From author Ron Vitale:
The state of indie publishing is in flux. Is print coming back? Are indie authors losing sales? And with the rise of more competition from traditional publishers, what is an indie author to do?
Based right outside of Philadelphia, I took the train up to New York and went hoping to find answers at Digital Book World Indie 2017. Truth be told, one of the main reasons why I went was to hear Data Guy talk in the Tight Insights: The Indie Universe Quantified session. I wanted to see his data on the big screen. I could have listened to him for hours.
. . . .
How are indie authors going to compete and thrive against huge conglomerate corporations? At the end of the first session, Porter Anderson reminded all of us that when photographers needed to streamline their services, they came together to form a co-op. Professional services (developing the film, marketing, etc.) could be provided by reputable and vetted individuals while the photographers could stay out longer in the field, shooting. Anderson, in his understated way, turned to the audience and said, “Now it’s all on you.”
The biggest take home message from Digital Book World Indie is so simple that I almost missed it while preparing for the next talk. When we as indie authors unite, we have strength. We are the sum of our individual skills.
. . . .
While I sat in the conference room listening to the talks, I had my phone out, sharing information with members of a private Facebook group. And throughout the day, I kept checking in on Michael Anderle’s 20BooksTo50K Facebook group. I joined the 20BooksTo50K group back in December when there were 1,200 members. Less than a month later, there are more than 3,450 members. Fellow indie authors who are sharing their launch plans, screenshots from their sales dashboards, asking for advice on covers they are having designed and talk through the most in-the-weeds details about email lists.
. . . .
The mismatch between the experts at the conference and the brain power available from within the room itself could not have been more pronounced over the course of the day.
. . . .
The second most important lesson I learned at DBW Indie is that traditional publishers, to quote Jane Friedman, “are kicking ass in marketing.” Judith Curr’s (President & Publisher of Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster) talk brought that home to all the authors in the room. Not only are publishers creating apps such as Crave, but they are performing A/B tests with their advertising, targeting the appropriate readers with the ads as well as sending out thousands of ARCs in advance to build reviews online.
Judith Curr came to speak to a room full of indie authors with an olive branch, asking us to consider traditional publishing. The word “hybrid” floated throughout many of the sessions and authors were pitched not only by Curr, but by Kobo, Wattpad, Ingramspark and, if you wanted, one-on-one with iBooks. Opportunity flowed throughout the day.
The challenge that I see is that without the deep (for now) pockets of traditional publishers, indie authors will continue to struggle. Although traditional publishers have amazing teams to produce extremely high quality products, the opportunity for indie authors comes in our being able to control our own careers. We have choice. With knowledge, there is power. In today’s publishing, we could license our print book rights, but retain our ebook rights and publish as we like. We have bargaining power that did not exist a few years ago.
Link to the rest at Ron Vitale
Here’s a link to Ron Vitale’s books. If you like an author’s post, you can show your appreciation by checking out their books.
PG doesn’t know Mr. Vitale, but PG does know something about large conglomerates, including publishing conglomerates, pre-internet and internet marketing and technology in general.
Conglomerates are large collections of people and money that are not all the same. Some do reasonably well at attracting capital and running some of their businesses. Others do dumb things all the time.
If you want to rapidly accomplish something innovative, a conglomerate is not the way to go. If you want to attract and keep creative employees, a conglomerate is not the way to go.
No smart entrepreneur tries to start anything inside a conglomerate. Apple would have been killed in the crib inside a conglomerate. So would Amazon and Google.
As a group, publishing conglomerates are among the slowest and least innovative members of the conglomerate class. PG worked for one of the largest (RELX Group, previously known as Reed Elsevier) for three unhappy years and knows of what he speaks.
Specific points mentioned in the OP:
- Apps such as Crave from big publishers. Do you know how easy it is to build an app? Ten-year-olds build apps. There are over two million apps on Apple’s App Store. PG looked at the most popular book apps on Apple’s App Store. The first page includes a large number of apps. Crave was not among them. Three out of the top five apps were from Amazon.
