I don't understand what you're talking about, but... I also don't care! So... yes, "it" (antecedent completely unclear and unknown) only has to be 51%! You're right! You bet. You're wise, and your arguments make complete sense, and self-publishing is a fantastic choice for new authors. So... you're going to skip the "look for an agent and go to a conference to find a publisher" route now, right? Because self-publishing is a great choice! That's fantastic, very bold. I look forward to hearing your sales numbers.
@BayView But, if it is true that most advances are small (one agent put the average for a first time author at 5K to 15K; author Jeaniene Frost says it is 5K to 10K), and if it is true that most books don't sell out, then just purely on the numbers, a lot of those low-advance novels aren't making back their advances. If most advances were low and most low novels made back their advance, then most books would make back their advance. The combination of the two stats tells you that even a lot of the low-advance books aren't making back their advance, since they represent the majority of the sample, even if a low advance book has an easier time making it back. I do find varying numbers on advances, but they're not huge. An article I read some time ago estimate it at around 12K. An author I talked to said she thought it was less than 10K, but she didn't cite anything so I can't tell how much credence to give that. Still, it seems like much of this falls in the same ballpark. Honestly, if I could see the future and was only to learn two bits of information, and that was that I could get a traditional publishing contract with a 10K advance, and also that the advance wouldn't earn out, I'd be very likely to self publish the book instead. Other writers of course will use a different calculus.
An blog post that links the two estimates (which I found separately) along with a third: http://goodereader.com/blog/indie-author-news/first-time-authors-normally-get-a-10000-advance-from-a-major-publishing-company
Well, isn't another one of the pro-self-publishing myths that big publishers hardly sign any new authors? I don't think that's accurate, but I do think the majority of authors aren't new authors and are therefore probably making more than the $5K-$15K advances. You're kind of combining two categories, there - you have the royalty rates for NEW authors, but the "earn out the advance" rates for ALL authors. I think you're doing the same in the second paragraph? Are those advances for all authors, or for new authors? So, just to make up some numbers - let's say, what, 10% of books published by publishers in a year are from new authors? Does that sound reasonable? These guys are getting really low advances, so the vast majority of them earn out. Maybe 90% of them, so 9% of the overall books that year. If we're accepting the 30% earn out rate (which, again, I've heard is very low), there's still room for 21% of the books by established authors, who presumably got larger advances, to earn out. These numbers are all just guesses, obviously. But I do think you have to be careful not to conflate new authors with all authors.
That blog suggests that most first time authors earn out their advance in the first six to twelve months.
Your right it is impossible to know for certain. That is what makes it a gamble. That is why taking the extra risk when you are only concerned with selling millions of copies, is like adding a cent to a dollar between self-pub and trad-pub. Well, I am working 40 hours a week but still I have that dream. I thought for a lot of us that same dream existed. If I could quit to only write I would do it in a heartbeat. How many here would turn down that opportunity? So then is it a hobby by choice? And for me is it considered a hobby even though I take it much more seriously than my job? But those books you speak of will eventually get the sales once they are recognized by the audience as a 'good book.' It's an issue of time and recognition, not quality. If that time doesn't come, is it not possibly a misplacement of effort rather then an issue of effort in itself? I can't say for sure, but if their has been some success with self-pub, and their is a trend towards self-pub, then maybe the gatekeepers are losing their power, and becoming unnecessary. Maybe the formula is simply undiscovered or rather it would be, otherwise the trend would be more drastic. And are the exceptions(successful self-pubs) really just luck? Anymore so than if I went to a big name publisher? Why not stand on the edge of new discovery? It's certainly an exciting place to be. The evolution may change the market unrecognizably so and being a part of that is like being a soldier in WWII, not as dangerous, but certainly as important and historical to me.
