of the POD book wasn’t high quality? No dog in this hunt, but I’m curious as to how it didn’t match the standards of offset print books.
Hi, Deb. My biggest issue is with the covers, as Steven mentioned above. My Aickman book got faded along the spine after reading the first fifty pages. I don’t wildly contort my paperbacks when I read, either. (To Valancourt Books’s enormous credit, they allowed for free e-book with print purchase.)
But beyond that, the limitations of PoD present a few issues for the overall book package. It is my understanding that, at least with CreateSpace, there are two types of paper. I have ordered long-ish PoD books and noticed how some quality had to be sacrificed to fit various parameters. A 130,000-word novel will be squeezed into a 6×9, most likely cream paper, and with scrunched-up typeface. It makes for an uncomfortable reading experience which, if done offset, would probably be superior because of the choices in paper stock. (Thicker paper for short book, thinner paper for long book. But even major publishers cut corners here, and often they use the printer’s standard paper stock because paper is the biggest cost factor in a print run [please correct me if I’m wrong].) Unless the author is willing to take a loss or limit distribution, it’s going to be priced around $20.
I’ve seen some fine PoD books, though! It’s just that, based on past experiences buying PoD books from indie authors, I get the impression that these are created as an afterthought, so either I opt for e-book instead (which many authors don’t seem to mind), or I just buy a new hardcover from a large publisher at a comparable price.
In any case, I still prefer print even for fiction. I also own a Paperwhite and a Kobo Glo and use them regularly, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t pay more attention to print books on my shelf than e-books. I hope this is the kind of response you were looking for.
That sounds more like a design issue rather than a POD issue. But the thick-vs.-thin paper is an interesting variable. Thanks for the details!
The POD printers do offer a few different grades of paper. But generally any of the paper is better than a traditionally printed offset stock because the paper has to be of higher quality to go through the digital process. The cover should actually be able to be printed very well also, but you can’t get the same special effects as if the cover had been done separately by a jacket manufacturer. The binding should hold up if done properly.
“… you still need a way to distribute those books.”
Hmmm, true. I guess one could break down and use the same distributor that sells 60+% of the qig5 paper books, I think you’ve heard of them – Amazon.
Your sarcasm is duly noted but they are not anywhere near the amount you give as an example. In fact with us, they are only about 10%. And for mass market books they are even smaller. The big 5 much larger but nowhere near what you’re stating.
Let me also add that amazon doesn’t sell to all the other retailers. They are only one account.
Oops, you are correct, that sixty plus was over the line.
http://authorearnings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Slide12.jpg
Only 42% of all trad-pub print book units in 2016 (I’d guess up from that in ’17), but still better than B&N; and Amazon will offer it to sell if you’re a big name (or an unknown nobody trying to break into the publishing business.)
“Let me also add that amazon doesn’t sell to all the other retailers. They are only one account.”
They do ‘sell’ to Joe/Jane Public, which is who most indie/self publishers are trying to reach.
The comment about indies is true but indies is a teeny portion of the print business if it’s anything. And the print market is 65% of all books sold. Younger people are reading print as well.
And the print market is 65% of all books sold.
Clarification?
That sounds low for print. Do eBooks have 35% of the total book market? Fiction? Nonfiction? Coffee table? Textbooks? Self-help?
That’s the number I hear thrown around usually. And it definitely has very wide swings depending on the genre. In highly illustrated or designed books, print will be almost 100% of the market. In fact the publisher might not even bother doing an ebook because the reading experience isn’t good for those types of books. Textbooks is something I’m not familiar with at all. Fiction versus non-fiction will depend on the specific genre as well. Romance is obviously higher in ebook for example.
Well, since many readers here are writers, I thought pointing out options other than waiting for a publisher to reply with a rejection or an unpalatable contract might be in order.
http://authorearnings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fixed-online-v-bm-slide-1.jpg
Since I (and I think more than a few others here) are in the indie/self publishing game, our options of how and where to offer our wares is important to us. And while ‘print’ is teeny for us, it is becoming an option we can factor in.
I wouldn’t figure in POD sales as part of your revenue. It’s almost non-existent in traditional publishing on a title by title basis. You might sell a couple of hundred copies a year on a backlist title if you’re very lucky. For an indie author, the local stores might carry your book but very few other accounts will because it’s non-returnable and very expensive.
“I wouldn’t figure in POD sales as part of your revenue. It’s almost non-existent in traditional publishing on a title by title basis.”
But we do indie as well as traditional publishing here, and they don’t play by the same rules.
“You might sell a couple of hundred copies a year on a backlist title if you’re very lucky.”
Which beats zero if you don’t offer them. To a hopefully up-and-coming indie, it might be a nice dinner out or even a rent check/car payment.
“For an indie author, the local stores might carry your book but very few other accounts will because it’s non-returnable and very expensive.”
Which is why skipping the B&Ms and only offering online is looking so good.
What looks ‘not worth bothering with’ for the big corporations can be free money to the little guys/gals.
(By free money I mean all the real work was done getting the ebook ready, little more is needed to offer it as a PoD. And you of course run the same risks as trad-pub if you decide to print out a stack of books which end up not selling.)
Allen F, I wasn’t suggesting not doing the POD edition as an indie author. Of course it’s worth it. It’s incremental money. it’s just not going to be substantial was my point. On our digital line, Lyrical Press, we make POD editions available of all titles.
“For one thing, the accountants at the holding companies that own all major US publishers will complain about the wide divergence in profitability between ebooks and printed books.”
They are losing market share for their most profitable product offering. How can that possibly be a rational business strategy?
Those accountants will first look at the cross price elasticity between paper and digital to see how total profitability is affected.
“One of the keys to low print prices are large print runs.”