- A/B tests for advertising. PG wasn’t one of the Mad Men, but his boss at a very large advertising agency would have qualified. Needless to say, PG’s adventures in advertising occurred centuries ago. A/B tests with advertising were a routine practice during Mad Men days.
- Sending out ARCs in advance to build reviews online. Publishers have been doing this forever. Smart indie authors have email lists, social media accounts, etc., and use them to do the same thing.
PG agrees with the OP that authors should get together and share ideas, support each other, etc.
However, there’s a key difference when indie authors get together and when traditionally-published authors get together.
When an indie author hears or reads about a great idea for marketing, he/she can implement it immediately and see the results (good or bad) in a few days or weeks by watching their KDP dashboard. When a traditionally-published author hears the same idea, it’s a different experience.
To pirate a saying, an author needs a big publisher like a fish needs a bicycle.
In New Zealand, we think ‘lucked out’ means the opposite of ‘got lucky’ when apparently they mean the same thing.
I read this, and wondered if I had the same misconception about what constitutes “kick-a** marketing”.
“When an indie author hears or reads about a great idea for marketing, he/she can implement it immediately and see the results (good or bad) in a few days or weeks by watching their KDP dashboard. When a traditionally-published author hears the same idea, it’s a different experience.”
Right on, PG. I’ve been trying out AMS Sponsored ads recently for my growing novella series. Easy to set up, easy to track and tweak, and now noticing a slowing down of results, I can pull the plug with the click of one button. Contrast that with when I was being published a decade ago by the world’s largest publisher (Thomson/Reuters). There was endless wrangling about advertising, promotions, if I could attend a trade show to sign books, et al. It took weeks/months for anything to happen, if at all. Now, I decide and make it happen within minutes or hours.
This is one fish who’s swimming where and how he wants.
How are indie authors going to compete and thrive against huge conglomerate corporations?
Price competition.
Group hugs and coops will go nowhere because independents are competing with each other with the same product in the same markets.
Dunno, but considering that indies have already grabbed roughly half of all digital sales from those “huge conglomerate corporations,” I’d say they’re competing and thriving just fine.
The only place traditional publishers are actually “kicking ass in marketing” is in marketing themselves to insecure writers holding manuscripts.
I’d say they’re competing and thriving just fine.
Sure they are. That’s due to price competition. I doubt they will stop using such a successful tactic. It works.
You assert that independents are all competing with the same product. But books are not all one product. They are not interchangeable. Don’t believe me? Try to repair your 1972 Thunderbird with instructions from an Agatha Christie novel instead of a Chilton manual.
Seriously – the biggest advantage independents hold over conglomerates is the ability to identify new or under-served market segments and quickly release products tailor-made for them. But if you insist that all books are one product, you will inevitably miss that.
I agree Gone With The Wind is not a substitute for a Chevrolet manual. I suspect a few have stumbled on that one, but probably not many.
But novels are very interchangeable in meeting the needs of a consumer. He can amuse himself with any of a zillion novels.
Consumers looking for entertainment can find it in lots books. From the consumer perspective there is an abundance of substitutes.
We used to hear that books did not react to price changes because each was so special and unique. That was until someone started changing prices. Books aren’t special.
But novels are very interchangeable in meeting the needs of a consumer. He can amuse himself with any of a zillion novels.
RIght. Which is why a reader who is looking for ‘sweet’ Regency romances will of course be equally entertained by a Fifty Shades book, and one who likes to read military SF with lots of detailed descriptions of guns and firefights will be happy to settle for Ancillary Justice.
Or maybe not. Let me repeat: the biggest advantage independents hold over conglomerates is the ability to identify new or under-served market segments and quickly release products tailor-made for them. Many of the biggest names in indie publishing got that way because they were publishing types of fiction that Big Pub did not want to deal in – considered them unprofitable, or politically incorrect, or (very often) simply passé. Apparently you don’t recognize the existence of such subgenres or of the market segments that buy them. Apparently you think any damned novel should be good enough for any damned reader, if only it is cheaper than the alternatives. This is not remotely the case.