Why do you believe that? Because the world is fair, and all effort is eventually rewarded? Every month, thousands more self-published books come out, and very few of them go away. Right now, it's hard for self-published books to get any attention, but it's only going to get harder and harder as more and more books flood the market. So why would a book that can't get attention when it's competing against, say, a million other books have a better chance when it's competing against five million? I'm a writer, but I'm also a reader, and as a reader, I LOVE the gatekeepers. Maybe they sometimes keep out a book they should have let in, but mostly? They filter out a lot of crap, and let me sort through the books that are much more likely to be enjoyable reading. The more crappy self-pubbed books that flood the market, the more I'm going to value some form of gatekeeper.
Clearly "hobby" was a poor choice of words. I have lots of hobbies, backpacking, astronomy, rock, fossil and shell collecting, treasure hunting, and my skeptics group activities. I do not consider my writing a hobby. The big traditional publishing houses are definitely losing their privileged position. But they could adapt and retake their former dominance; or they might transform into something else, like Amazon's venture into Kindle Unlimited; or they may go by the wayside like Kodak film. Indeed.
I see I'm not the only one you distort the words of. This is not backed up by any evidence. Once again you make unsupported statements. Yes, more and more books flood the market, both published and unpublished. What do you know about how a book gets noticed? It sounds like you have one answer, the publisher does it. If you are only looking at traditional publishing as your filter, you are likely finding a lot of chaff with the wheat and missing much of the jewels.
I believe the market is fair. Or rather it can be. Here is a chance to make it fair. That is what I'm saying, because if you read that line and only get that I think those books will definitely get those sales no matter what then you missed the next few sentences. self-published or not, your book is competing against all self-pubs and trad-pubs. Really? Sorting through even a thousand books would be impossible. I'm telling you that is not how books get popular. The gatekeepers want you to believe that is key to success, but when their books are the only ones stocking the shelves the bias of their claims becomes fairly clear. Their is a net of info sharing that your audience participates in which determines which books get read and bought. This net of info sharing is newly evolved and growing.(Cause for the change I'd say) It's not something that is in the gatekeepers hands, and the power is slowly being ripped away from them by this net of information. If you put your book into this net some of them will take a risk by reading your book. The more you plug yourself into this net the more people will take that initial risk.(Some of these people have a ton of influence.) From their it can spread by word of mouth, impact, reference, review, and a ton of other ways which are totally out of the gatekeepers control. This baseline you are looking at is just the beginning of a long track your book must travel through to reach success and as long as you plug correctly people will take that initial risk. I can find many popular lists which do all the sorting for me without ever risking reading a crappy book. Lists that do not have bias towards self-pub and trad-pub. Lists that have more power over sales then gatekeepers ever did. And as this power grows in speed and number, it will become the new place for advertisement. A place that isn't weighed so heavily by cheap tricks and marketing tactics. One with a much more informed opinion about what to read and why. That is the future I want to see. A truer and fairer market. They are the gatekeepers of the future; they are the ones deserving of the name. The ones taking the risk to read through tons of crappy books in hopes of finding something good. That is the kind of sacrifice you want the world to know about when you found that gem. That is the motivation behind the gatekeepers of the future, and the ones who will be listened to once this new factor becomes more established. The fiction market isn't the only one being effected by this phenomenon which is why I can draw these conclusions. Markets have very fundamental factors which over ride a lot of this other nonsense we are arguing about. So like when the internet was new, ideas where cheap and valuable. This 'change' in our market kind of brings back the naivety of it all. Reality attempting to fix itself after the standard devolved beyond repairability. That is the spark for change, watching how it changes is our opportunity to use it to our advantage.
This couldn't be more true. It was in one of the links I cited above. Indie and small publishers were disadvantaged in multiple ways, ... until the digital era. This is very insightful.