And another key is having Amazon discount your print book price, while paying the publisher the full amount of a normal sale. Remember when during the Hachette dispute Amazon ceased discounting Hachette titles? Hachette authors squealed like stuck pigs in one of the most unedifying displays of privilege I’ve seen.
Many Hachette authors denounced Amazon as “evil” for daring to price their books at the retail price set by their publisher. Oh the despairing words they spewed!
Yeah, funny the qig5 wouldn’t ‘agency’ printed books, then they’d control the price and their writing pen could only whine about/to them. 😉
Amazon is not the only outlet for print books. Others discount print books as well, but often not as much as Amazon does. The Hachette dispute was a totally different situation where Amazon was clearly punishing a publisher and the author was in the middle of this battle. The publisher does not set the retail price for print books. They have a suggested list price like just about every other product on the market.
They have a suggested list price like just about every other product on the market.
But, unlike just about every other product on the market, the publisher prints that price on the goods. Why is that?
How about magazines?
Also don’t know how the printed price started.
Printed matter might be a unique category. Newspapers have the price as well. And I believe that in Canada we have to have the printed price but not 100% sure of that.
Or cars for that matter. But I have a feeling it’s somethkng related to printed matter having to have a printed price on it.
Punishing a publisher by selling books at the price the publisher suggested?
Ok I wlll bow out of this part of the conversation now because that’s insane. Not only were they not discounting but they were not ordering as well and blaming the delivery problems on Hachette
As I mentioned in our last conversation, I don’t know enough about book ordering, warehousing, and delivery to evaluate the Hachette situation. And I lack the trust necessary to accept conclusions from anyone without knowing any facts. Is there an account somewhere that explores all that?
I don’t know of an account. Was too long ago already. I can assure you 100% that Hachette knew how to ship books to Amazon on a timely basis. They ship to Amazon every day of the week. We were a client of Hachette at one time for foreign distribution and they know what they’re doing. This was simply a game of Amazon punishing them by not ordering enough inventory for the demand. Nothing more than that. Penguin Random ships every single day to each warehouse of Amazon. Don’t you think it would be reasonable that they would know how to ship books on a timely basis? Anyhow, this is old news already.
Don’t you think it would be reasonable that they would know how to ship books on a timely basis?
I have so little faith in the players, I can’t come down on either side without more facts. I don’t have a basis to believe either of them.
How about common sense? Hachette had been shipping amazon for years without any issue. Do you think all of a sudden they forgot how to do it?
How about common sense?
That presumes inside knowledge of each firm’s strategy. I don’t know what either party wanted to accomplish, and what tactics they chose. Both could certainly work their own systems. But each would have to choose how they do it, and for what purpose.
We should remember Hachette had been right in the middle of an illegal price fixing scheme, so there really isn’t any reason to assume much virtue on their part. And you have related the many wrongs of Amazon.
So, common sense doesn’t help much unless one is an advocate of one side or another. As I said earlier, the parties were not at all forthcoming during the controversy. It was fought by surrogates who didn’t appear to really know much. Douglas Preston was an obvious exception. he seemed very well informed in all matters of business, finance, economics.
You’re being unreasonable. Why would Hachette not want to ship books only to amazon and lose sales? There is zero logic in that. Every other account had plenty of books to sell and were even promoting the Hachette titles because amazon wasn’t carrying them.
Steven, in 2010 the big 5 were ready to delay shipping ebooks to Amazon if Amazon didn’t go along with agency.
How is that different from not shipping print books?
Nate, where did you get that from? Every publisher was continually shipping to amazon through all negotiations. We went through 18 months of negotiations with amazon and our existing terms continued during that terms; and we continued to work together selling books.
Well, for one thing, no group of self-serving trough-feeders penned a whiny, impotent letter to the DOJ.
But if they had, they would have sent it via… FedEX!
😀
You’re being unreasonable. Why would Hachette not want to ship books only to amazon and lose sales? There is zero logic in that.
Richard Thaler won the Nobel in economics today. His work revolves around how people make irrational decisions which defy economic theory. And they do it all the time.
We might look at Hachette’s history a bit. They conspired with other publishers to fix book prices. Was that reasonable behavior? Rational? Given the risk reward ratio?
So, given the lack of info coming from the principals, and the demonstrated ability to defy reason, I don’t think I am being unreasonable.
We are still left with third parties reasoning to what the tight-lipped principals did. Lacking evidence, it’s not unreasonable to refrain from conclusions.
If they didn’t have a contract which is what all the fussing was about, could Amazon, in good faith, take orders for Hatchette stuff?
Lo these many years ago I worked in procurement, and we always needed contracts.
I’ve never seen a comprehensive account of the dispute, probably because both sides weren’t talking.
But back in 2014 here PG posted a presentation to investerors (that won’t load the images on my browser anymore so I can’t check what exactly it said http://www.thepassivevoice.com/2014/06/lagarderes-investor-presentation/) but Hugh Howey at http://www.hughhowey.com/hachettes-slides-to-investors/
says it makes Hatchette look like the bad guys, dealing in bad faith. FWIW. Maybe the images will load for you.
It seemed the combatants back then didn’t say much. Most of what I heard came from third parties who didn’t appear to know much about that the principals weren’t talking about.
Then we had authors holding themselves out as victims. They didn’t have any better information.
Doesn’t open for me either. AMZ was claiming Hachette was shipping the books on time which was totally false. They were in the midst of negotiating new terms on ebooks I believe and AMZ was punishing them. Every other retailer had the books on sale.
Anyhow, we can just let this debate die. It was a long time ago already.