I agree with you, Tom. But you’re shouting into the wind here. The contrarian is contrary.
Contrary? The notion that price elasticity applies to books isn’t particularly contrary. Books are like widgets. Neither is special.
There had been quite a bit of opposition to that idea a few years back. Events intervened.
Show of hands… In economic terms, who thinks books are special?
You’re not even addressing the issue. The issue is not about price elasticity. It is about the fact that Big Publishing WILL NOT SERVE any market that they do not perceive as big enough – and they do NO research to decide what is big enough; they merely chase the tails of the last round of bestsellers.
NO major publisher would touch ‘school stories’ before Harry Potter; in fact, every major publisher in the U.K. and U.S.A. rejected the first Potter book because they ‘knew’ it would not sell. NO major publisher would touch historical fiction for years, or Westerns (except for Louis L’Amour, who was already established and sold too well to be dropped), or – well, there are many, many genres and subgenres which simply disappeared from sight, despite the continued existence of enthusiastic readers. Those readers were reduced to combing through garage-sale boxes and second-hand bookshops to get their fix. Big Publishing did not know they existed, did not believe they were numerous, and did not care to find out.
You’re not even addressing the issue. The issue is not about price elasticity.
Of course it is. My initial statement was that independents will compete with traditional publishers on price.
Of course it is. My initial statement was that independents will compete with traditional publishers on price.
Your initial statement is that independents will compete with traditional publishers ONLY on price. This is manifestly false.
Clever literary sleuths on TPV will scroll back and see for themselves. Then they will be faced with believing a comment or their own lyin’ eyes.
And, yes, sports fans, the eyes have it!
If you did not mean to say that price was the ONLY advantage of independent authors, you would not have argued so strenuously against me when I pointed out other advantages.
Let the eyes not make up their minds too quickly. If they decide based upon one bit of evidence and ignore all the rest, they will be making the same error as you.
God Bless those lyin’ eyes…
RIght. Which is why a reader who is looking for ‘sweet’ Regency romances will of course be equally entertained by a Fifty Shades book, and one who likes to read military SF with lots of detailed descriptions of guns and firefights will be happy to settle for Ancillary Justice.
I doubt it.
Consumers do have zillions of books that meet their needs. That hardly means all books meet their needs. But a sufficiently large number do that we can comfortably say books aren’t special.
I doubt it.
You’re wrong.
It isn’t about whether books are special; they’re not. But THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. They contain INFORMATION, and they contain DIFFERENT INFORMATION IN EACH ONE. Got that so far?
Now. LARGE PUBLISHERS REFUSE TO PUBLISH BOOKS IN SMALL OR ‘UNHIP’ NICHES. Got that? For instance, NOT ONE of the Big Five will touch space opera with a ten-foot pole. Readers who want space opera want it very much and will not settle for anything else. If you provide space opera (as Baen and indie writers are willing to do), THEY WILL BUY IT, even if you do NOT discount your price.
THIS IS HAPPENING. THIS IS REAL. YOU ARE ARGUING THAT REALITY CANNOT HAPPEN.
Your schtick is so old and tired and STUPID. Get the hell over yourself and LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON.
I doubt it.
You’re wrong.
It isn’t about whether books are special; they’re not. But THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. They contain INFORMATION, and they contain DIFFERENT INFORMATION IN EACH ONE. Got that so far?
Now. LARGE PUBLISHERS REFUSE TO PUBLISH BOOKS IN SMALL OR ‘UNHIP’ NICHES. Got that? For instance, NOT ONE of the Big Five will touch space opera with a ten-foot pole. Readers who want space opera want it very much and will not settle for anything else. If you provide space opera (as Baen and indie writers are willing to do), THEY WILL BUY IT, even if you do NOT discount your price.