I've read that most self published books sell fewer than ten copies. I don't have the source for that, so of course I don't expect you to take my word for it, but it makes perfect sense to me. And I wouldn't be confident that marketing would significantly change that fact. To look at another medium, tons of people market their blogs with every fiber of their being, still have almost no readers. So my belief is that if I self-publish I may well use up my first publication rights for my book for fewer than ten sales. At self-published prices that gives me less than fifty dollars. My work is worth more money than that. Worse, I probably get fewer than ten readers, because at self-published prices it's easy to buy books like candy, books that you my never read. My work is worth more eyes than that. And my work is worth the respect of receiving professional editing--or, at least, if it's not, I want it to get to the point of it being worth it, rather than shrugging and throwing my work away for that fifty dollars. Re: "What I find odd is that people seem to have trouble with another person making a different decision." Let's say that tomorrow a friend tells me that they are going to cash in their 401K to buy a timeshare on the planet Venus. My concern wouldn't be that they were making a decision different from mine. My concern would be that they were not fully informed about the decision that they were making, and that they would regret that decision later. Self-publishing isn't as doomed to failure as investing in interstellar vacations. But I see it as far, far less likely to succeed than apparently you do.
Or two years, or never. There's no assurance you'd sell that thousand copies. This doesn't make sense to me. "Your audience" doesn't share a hive mind. They may not have all that much communication with each other at all. There's no assurance that more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who would like your book might hear about your book. There's no assurance with traditional publishing either, of course, but traditional publishers have far more resources for getting closer to that goal.
I do take your word for it. But what I don't understand how you've ignored everything in the thread while you continue this line of thinking. Most traditionally published books also do not sell. Fewer than ten must be adjusted to compare it to traditionally published books. I'm confident from reading your posts on this thread that you are a competent writer. Comparing competent self-published writers to competent traditionally published writers gives one different numbers. I think the citations @Steerpike posted refuted the "used up" claim. While there have been false assumptions about posts in this thread, no one has said they have trouble with different strokes. And yet, the sands continue shifting.
But if they did find it then they would be bought by those people that would like it. So it's about getting them to find it. I was generalizing my example, not giving it infallible credibility. That isn't what I said but The effect you are downplaying is much more powerful then you are giving it credit for. Very few people take the time to read through long list of new books from new authors to try and find a gem. Especially with self-pub books. So then if what I'm saying is incorrect than how do books ever take off? Without some serious advertising the book doesn't stand a chance. How does everyone know which books to read without filtering it? They have a source, you may just not know about it, or be ignorant to it, but it definitely exist for just about every niche in existence. As the internet grows and expands this will only become truer. It's the active casual reader you are foregoing, the one most of anyone's target audience falls in. They don't have the time to look through every new book but want to read good books. People are taking the time to become their voice because they like having the influence. People are taking the time to listen because of time constraints. "Can't trust that trad-pun magazine anymore, I think I'll check out this hardcore reader who shares my opinions on reading for my book news."
Books go viral just like other things do. That's how a new author becomes a best seller. After that, people will read a book because they liked the author's last one. There are other ways a book becomes a best seller. And in the past it was not exactly because they went viral, it was because they sat on the display at eye level at the big bookstore, they got top reviews by the big reviewers (still matters) or there were ads for them in key places. That is not an all inclusive list, but it's probably the key marketing elements. A large publishing house has access to those choice spots on the bookstore feature shelves and the reviewers. Now there are more reviewers like the ones at GoodReads. Some of those reviewers are featured because they review so many books or get a following of review readers.
The discussion is an interesting one, and trying to wade through the numbers is also fun (in my opinion). The underlying subject matter, which boils down to traditional publishing versus self-publishing, is fascinating because the landscape is so much in flux. When a new, disruptive business model comes along, there is always a period of tension between the new model and the old model. You have some people who cling to the older model no matter what changes come around, some who rush out to the new model exclusively, and some who try to find a balance in between. But the change in landscape continues irrespective of these decisions. I suspect in ten years a lot of the conflict between traditional and self-publishing routes for new writers is going to have fallen away. It's a legitimate option for new writers, just like the traditional route remains a legitimate option. The division seems to be partly in how much risk an author is willing to bear (though you can frame that risk in a number of ways, on both sides) and how much responsibility, but I think a lot of it is still rooted in a writer's personal desire for a stamp of legitimacy, which many still regard as requiring traditional publishing. I think that's going to change over time as well, because the business model is certainly going to continue to change, and perceptions among groups of what is right or legitimate often lag behind actual changes in the marketplace. I don't know too many who are favorable to self-publishing while at the same time casting derision on the traditional route (although I have run across a couple such authors), but quite a few who are set on the traditional route and cast aspersions on self-publishing. That seems to me to be more an emotional reaction and something that is more tied to ego and the craving for perceived legitimacy than anything else. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter to us whether an author chooses the self-publishing or traditional route to try to launch their career. Both can work, and both have pros and cons associated with them. One may even be able to argue that one route is more likely to result in success than the other. But that shouldn't be enough to make it such a personal issue when someone chooses the path different than the one we've chosen. It's like any business venture - they all have their pros and cons, some are more risky than others, and so on. But I rarely see entrepreneurs deriding other entrepreneurs for starting a different business type, based on those kinds of criticisms. Rather, it seems left to writers to really take so personally the business choices of one of their peers. Maybe it's because the work is so personal, and that brings a lot of emotion. I maintain that both paths are legitimate ways to proceed, and that the only thing we should be concerned with when authors choose one path over the other is that they're making that decision, whichever it may be, in possession of the requisite information.