I don’t know of an account. Was too long ago already. I can assure you 100% that Hachette knew how to ship books to Amazon on a timely basis. They ship to Amazon every day of the week. We were a client of Hachette at one time for foreign distribution and they know what they’re doing. This was simply a game of Amazon punishing them by not ordering enough inventory for the demand. Nothing more than that. Penguin Random ships every single day to each warehouse of Amazon. Don’t you think it would be reasonable that they would know how to ship books on a timely basis? Anyhow, this is old news already.
Keep in mind that if books were ever agency priced, the publisher could then determine if they wanted to make the list price lower than the current price; and that’s probably what would happen. Most big retailers discount new releases or bestsellers.
“The Hachette dispute was a totally different situation where Amazon was clearly punishing a publisher and the author was in the middle of this battle.”
We keep hearing this falsehood about how ‘evil’ Amazon is/was over it.
The contract had expired. Amazon had no way of knowing if Hachette would ever send them another book – so no pre-orders and no ‘buy’ buttons on those books ‘out of stock’.
What Amazon ‘should’ have done was remove all Hachette offerings until they again had a contract to sell Hachette books. (And wasn’t it funny how fast a contract was signed once Hachette knew the other four weren’t going to stand with them? I think it was S&S that signed a new contract before theirs had even expired – Hachette having shown them that Amazon wouldn’t play their little games.)
And I seem to remember reading on these very pages that Amazon wanted to help compensate those Hachette authors suffering, but Hachette wasn’t interested, so you’re blaming the wrong party on that too.
“Amazon is not the only outlet for print books.”
No, but they are where a lot of book buyers are going and buying.
“Others discount print books as well, but often not as much as Amazon does.”
So Amazon reducing their discount is actually good for those other sellers – right? Or of course the publishers could lower their prices – oh wait, they do – those remainders they sell at a deep discount so the authors get nothing. (And then we had the discussion about the Amazon buy buttons pointing at cheaper – and still ‘new’ – books not being sold by the publisher.)
“The publisher does not set the retail price for print books. They have a suggested list price like just about every other product on the market.”
Maybe they should set the retail price, it worked so well with the qig5’s ebooks. 😉
The discussion about Hachette vs amazon is long done. All I will say is that the account never worries that books won’t be shipped. That’s a ludicrous theory. And publishers and vendors routinely continue to deal with each other during negotiations. This was pure punishment. Amazon knew that Hachette would never stop shipping them books. That would be idiotic.
“That would be idiotic.”
They and the other four teamed up with Apple for a little scam, if they’re idiotic enough to do that than where would they stop? They only gave up their tricks when it became apparent the others weren’t going to back them.
“The discussion about Hachette vs amazon is long done.”
And yet you keep bringing it up to show how badly Amazon treats the poor publishers.
“All I will say is that the account never worries that books won’t be shipped.”
Except when there’s no contract and the publisher is trying to prove to the storekeeper who’s in charge.
“That’s a ludicrous theory.”
And yet you can go back in these pages and others and find it.
“And publishers and vendors routinely continue to deal with each other during negotiations.”
Except when one is dealing in bad faith.
“This was pure punishment.”
It was an attempt at punishment. Amazon refused to be punished into doing what Hachette wanted.
“Amazon knew that Hachette would never stop shipping them books.”
Amazon also at one time thought the the members of the qig5 would deal fairly with them, but it turns out they were wrong. Once burned, why would Amazon trust that Hachette would never stop shipping them books?
I didn’t keep brining it up. I was replying to you. Amazon was claiming that Hachette wasn’t shipping on time. That was a blatant lie. There was no reason for Hachette not to ship to amazon. And every other retailer had plenty of stock. It was pure punishment. If you don’t want to believe that, I won’t convince you. But anybody who knows anything about the shipping of books knows that it was an outright lie. It was nothing more than that.
Even when there is no contract the publisher still ships books to the vendor. I have never heard of a single case where a publisher stopped shipping books to a major account because of negotiations in progress.
Amazon was claiming that Hachette couldn’t ship enough stock in time. Do you actually believe that? Why were the other retailers able to have plenty of stock?
I’m not defending the price fixing. That was illegal. Clear and simple. And not all publishers were partof that; including Random House, the largest of the publishers.
I find these false analogies and elided facts tiring. Books are not like records. My kids, who will never own a cassette and treat vinyl as a curiosity, have completely abandoned e-readers … despite my efforts. I love all three of my kindles AND my nook. But reading on devices gives them eye strain and they make the point that the physical fact of the book in your hands orients you to the contents, and maps the narrative, in a way that a succession of text screens can’t do.
This is not even to mention the aesthetic of books, which PG never seems to have grasped. People love them, and not the way weird cranks love their gramophones or Amish people like candle-light. Physical books are a viable technology,. They don’t need to be charged. You can read them in the bath and in bright sunlight, scribble in the margins and sniff the glue. Strangers can see what you’re reading in far-flung airports and start interesting conversations. They take you out of your hermetically sealed ear-pod bubble and encourage social interaction. Best of all, you actually own them when you buy them. There are no diabolically detailed tiny-print terms of use to decipher.
Books are good and a large number of people feel that way, including people who love e-books, like me. That’s something PG is going to have to learn to live with.