THIS IS HAPPENING. THIS IS REAL. YOU ARE ARGUING THAT REALITY CANNOT HAPPEN.
Your schtick is so old and tired and STUPID. Get the hell over yourself and LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON.
But THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.
The needs of the consumer determine if books are interchangeable. The consumer doesn’t care if authors think books are so unique and special that each merits snowflake status.
If zillions of books can meet a consumer’s needs, then they are interchangeable.
Get the hell over yourself and LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON.
But, I’m special.
The needs of the consumer determine if books are interchangeable. The consumer doesn’t care if authors think books are so unique and special that each merits snowflake status.
The consumer obviously does not think books are interchangeable. There are, for instance, many thousands of romance novels on the market; yet readers don’t buy the lowest-priced one and ignore all the others.
If zillions of books can meet a consumer’s needs, then they are interchangeable.
But this is not the case. There are thousands of books on Amazon that I would buy and read if I had the money and time; but there are millions of books that I would pay, if necessary, to be excused from reading. This is not because there is anything special about me, but because I am (in this respect) an entirely typical reader. The books that interest me would bore many other readers, and vice versa.
But, I’m special.
Just stop it. At this point, you’re just arguing for the pleasure of being a jerk.
The consumer obviously does not think books are interchangeable. There are, for instance, many thousands of romance novels on the market; yet readers don’t buy the lowest-priced one and ignore all the others.
Sure he does. He just doesn’t think all books are interchangeable. But, for each consumer there are enough interchangeables that we can say the market has lots of close substitutes.
Just stop it. At this point, you’re just arguing for the pleasure of being a jerk.
I’m not special? Say it ain’t so…
Some things to remember is reading is often for ‘entertainment’. Unless you’re following a series (or writer) you’re enjoying they can be interchangeable to a point. But writers only write so fast — so much slower than most of us read — so we are often looking for fresh/new-to-us writers. In the search for that new-to-them talent, readers are going to trip over/get burned buying stories they find they don’t like. It’s much easier for that reader to ‘blow’ a few dollars buying a ‘bad for them’ e/pbook if it cost little or nothing (cup of bad coffee at starburns) vs risking the cost of a nice meal on something that they might not be able to stomach. If you’re a big name with millions of frantic fans you can charge what you like, that little guy/gal trying to bring in new readers will have more luck saving the reader from that coffee.
This is exactly right. But for new writers, a low price has little to do with the price elasticity of books in general; it is a loss leader, a marketing device to lower the sales resistance of potential customers.
Mr. OBrien is stuck on a commodity model of publishing. He imagines that books are like bushels of wheat, and every writer is a farmer producing identical crops. This model is simple enough to fit into his limited understanding of economics; but it does not fit the facts. As the information-theory people would say, he sacrifices critical information for the sake of legibility – and when the facts do not fit his truncated theory, he simply disregards the facts.
Mr. OBrien is stuck on a commodity model of publishing.
Consumers do that all for themselves. They make decisions on their subset of personal substitutes. Nobody else has the power to do that for them. They just dump those unique snowflakes into different bushels.
@ Tom
When you scale it up to someone the size of Amazon, it is merely bushels of wheat.
Or maybe we’re selling cups of coffee. Some it great, some okay, and some is differing levels of crap. But every seller ‘spices’ their coffee differently, meaning your buddy’s idea of ‘great’ may not be your own. Some of those sellers charge less than others, while some try to charge more than people will put up with (“No coffee’s so great I’m going to pay that much for it!”)
One fact that Data Guy’s presentation showed was that there was a marked ‘drop’ in trad-pub pbook sales when Amazon reduced it’s discount on them, so price indeed ‘does’ matter — no matter how good/bad the book.