I agree with you that it doesn't matter to me what any individual author chooses, and that it's really important that authors have the best information available when they make that decision. We apparently have a disagreement about what that best information IS, but that's fairly understandable considering the vastness of the publishing industry and the difficulty of getting any reliable data out of Amazon, one of the most important players. And in this thread at least, I don't think I've seen much derision toward people who choose one path over the other. As far as I can tell, few people involved in the discussion have chosen either path, yet, at least to the level of having actually DONE any publishing. And, of course, it's totally possible to choose both routes, at different times or for different projects. In this thread, I wouldn't say it's gotten heated b/c of the subject matter. I've had lots of totally civil, totally calm discussions about pros and cons of different forms of publishing before. I think this one comes down to personality.
This thread hasn't been so bad. I've seen people get really worked up over, in both directions (but mostly pro-traditional against self-publishing). Debating the information that's out there is to be expected, and is a good thing. If nothing else, the debate that is going on not only here but among many writing groups, and within the publishing industry, suggests that the answer isn't black and white.
And, some people recognize the changing landscape and can evaluate the pros and cons. Then there are our underlying premises. I've come to see the Internet as giving everyone a microphone when in the past, only a few people had access to them. That affects how I see this issue. And those more comfortable or more involved in the digital revolution are going to bring different underlying premises to the discussion. Again, one underlying premise for me is that marketing is a learnable skill just as writing is. I don't believe traditional publishers continue to have a monopoly on marketing one's book. Yes, they continue to have their existing advantage, but it is no longer the only advantage. It's been reflected in this forum often. But that also goes both ways. There are those that look down on writers whose goals are to produce commercial successes and those that consider self-published to be a mark against a writer. Neither stereotype is valid. This is the thing that annoys me the most. It was similar in the italics for thoughts debate, some who chose not to use them justified that decision by derogating those who chose to. While those that chose to use italics for thought might have said they thought it added clarity, I don't think anyone said, ergo not using them is a negative for everyone else. I don't think people necessarily recognize they are being derogatory. Calling a writer a hobbyist may not have been consciously condescending, but it was nonetheless condescending. I still have an underlying value judgement about producing writing with the main goal of marketing success. I believe it is better to admit to such a judgement and address it rather than deny it. What I learned from exploring my bias is there can be both, good writing and commercial writing, at the same time. It doesn't mean I've changed my POV. Anyone who's interested in screen writing, for example, can see the difference between formula writing for a tired TV drama series and a series like The Wire. 'Popular' doesn't indicate good or poor writing. It's when we let our underlying biases affect how we judge another writer. You're self published, therefore you are a hobbyist is an example. You pump out novels for a commercial market therefore you are writing crap is another. "I'm published and you are not" is in a different category. It only means the published person's work has met some standard (depending on the publishing platform that can be, met some baseline writing quality standard, or, at a minimum, has experience with self publishing). But it says nothing about the writing skill of the person not yet published. You have no idea how good that person's work is unless you've seen it. Experience and skill are not synonymous even though there is overlap. Especially in this case where being published is only a single benchmark of experience. There are many elements at work including what you say, egos are attached. If someone tells me I'm just a hobbyist because I'm not writing with the goal of being a commercial success, that's insulting. If someone tells an author their work is or will be inferior if a publisher didn't/doesn't pick it up, that's insulting. If someone leaks their feelings of superiority because they have published work out there when they have no idea what another's writing skill is, that can seem condescending. And I don't deny I have underlying premises about certain things as well, including seeing resistance to change as a shortcoming, and certain commercial writing as inferior. It doesn't help me to deny these biases, rather it's important to put them on the table and look beyond them, try to have them impart less impact on my conclusions. It's especially important to consider one's biases can be affecting the perception of what one is reading in a post. It leads to misreading what is being said. Absolutely.