Then there’s the matter of publishers. The columnist from Digital Reader points to a weakness in vanity press publishing — that many writers lack the business acumen to pull it off. What doesn’t get mentioned is that an overwhelming majority of these writers lack the talent to pull it off. There’s a lot of bad, sloppy work out there. The huge number of self-published books is actually good for publishers. It lessens the weight of the slush pile. This is crucial, because their main job is gate-keeping. They curate the literary output we see, and for the most part they do a good job. Their editors differ from editors-for-hire precisely because you don’t hire them. You’re not their boss, free to ignore any comment you disagree with. They’re your boss, and you have to pay attention. That makes all the difference in the world, because at least in my experience, editors are often right and doing what they say improves the manuscript — sometimes even saves it. I’m sure many good books are turned down (I certainly feel it’s happened to me). Traditional publication is a narrow passageway to navigate. It’s a cruel system sometimes. But for the most part it works. DIY publishing mostly works for the companies who charge to bring the books out, and the professionals who service them. Most DIY books sell less than a hundred copies, which renders the generous royalty payments moot. 70% of nothing is nothing. Getting published is a genuine certification, and most writers feel that in their bones. That’s why they keep trying.
“But reading on devices gives them eye strain and they make the point that the physical fact of the book in your hands orients you to the contents, and maps the narrative, in a way that a succession of text screens can’t do.”
A Kindle Paperwhite cannot give you eyestrain. Any other device is simply a laptop. As for ‘orienting you to the narrative’ that is what the words are for. Odds are, when they get over and have to buy these things for themselves, their ideas will change.
I’m not sure where the authority for that comment comes from, but if someone finds it uncomfortable to read off a screen, it seems churlish to tell them to grow out of it — especially when they are in their thirties, as my kids are. Also, just to clarify: being able to flip pages to the end of a chapter, or feel the two halves of a big book, one in each hand, connects you to the physical reality of the volume — that’s what I meant. Words don’t disorient my children. I generally buy the hard copy of any book longer than 300 pages, and alternate it with the ebook, for just that reason. The book is a companion; the illuminated text on a screen is a delivery system. I like both, at different times. Why choose?
Everybody has their own view, Steven, and you are absolutely entitled to yours.
Since Amazon keeps their book sales close to the vest, nobody really knows how many indie ebooks are sold and what the average is.
However, averages are not terribly helpful in this analysis. The average author who wants to be traditionally published won’t be. The average author who wants to self-publish probably won’t sell many books.
In my legal practice, one of the most common requests I receive from traditionally-published authors is help breaking their publishing contracts.
I’ve gone through this process enough times to develop a general rule of thumb – a traditionally-published author who goes indie and has more than a nickel’s worth of business sense can usually add a zero to the end of their traditionally-published royalties by going indie.
$25,000 will typically turn into $250,000, etc. No guarantees with the indie route, but there are no guarantees with the traditional publishing route either.
This makes sense but the key is the platform. A traditionally published author, like Barry Eisler, with a huge email list and a big readership, is perfectly positioned to move into self-publishing, and take his audience with him. For an unknown author, it’s quite different. Needle in a haystack? More like — speck of wheat dust in a grain silo. Finding the readers will always be the hard part. My publisher (who only does series books) says they don’t expect to make any real money until the fourth installment and never attempt serious promotions until the fifth. It’s a long game at best.
“My publisher (who only does series books) says they don’t expect to make any real money until the fourth installment and never attempt serious promotions until the fifth. It’s a long game at best.”
And 99% of those submitting are rejected (not enough slots even if it was a good story.)
So if the writer tries self-pub and only makes $20 in a year they’re still better off than what trad-pub gave them (and they still have their rights and can try a new title/cover/rewrite to see if it helps.)
Of course we also hear on this site of publishers offering established indie writers book contracts (and as PG mentioned above, the writers have rejected them as the offer was a lot less than the writer was getting going indie.)
YMMV, discoverability is still the key, but trad-pub doesn’t seem to be helping with that unless you’re already well known.
I find the adding a zero very hard to believe. I seen many people on PV saying they’re making six figures or more. Yet they are writing here under a pseudonym for some reason. They’re not sharing their royalty statement so it’s all speculation. While you say most of your experience is getting people out of traditional publishing contracts, I will tell you that at every lecture that I speak that people come up to me and tell me they’ve sold hardly anything that they’ve self published. With the tens of thousands of authors that are self publishing how many are selling less than 100 copies a year? Quite a large number I would imagine based on what I hear.
If editors are so smart, why are they editing books instead of writing them?
Really? What kind of question is that? Maybe the editor doesn’t want to write a book. Maybe they like developing plots and storylines with writers and being involved in helping that author develop and sell more copies. Not everyone wants to write a book. Furthermore most writers don’t make a living out of their writing. It’s only those that are more successful that are able to write full-time.
Even more to the point, why are we assuming that writing and editing are the same skill sets?
Definitely they’re not. In the realm of journalism the “ask who, what, when, where, why, and how” skillset does not overlap with the “explain it to readers” skillset. Which is why it’s puzzling that so many papers are getting rid of copy editors: have the bosses read their reporters’ unedited copy? My goodness!
I don’t see editing and writing as interchangeable skillsets in the realm of fiction, either. I believe self-editing can be learned, and it’s possible for an editor and a writer to coexist in the same body, but those are definitely different skills.
… But I’m also assuming DaveMich was being tongue-in-cheek. Someone really needs to invent a sarcasm font.
<If editors are so smart, why are they editing books instead of writing them?
Maybe he wants to get paid?
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Nice to know that all the adult colouring books we see in stores have been carefully curated.
As for The alleged quality of traditionally published books, I only have four words
Fifty Shades of Grey.
Bad analogies make bad writing. No one is talking about coloring books. We’re talking about novels — more specifically, commercial fiction. Slamming traditional publishing for Fifty Shades of Grey is ironic, since it started out as a DIY piece of fan fiction. Publishers grabbed it when it started making money. They’re greedy and opportunistic — not exactly headline news. Of course crappy books make it through the net … and ones that you (or I) don’t especially like. But the alternative is worse. There’s a word for an un-curated museum — it’s called a junkyard.
With zillions of sales, a movie, and a sequel, by what standard is Fifty crappy? For that kind of success and popularity, lots of people have to find it satisfying.