And Amazon knows the price-point, and since trad-pub didn’t dare ‘agency’ pbooks they are at Amazon’s mercy. Yes, trad-pub could ‘lower’ their prices, but that would then be admitting they knew all along they were overpriced. And that overpricing is hurting all of their ‘newer’ unknown writers because few will risk buying the unknown for full price, waiting until they’re in (if) the library or bargain basement bin.
When you scale it up to someone the size of Amazon, it is merely bushels of wheat.
No. Wheat is a big business where I live. The Alberta Wheat Pool and the Canadian Wheat Board do not keep massive databases tracking the exact consumption patterns and interests of wheat buyers, because wheat is a standardized commodity and one bushel of a given grade is exactly the same as another. Amazon built its business by not treating its products as interchangeable commodities. It devotes huge resources to the difficult problem of finding out exactly which products, out of all the millions it sells, will appeal to this or that individual customer.
One fact that Data Guy’s presentation showed was that there was a marked ‘drop’ in trad-pub pbook sales when Amazon reduced it’s discount on them, so price indeed ‘does’ matter — no matter how good/bad the book.
Yes; and nobody is arguing against that. Mr. OBrien is arguing that price is the only differentiating factor between one book and another, which is nonsense.
In fact, what readers most often do is not to say, ‘This book costs X and that book costs Y; which one shall I buy?’ Rather, they examine them individually; they say, ‘I would like to read this book, but not at that price.’ It’s about the price elasticity of each individual title as a product unto itself. The price of other products, even in the same category, has little effect on it. To the extent that all the books in a category share similar demand curves, it is because they are subject to the same market forces in the same industry. The optimum price for one book does not cause the optimum price of other books to rise or fall; they are independent effects of the same set of causes. If you want to understand the pricing mechanisms of this market, you need to examine those causes and not attribute the observed data to some cutthroat price competition between books.
Mr. OBrien is arguing that price is the only differentiating factor between one book and another, which is nonsense.
Pay no attention to the jerk behind the curtain.
“It’s about the price elasticity of each individual title as a product unto itself.”
Yes and no. If the reader has gotten used to paying x for a ebook, seeing one at x+5/10 might have them not bother looking any deeper into it, just moving on to the next x priced offering. And they aren’t comparing one to another unless they’re on a tight budget (I can either get these two or those five for the same price … one of the higher priced ones is the next in that series I was reading, but was I enjoying it enough to want to pay this much for it?)
And since you are new to ‘most’ readers, not being at a the right price-point means they won’t be picking you up — no matter how ‘great’ they might have thought you were had they just given you the chance. (The ‘you’ in this is not you but any writer not already with a fan club of millions. 😉 )
Rather than wheat, maybe we should grind it down a bit and look at flour. There are different types from different companies and they do compete on type needed, price and quality.
And when the miller buys wheat, price varies by protein count. Even in Canada.
And when the miller buys wheat, price varies by protein count. Even in Canada.
In other words, not even bulk commodity products are as fungible as you believe books to be.
Neither wheat nor books are fungible. They make up sets of close substitutes.
Red wheat, white wheat, durum wheat, romances, thrillers, westerns, Chevrolet engine manuals…
Apparently you don’t recognize the existence of such subgenres or of the market segments that buy them.
I do recognize them, but I’m not special enough to buy them.
But that sets up an interesting situation. If independents do quickly pivot into an unserved subgenre for special people, do they price at traditional levels? If there is no traditional representation due to the incredible speed and ingenuity of independents, shouldn’t we expect independents to price at traditional levels?
But they don’t. They price at much lower levels. How come? Are they just contrarians? Are they leaving a lot of money on the table? Or is price such an important competitive factor that they use it even in a subgenre with no traditional representation?
I do recognize them, but I’m not special enough to buy them.
Nobody cares. The people who do want to buy them are the ones from whom profit is being made, and NOT by Big Publishing.
But that sets up an interesting situation. If independents do quickly pivot into an unserved subgenre for special people, do they price at traditional levels?