You seem be the one making it a personal issue, to the extent of telling other people what their motives are. I don't take it personally if someone chooses self-publishing. But I worry that they may be uninformed about the pros and cons. In a few years, someone may have solved the problem of plucking the decent self-published books out of the sea of junk. No one has solved it yet. Until that's solved, self-publishing is not going to be a viable option for most books. Edited to expand on "taking it personally": You seem to be making the common error of assuming that (1) you are un-debatably correct and that therefore (2) the only reason that someone could be disagreeing with you must be personal, emotional, irrational motives, like being offended because someone makes a different decision from yours. That doesn't make for a productive debate. I would urge you to argue the facts, and leave out your speculation as to the reasons why some people interpret the facts differently from you.
@ChickenFreak that's the sort of thing I'm referring to. It does seem to me like you take it personally. Yes, it's a perception, which I think is clear. Maybe it's true, maybe not. There are others who seem to take it more personally than you. I find the topic an interesting one to speculate about. People who want to go into writing for a living are going into business. They're basically entrepreneurs, though not conventional ones. I work with a lot of entrepreneurs and I don't see the same dismissal of different paths, different adversities to risk, and so on. There must be a reason that writers tend to react in what at least appears to be a more emotional manner when the subject comes up. I find it interesting to talk about, and I'm willing to continue to discuss it if anyone else wants. Arguing facts and figures is a separate issue, and one that can be discussed separately, but I don't see a problem into delving into human beings and why different human beings react differently to different situations. Maybe writers are just more cautious. Entrepreneurs have varying levels of risk adversity, but the ones I work with are all at least, to some degree, risk takers, which I suppose is a prerequisite for being an entrepreneur.
@GingerCoffee Yes, I agree with what you've said above. And I've seen people who look down at their nose on commercial fiction or (insert genre here). I guess it is human nature, to some degree, because we're wired to be tribal and to engage in "othering." I think in a field as uncertain as writing, we try to find all the certainty we can. Also, too many people take it personally when another likes something they don't, which I'll never understand. You're right that we all have biases. It pays to be self-aware, though there are probably limits to how self-aware we can be and what we can do to temper our viewpoints based on knowledge of our biases. It seems to me, as a general rule, we're much better off encouraging writers, regardless of the route they choose, and celebrating the success of writer, than criticizing their choices because they're different than ours, trying to marginalize success stories, or generally trying to discourage people from their path.
I'm not sure you CAN separate the facts and figures from the larger discussion, though, can we? I mean, if someone believes that self-publishing is more likely to lead to a good result for a new author, then that's why they argue in favour of self-publishing. Right? If someone believes the reverse, that's why they argue the reverse. So saying we can try to understand different reactions to the situation independently of the reality (or perceived reality) of the situation? I'm not sure we can. Unless you're starting from the position that the facts and figures are completely indeterminate and the answer to the question is unknowable. Like, something like religious belief - yeah, you can sort of ignore the "truth" aspect of religious arguments because we have no way of ever getting an answer. Is there a god? Who the hell knows, so we're all kind of starting from zero (don't know) and then we can analyze reasons why people might move in one direction or another from that neutral area. But are we saying that's the situation here? There's no evidence, no way to know, so the only reason for people to have different opinions must be external?