Absolutely. I only mentioned it because someone else did. I’m happy when anyone reads anything. The next thing they read might be me!
And if they read me, it’s obvious one standard should rule them all.
Well, there are standards, and they have nothing to do with me. For example … Someone who writes “He was one of the great wits of Europe and he held the whole table spellbound for hours” is violating one of them, which is that telling the reader a character is “witty” gives the reader nothing of any value. This would be the “show don’t tell” standard, and it survives because it makes sense. Write an authentically witty comment or two — let the reader decide. Declaring character traits by authorial fiat is a cheat … and a totally ineffective one.
There are multiple standards, and lots of different readers. Nobody speaks for them all. For example, I have no problem at all with that sentence. The sentence is effective for me.
Lacking any objective criteria for what makes a book work for readers, we are left with personal taste and preferences, all fighting with each other to be the one standard that rules them all.
“But the alternative is worse. There’s a word for an un-curated museum — it’s called a junkyard.”
I’d have to disagree, there are a lot of good ‘un-curated’ stories out there that went indie because trad-pub didn’t have the slots or only offered a crappy contract for them.
“Publishers grabbed it when it started making money. They’re greedy and opportunistic — not exactly headline news.”
So you even admit they’ll print whatever might sell – to heck with it being ‘curated’.
And we’ll always run into the problem that we are not alike. What you think is great I might not care for and what I can’t put down you can’t stand – but that’s okay, there’s lots of options out there today – options neither of us would have if the only route was curated trad-pub (in which case there never would have been adult coloring books or 50 shades …)
While major bands may not *only* release new albums on vinyl, I have been seeing vinyl versions of new albums in stores. So I’m not sure vinyl records really works as an example of an obsolete format that literally no one uses anymore.
Regarding vinyl,
some years ago it was impossible to find new editions in vinyl, either new releases or classics. Then some people started releasing licensed copies of the old discs in high quality vinyl.
…Then the licenses expired and the labels wanted the duck back into their own pond.
I haven’t been able to track this for the last handful of years, but it smells similar.
Take care.
I’ve seen bands put out limited vinyl editions for their fans. That seems to be worth the expense. Abney Park comes to mind.
We’ll see similar editions in print (they already exist in some fields, like art catalogues). I see special fan editions in the future.
In a slightly better world, I think both authors and readers would be better off with a healthy and competitive publishing industry, especially authors who only publish a handful of books a year. Even among authors who like the business side, if they don’t produce enough to keep an editor, designer, and marketing assistant employed for most of the year, I doubt that they will be able to compete in the long run with the quality and efficiency of a publisher who has the volume of publications to keep a staff of professional editors, designers, and marketers busy.
I value a publisher’s imprint that assures me that I am not buying unedited, unreliable, pirated, or otherwise scammed crap. At one time, I bought every book from O’Reilly that crossed my path that was even vaguely related to my interests. When I had a new interest, I went to the O’Reilly catalog first and bought anything I found there. That is the value of a reliable publisher. (Sadly, as O’Reilly’s catalog expanded and the quality of the competition increased, I drifted away from O’Reilly, but that’s another story.)
As a reader, I regard paying extra for books from reliable publisher as good business, and I suspect others would too, if there were more reliable publishers. I’m too contrary to let publishers make my decisions, but I am glad to let them help, if they will step up to the job.
The pendulum may have swung toward multinational mega-publishers where culture and scale has reached a point where they decrease efficiency and quality, but the pendulum is likely to swing back to publishers like Baen and Katherine Kris Rusch, who are often praised in TPV. In fact, if I were in an entrepreneurial mood, I might see publishing as an opportunity.
For the present, I am going more independent, not less, and I am enjoying figuring out more about the business by doing everything myself, but I foresee a day where I will change.
And, PG to the contrary, I notice that I bought more paper books than ebooks this summer. Partly availability, partly artificially expensive ebooks, but I like making marginal notes on paper books and I don’t feel I am suffering, although I still am annoyed that I have to find a book mark when I want to stop reading and I hate the crude paper search function. In my eyes, the possibility of a paperless future has diminished, not come closer, in the last months.
“Even among authors who like the business side, if they don’t produce enough to keep an editor, designer, and marketing assistant employed for most of the year, I doubt that they will be able to compete in the long run with the quality and efficiency of a publisher who has the volume of publications to keep a staff of professional editors, designers, and marketers busy.”
Say what? All those functions are easily acquired via freelance service providers on a per-job basis. In many cases, these are exactly the same people who were formerly employed by “the publishing industry.”
Plus most of those positions in the old industry are being filled by freelancers.
Yep. ***Hey: off topic… How does one do the quote function here in the comments? You know, where the thing quoted is set off in an artistic way with the giant quote marks. I don’t see an option for doing it when Replying. Thanks.
you have to manually add blockquote tags before and after the quoted text.
You mean like this? Good to know. Thanks.
Hey, Mr. PG: maybe add an instruction about this somewhere? Like up under your “Comments” menu tab? Just a thought.
Where does that fact come from Nate? We have more full time people than ever before.
Sure. All functions supplied by a publisher can be easily be filled by freelancers. No argument.
But is a collection of freelancers as good as an orchestrated and cohesive team of professionals? A publisher with a full stream of publications can put together a team that works together well with predictable results. That is not so easy for an author who only has a few publications in their flow. A publisher doesn’t have to reassemble a team for each pub. They can offer incentives to keep the best on the team. That’s hard when you don’t have work to keep an editor or designer on your string for months at a time.
Look at the film industry. Independent film hits tend to be from producers who specialize in assembling the right team for the movie, not authors who write scripts. I see publishers as close to film producers. They specialize in assembling and maintaining teams, not creative story generation. They choose and realize good stories. Author write good stories.