No, because traditional levels are designed to protect print sales and slow ebook adoption. Indies price to maximize total profit and gain wider readership. This has been going on for years; Data Guy describes it very well. How can you be this out of touch after so many years of reading all this stuff right on this very blog?
If there is no traditional representation due to the incredible speed and ingenuity of independents, shouldn’t we expect independents to price at traditional levels?
No, because the traditional pricing levels are STUPID. The people who price books at that level do so because they have always calculated print book prices on a ‘cost plus’ basis and never on the basis of maximizing revenue or profit.
But you will never see this, because you think every book is the same and that the Big Five have an intelligent business plan which they are executing correctly. The facts of the case are right in front of you, but you refuse to look because you have an unshakable preconception that there cannot be any such facts.
No, because traditional levels are designed to protect print sales and slow ebook adoption. Indies price to maximize total profit and gain wider readership.
In a market with no traditional representation, how do we know low independent prices maximize profit? Why use the same low prices that are used in markets where traditionals do compete?
But you will never see this, because you think every book is the same and that the Big Five have an intelligent business plan which they are executing correctly.
Zillions of snowflakes meet the same needs for a consumer. Personally, I own just one book, but it’s whatever I want it to be.
In a market with no traditional representation, how do we know low independent prices maximize profit?
Amazon has data. Data Guy has data. Lots of people have data.
As W. T. Kirkpatrick used to say, ‘You can have enlightenment for ninepence, but you prefer ignorance.’
Zillions of snowflakes meet the same needs for a consumer. Personally, I own just one book, but it’s whatever I want it to be.
Cut it out. You’re just arguing this stupid crap because you enjoy making me suffer, aren’t you? Jerk.
Amazon has data. Data Guy has data. Lots of people have data.
Data guy doesn’t know what the profit maximizing price is for any given book. How would he know that? Perhaps we should ask him.
Cut it out. You’re just arguing this stupid crap because you enjoy making me suffer, aren’t you? Jerk.
Psst… Wanna buy a magic book?
I don’t think he is arguing that books are so commoditized that books provide the same experience to all readers; but if I write an epic fantasy with wizards and dragons, am I not competing with authors in that genre for the eyes of POTENTIAL buyers? The majority of readers have finite time and money (Example: I have a list of 200-300 titles on my Netflix watchlist… many of which get removed before I find the time to watch them).
But I also get your point. With excellent writing and a great story, one would hope to become another household name like Tolkien. But until then, our stories have to standout from the plethora of SIMILAR counterparts.
That’s true; but if you write – gee, let’s take a thoroughly obscure example: It is 2004, and you write a ‘sweet’ romance about a high-school girl and an immortal sparkly vampire. You are not competing with any authors, because that story has no close competitors. Your chief obstacle in the market is the unwillingness of Big Publishing and Big Bookselling to take a chance on anything they haven’t seen before.
All I have been saying is that new types of stories, new tropes and subgenres, are constantly being invented, and some of them resonate with enough readers to be highly profitable for the writers. Independent writers have the advantage that they can experiment cheaply with new ideas and then move quickly to capitalize on their successes. A big publisher, with heavy overheads, and a typical turnaround time from contract to print of about two years, cannot afford to enter small niches and has not the agility to experiment quickly. Neither of these disadvantages is ever going to go away; they are inherent in the nature of a large conglomerate.
You will hear no arguments from me on the countless advantages of being an independent writer and being able to quickly move on new trends and getting a book to market much faster than slogging your way through the slush piles.
My only counter is that your example of Twilight is a very, very rare exception. And one has to think that the saturation of the book market means it will be even rarer and rarer to find those gem tropes. BUT… I also don’t think that’s an excuse to not try to create something new and exciting. Clearly, I’m somewhere in the middle on this.
Actually, Twilight was not a rare exception. Writers are finding and exploiting new market niches all the time. The only thing rare about that particular instance was the size of the unserved market. A writer can make a comfortable living serving a niche orders of magnitude smaller than the Twilight audience; so the point remains valid.