Some authors are good producers, but most need a good producer to realize their work. Most of those I admire, such as Raymond Chandler and Dashielle Hammett, were authors, not producers.
“Is a collection of freelancers as good as an orchestrated and cohesive team of professionals?”
Like so many other questions, the answer is “it depends.” If you’re asking whether I’ll hold my editor and cover artist in competition with any big publisher’s out there, the answer is yes — they’re just as good if not some better. Better because I have final say and I do not have to accept, for example, whatever lame cover art a BPH throws at me. I have final approval.
“No” is the answer if you’re talking about the kind of promo/marketing push a big publisher gives to a big author. No way can my little team compete with that. Not that I am saying I would ever expect a BPH to spend Dime One on promoting my novels. I’m not the type of author they would invest any money to promote. I’m more the type over whose novels they’d say, “Tsk, tsk, despite the fact we gave it our Sacred Name (and no marketing budget whatsoever), it failed to sell. The curb is that way, Deb. Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way there.”
That’s part of the reason I’m hybrid. I can do everything myself, with my small team, except Big Promo.
Again, I have to disagree (with Democritus, not Deb).
“But is a collection of freelancers as good as an orchestrated and cohesive team of professionals?”
A. Of course they are. In many cases it’s the same people.
B. What “cohesive team” are you talking about? A decade ago, when I was with the world’s largest publisher (Thomson), the different people performing the jobs we’re discussing here were not in the same city and rarely spoke to each other. I’m willing to bet it’s more fragmented now. AND I (the author) did all the consumer-facing marketing, not them.
“Some authors are good producers, but most need a good producer to realize their work. Most of those I admire, such as Raymond Chandler and Dashielle Hammett, were authors, not producers.”
I think you’re in the wrong century. One main point of Indie Self-Pub is that authors can now do things that weren’t possible before. We are now the publishers, if we choose. I personally applaud and welcome that.
I am glad that you like where you are. Good on you. But not every author wants to put out the effort required to find the best editors, designers, and marketers for their books. A publisher is in a better position to assemble and deploy book development teams than authors who don’t care to become publishing experts.
Personally, I am striving to become a publishing expert, but only because I find it an amusing way to relax and recharge my writing energy. If I were under more pressure to generate a profit, I would not allow myself the luxury.
As for being in the wrong century, that may be true. I do generally prefer books from the first half of the 20th C and the late 19th C to most 21st C offerings. So what? The 21st C market is a big tent and I expect there are enough people who share my tastes that I will be able to sell a few books. If not, I intend to have some fun trying.
Welcome to Indie publishing! I mean that. It can be challenging but also a lot of fun.
Thanks!
Even among authors who like the business side, if they don’t produce enough to keep an editor, designer, and marketing assistant employed for most of the year, I doubt that they will be able to compete in the long run with the quality and efficiency of a publisher who has the volume of publications to keep a staff of professional editors, designers, and marketers busy.
I have that problem with my doctor. I just can’t keep him employed full time. Last I heard, he was seeing other patients.
Your analogy is good, but for my healthcare, I go to a university medical school clinic that employs hundreds of M.D.s and other professionals. Yes, I could scout out individual practitioners for myself, but the clinic works well for me. I suppose my healthcare choice is characteristic of my general preference for handing off team maintenance whenever I can.
I had excellent experiences with the team of experts assembled by the publisher of my technical books until my relatively small publisher was acquired by a multi-national and the expert team evaporated. I will probably publish my next technical book independently, but if I stumble on another publisher that I like, they like my work, and they offer a contract I like, I’ll gladly hand them the work of maintaining a team. My revenue will not be quite as high, but I avoid a lot of scut work and I expect the final product to be better. If I did not expect a better product, I would not go with the publisher.
Everyone to their own tastes.
For a independent novel targeted for eBook distribution on Amazon Select and KU, why does it matter if the editor and cover guy even know each other?
Because each player brings a perspective based on their expertise. By combining the perspectives, the chances of a blindside are reduced.
I grew up developing software. I always found that the best results come when everyone knows what everyone else is thinking. I would expect an indie author would have to act as a production team leader. Certainly a cover designer should understand the developmental editor’s vision of the book if the author is to get full benefit from both their work. On my technical books, my developmental editor, technical reviewer, series editor, and I discussed cover designs. My dev editor chose the candidate designers from the publisher’s design group. Then we all noodled out what was best and the sales group chimed in with approval at the end. It was helpful that most of the publisher’s team knew the ropes and each other better than I.
It doesn’t have to be done that way. I’m not doing it that way for my fiction, but I wish I were. I guess I should add, the team for my last technical book sucked in comparison with the earlier teams.
Many books today have no developmental editor, no book doctor. The author handles his own development as many in the past have done.
But, they do use an editor to check for grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation… I think that is a copy editor?
The cover guy doesn’t need to know the guy who handles grammar, and the grammar guy doesn’t have to know the artist. And I hope the cover guy pays the most attention to the author rather than an editor.
We know people are doing this, and we know they are successful.
I suspect the team approach probably is the best thing for a publisher to use if he is employing the talent. He has to keep them all productively employed, and they have to move around. It’s a bit like a construction company that has multiple jobs and full-time employees. They have to foster a group that can easily move from one job to another. The benefit accrues to the employer.
To me, it boils down to a good publisher can help a good author, but not all publishers are good, and not all authors write well.
An incompetent or poorly focused publisher is scant help to a good author and no help to an incompetent author.
Some independent authors can do better than a publisher, but only if they have the inclination and skill.
Certainly, there will always be publishers, but what will they look like in 10-15-20 years?