When we as indie authors unite, we have strength.
I think that’s like trying to herd cats. For me, and IMHO for many other TPVers, it’s about running our own show. Doing it ourselves — or subbing stuff out. It’s about individual control over our work. And reaping the results thereof.
And I think many of us are simply too individualistic and ornery to want to be in a group or movement. And it’s not necessary to “come together” in some sort of group to achieve our own particular goals.
Individual action on a massive scale can result in the same results as joining some sort of group. Plus, groups demand time, energy, and effort of their members, taking away irreplaceable time for writing and working on individual goals.
I’ve seen too many writers groups that are time sucks, accomplishing nothing except endless useless critiques, injured feelings, and author angst.
Meow!
(Translation: I agree whole-heartedly with the esteemed Mr. Brown.)
When we as indie authors spread out and work separately, we have agility. Strength we can hire from Amazon and Kobo. Agility can’t be outsourced.
Spot on the money, Tom.
Thank you, Sir. I am glad we generally agree on the essentials. (You have probably forgotten, but we have butted heads on some peripheral matters.)
Loved your analysis at the end, PG. I was nodding my head to ALL of it. I almost feel a little sorry for the original poster. I wanted to ask the OP why he thinks traditional publishers feel the need to extend olive branches and come to an indie event to say give us a chance? Must be because of all that ass they are kicking in the marketing departments.
Thanks, Marie.
I know this has been beaten to death here and elsewhere but I want to scream everytime I hear “print is coming back!”
If the local grocery store sells 5 boxes of shredded wheat and 5 boxes of cornflakes a day and then jacks up cornflakes by 50% does it scream – “OMG!!! people are turning away from Cornflakes!!!! Shredded Wheat is making a come back!!!”
Amazing how the “great minds” inside publishing don’t get this even after Data Guy beats them over the head with it.
Data Guy’s preso exploded the “print is back” myth once and for all.
He showed in hard numbers what all of those print-is-back stories ignore:
Bookstores are still dying, faster than ever. The only reason “print is back” in 2016 is… print sales growth on Amazon. 😀
And even then only while/when Amazon was discounting them. They dropped when the discounts did (and boy did the publishers and their penned in writers whine about that!)
I particularly liked the Amazon Pacman grapic. It’s not often taht a graphic like this makes a point so strikingly.
To be fair, when you search for “book apps,” you get the standard reader apps, such as the Kindle app, which is indeed Amazon.
Crave is slightly different, incorporating video and messaging and whatever, in a chapter-a-day format. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crave-read-romance-novels/id1014921318?mt=8
I haven’t tried it myself because it looks like the books are priced too high for my budget.
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Crave will survive. It has exactly zero appeal to me. And even if I had any interest at all, BPH prices would turn me off.
The most recent post on Crave’s own Facebook page is October 4th. That’s pretty lousy social media support for a transformative corporate property (cough choke).
“The second most important lesson I learned at DBW Indie is that traditional publishers, to quote Jane Friedman, “are kicking ass in marketing.””
Which is why they’re doing ‘so well’ — right?
“Although traditional publishers have amazing teams to produce extremely high quality products …”
Ah, what? For their .01% maybe, the first 99% get a rejection notice (if they get any notice at all), and the rest will get poor editing and a cover only your mother would love (and that’s because she loves ‘you’).
And offering them the chance to leave you in limbo the 6-12 months before you find out they aren’t interested isn’t wise in today’s market. As we’ve seen, if you’re hot enough they’ll come to you.
It must be true. An S&S Division President said so? And Traditional Publishers wouldn’t mislead authors, would they?
Did anyone else notice they have not yet announced the date for next year’s DBW?
I think it has been canceled due to low attendance.
They couldn’t find enough people making so much writing to want to pay so much for so little.
Data Guy, yeah, good data and info.
The rest of it (from this guy and from what others are saying) stay home and view/hunt info on the net.