Will we still have the great behemoths, or will we have a number of smaller, Mom & Pop operations, that contract with authors to provide a certain amount of skills for a flat rate?
Maybe a mix of the two? Maybe more smaller presses will move forward into the lower tier of medium-size, basing their growth on good customer service to authors?
“Some readers will continue to like printed books, but their numbers are already declining and will continue to do so.”
It depends on what sort of book we are talking about. These discussions often are talking about fiction, and especially fungible commercial fiction. For that, yes, the print book is definitely on its way out. Similarly for popular non-fiction.
But for more specialized books this is less true. Essentially, if I can imagine wanting to have this book open on my desk, open to one page while I have fingers stuck between pages in two places, with three other books spread open in front of me, then I buy it in paper. Digital simply does not work for this. The day may come when ebook manufacturers figure this out, but if so they aren’t showing any sign of it now.
What I am describing is a small slice of the market, but it is a slice that I don’t see going away.
I agree. I cannot do historical research without print. For fiction, for a number of reasons, I prefer digital.
These discussions made a whole lot more sense when I realized that everyone was talking about commercial fiction, without actually saying so. The discussion, for example, of price point seems to be to wonder if people will pay three bucks for a book, or should it be one dollar, and sometimes free. The penny dropped when this was combined with a discussion of how many books the author put out each year. We are talking about the modern equivalent of dime novels. Adjust for inflation and that price point suddenly makes sense.
Yes this is entirely about commercial fiction, genre fiction. Non-fic, especially research heavy texts, are a very different market.
“But for more specialized books this is less true.”
Absolutely. For me personally, fiction = digital; non-fiction (esp. cookbooks, gardening) = paper
I also prefer print for historical research and the like, but non-fiction has the exact same problem as fiction for me: the type size is too damn small. As in 9pt font or less; I have a printer’s ruler that lets me measure this.
I would settle for PDF versions that I could enlarge and print out if that were an option, otherwise I’ve resorted to Google books. Print is less of a selling point when academic presses are too cheap to print books with a normal font size. After getting burned a few times I’ve reluctantly gone with the Kindle option.
I happen to be doing a bit of historical research myself at the moment (The Later Roman Empire: 284-602, A. H. M. Jones, two volumes). Not available in Kindle.
Phaugh! I’m maybe 1/3rd of the way through the entire thing, and just counted the little pieces of paper – 27 so far. I would much prefer 27 bookmarks on a Kindle.
Now, as to other criticisms – I am contemplating getting four or five more cheap Fires when the holidays roll around, to have several books “open” at the same time. Although I’m not sure whether all of them are going to synchronize themselves to the same exact thing (already very annoying that I can’t have the Kindle PC app open multiple times – I have two monitors, and could probably open three on each monitor).
I like that plan! I resisted reading on tablets (don’t want to risk eyestrain) but a Fire seems the lesser evil for reading history. I like your “open book” plan, because it would be more congruent with how I use the dead tree books. I’m likely to have several books going at once. Now I know what my holiday shopping list is going to look like … 🙂
And that is why eReaders are primitive. The eReaders could be superior to paper for nonfiction. Think of a 22″ computer screen with the first sentence of each of those 27 paper bookmarks listed next to the current page. Click on any of them and the page opens in an additional window.
Click again, and the highlighted passages from all 27 scroll in another window. Click again, and the highlighted passages print out in a single document.
Perhaps the legalities of copyright and fair use won’t allow it.
“One detail that is often overlooked is that not all authors are equally imbued with the business skills – or the interest – required to publish their work and maximize revenues.”
The problem with this sentence, from an author’s point of view, is that publishers maximize revenues for themselves, not for authors.
Everyone optimizes for their own profit, so that is like saying water is wet.
I agree but the implication of the quote seems to be that they maximize for authors. I couldn’t even criticise them for maximising for their own profit — if they didn’t pretend otherwise.
Evidence to the contrary: The Battle of $9.99. The publishers did not try to optimize their profit. They colluded to preserve their existing business model.
Is the book any good?
Terence OBrien, I paid $1.99 on Amazon. I found it worth that price. 87 pages by Amazon’s count. The Publication Date is June 18, 2013, so you may know now more than what is in the book. The author claims everything in the book was taken from public records: PR statements; iPad launch; court testimony, filings, and briefs; and news articles.
Keeping the prices at 9.99 also provided the author with higher revenue as well.
Assuming the publishers calculated royalties properly, and didn’t engage in Hollywood accounting to underpay authors.
There were no charges of that brought up. Every author always has the right to conduct an audit but again it wasn’t an issue.
This blog post by Kristine Kathryn Rusch is five years old, but has trad pub changed since then? At least in 2011-2012, tradpub ebook royalty payments were not based on sales, but on opaque calculations.
And, sure, the right to conduct an audit can be exercised… if trad pub doesn’t collude to blackball authors who audit their publishers.
http://kriswrites.com/2012/05/02/the-business-rusch-royalty-statement-update-2012/
I’ve never heard any of this before from a major publisher. I did hear about a blanket letter going out from one publisher to change eBook royalty rates. But there are no specifics here so there’s nothing really to comment about.
Authors don’t get blackballed for doing a royalty audit. And audits don’t happen very often because the royalty statements are concise and clear cut. I know if an author or agent has a question with us, they simply call and we discuss it. There’s nothing secretive. And ebook royalties couldn’t be easier since most of them are based on receipts from the online retailer.
You work for a trad pub right? Because everything you are saying it’s the opposite of the truth.
I own Kensington publishing and have no reason to lie. I’ve also signed hybrid deals with three of the biggest names in indie publishing including Joe Konrath. But if you want to call me a liar, so be it.
At least in 2011-2012, tradpub ebook royalty payments were not based on sales, but on opaque calculations.
What’s the calculation? Formula? Rusch says some formula was used. What is it? If publishers are cheating then let’s see the numbers. It should be great fun.
When publishers give us conclusions without facts to back them up, we should ask for the facts so we can judge the conclusions.
Same for independent authors. They also need facts, not just conclusions.
I have no idea what you’re referring to. The royalty calculation is clearly spelled out in every single author contract for ebooks and print books in all formats. It’s not a mystery at all.
Cassandra, even though Zacharius often sounds as if he speaks in the name of all traditional publishing houses, he’s only taking as a CEO of Kensington publishing and has no inside knowledge about big 5’s accounting practises, or in this case of how royalty payment of big publishers are calculated or what kind of audit clause their contracts have.
So when he’s sharing his publishing experience, you need to keep in mind he’s talking only as an authority on operation of a medium-sized publishing house from CEO’s position not as somebody who has authority on how a big publishing operates.
That really is not true. We are distributed by Penguin Random and have been distributed by Hachette. I am familiar with their royalty, shipping, distribution and billing methods.
I have also seen author contracts from every major publisher and many smaller ones as well. RWA used to do a series of articles on various contracts as well.
It might be helpful to note the lack of first-hand experience many independent authors have with many aspects of publishing, business, and economics.
When they speak, they very often speak for themselves and their own experiences. That can be enlightening and interesting, but still limited in scope.
Is that sarcasm? I’m quite familiar with the policies of the big 5 publishers. You don’t think that we have to compete on a daily basis or that I don’t know the key people at these other houses?
Zacharius,
so what you’re saying is, you are authority on the way big publishing houses operate and on their author-publisher relationship because Kensington had used Penguin Random’s and Hachette’s distribution channels and because you have seen “author contracts from every major publisher and many smaller ones as well”?
Which you can freely claim and people are free to accept your claim or not.
Me, personally, I like to hear what you have to say about the way Kensington operates and how a medium sized publisher sees current publishing landscape, but the way how big publishers see things and how they operate, you have shown with your comments, like the ones you made on deep discounting clauses and about freelances, that is not something you’re overly familiar with. In my opinion you’re an authority on big publishing houses the same way big five are authority on Amazon.
Zacharius,
so what you’re saying is, you are authority on the way big publishing houses operate and on their author-publisher relationship because Kensington had used Penguin Random’s and Hachette’s distribution channels and because you have seen “author contracts from every major publisher and many smaller ones as well”?
Which you can freely claim and people are free to accept your claim or not.
Me, personally, I like to hear what you have to say about the way Kensington operates and how a medium sized publisher sees current publishing landscape, but the way how big publishers see things and how they operate, you have shown with your comments, like the ones you made on deep discounting clauses and about freelances, that is not something you’re overly familiar with. In my opinion you’re an authority on big publishing houses the same way big five are authority on Amazon.
Superficially persuasive falsehood.
To see that, all you have to do is look at the price-point distribution of total ebook *DOLLAR* sales on Amazon, to see that the majority the *DOLLARS* readers are spending on ebooks are on books in the $2.99 – $4.99 price range.
So, yeah, sure, if an author is satisfied making more money per copy on a tiny handful of copies they might sell at $9.99, that’s good advice. While those authors are slurping ramen bought with the pennies they earned, they can pat themselves on the back that they didn’t “devalue literature” and hurt a publisher’s business model.
But if you want to make more money TOTAL, while gaining more readers and fans, you price your books at the price points where most reader dollars are actually spent.
Basic economics, genius.
That’s fine if your self published, but it’s not necessarily the same for a traditional author. The traditional author that is well known can carry the higher price point without a problem. If it’s a debut author we will lower the price point to the appropriate level. Or if it’s a backlist title or a first in series we will lower the price to a different price point.
If that author also has a hardcover release of the same title to protect, then there might be some validity to your point.
And my compliments for having the smarts to give debut authors a shot at a consumer-friendly price; your larger Big Five competitors are too afraid of cannibalizing the sales of their biggest (and longest-running) authors to do the same.
But, as your comment hints at, a digital-first (or digital-only) traditionally published fiction author is pretty much financially screwed at $9.99, unless they are already a big-name brand going in.
The controversy was about reducing the price of $14 books to $9.99. Amazon claimed this price would generate the most total revenue for the book. (They said nothing about total revenue to the publisher.)
Amazon did not say books priced below $9.99 should be increased to $9.99.
Amazon was applying basic economic theory coupled with actual data from their pricing tests. It’s an application of price elasticity. But, basic economics tells us that price elasticity varies with specific prices.
So the elasticity at $14.99, $9.99, and $2.99 will differ for the same book. The key is whether price elasticity is above or below -1. It can be above at some prices, and below at others.
Simplifying from basic economics, if price is lowered 10%, do units sold increase by more than 10%, or do they increase by less than 10%. In the first case the move generates more total revenue. In the second, it generates less total revenue.
Amazon told us a move from $14 to $10 (28% decrease) would generate an increase in unit sales of more than 28%. They did not provide any analysis beyond those price points. They didn’t include $2.99 in the analysis. Note, they did not say a price lower than $9.99 would generate even more total revenue for those books.
Note the math has been marginally simplified to convey a concept.
Anonymous,
I have no idea about what you’re referring to with the comment about deep discounting and freelancers but I am 100% familiar with the policies that are employed by Kensington with those categories. In general, I’m also familiar with policies from big 5 publishers because everyone has to be competitive with each other, otherwise we hear from accounts complaining.
And I’m not an expert because I’m distributed by PRH or Hachette but because I’ve known these people since we’ve been in business. If you have any questions, I’m happy to answer.