Hi, OK guys, so we're on the marketing side of the indie business. Here's my experience from four years as an indie. First let me say that I don't know whether I'm doing brilliantly or poorly as an indie. Some months my royalty checks have been in the hundreds of dollars, some months the thousands. Sales the same. So this is a very up and down business. The one thing I can say is that I've never marketed. I'm an indie and I don't do it - I know - shock! Everyone else talks about their promotions with bookbub etc and starts comparing successes / failures, I simply write more books. That may be naive - I actually don't know. But I think the important thing to realise is that no-one knows. Everyone and every book is different. What works for one author and one book will not work for another. Now to most of you looking at going the trade route, you'll be thinking that the huge advantage of going this route is that you don't have to market. You can just write your book and be done with it. That may have been true once - I'm not sure if it actually was to be fair - but it's definitely not the case now. Most trade pubbed authors these days end up getting involved in marketing in one way or another - read some of their blogs and you'll find out just how much work they often end up doing. So actually that perceived advantage for the tradies no longer exists. The advances they get paid are also "expletive followed by a lot more expletives!!!" Times are hard as the publishers will say, and most pay outs are in the low thousands. So if they want to make it as a trade pubbed author, they need to sell their books - because the bottom line is that if they don't they won't have to pay their monies back, but they won't be selling any more books. So in essence getting a trade deal for most is not a ticket to fame and fortune. It's not a ticket to Castle-dom!!! Love that show! Now for the indie of course, selling in the same sorts of numbers is harder and entirely up to the author and the readers. And there are probably as many strategies for indies to make oodles of money as there are indies. My strategy has always been to write more books and make sure they are the best I can do. (My editor's strategy has always been to abuse me until I do things her way - but that's another matter!) Indies actually have an advantage in using this strategy. For the tradie they are bound by publishing schedules - not theirs - and can seldom put out more than a couple of books per year. As an indie I have put out six in a year. This year I have two out so far and the third in editing. And there also won't be an eighteen month wait between my finishing a book and it being pubbed. The next strategy has to be quality. If your book sucks it won't sell - it's as simple as that. So that means good writing, massively good editing, proper formatting, good blurb and cover design. All of that can be done by an indie, but it may cost and it isn't easy. It still cannot be ignored. And this is one advantage the tradies do have over the indies. Tradies get professional editors paid for and they don't do their cover design. So that's their win. After that your strategy as an indie has to be to go for the eye catching. I used to do my own covers - with mixed results. Some sold well, some sold poorly. This year I have made a decision that mostly I will purchase covers. This has given mixed results as well. My first book out this year - The Stars Betrayed, got a cover that was incomplete from the artist I hired, and hasn't sold more than a few hundred copies in the last few month. I'm not happy with it and may recover in a year or so. What can I say, it's a case of buyer beware! My second book out The Arcanist I got a better, more reliable artist for and is currently sitting in the top thousand of ebook sales on Amazon - out of two million or so. And it's only been out for a month now. I attribute a lot of that success to the cover. A good cover in my view is what catches readers. In essence for a reader you have maybe two seconds to catch their attention, and you as an author want to get them to take a look at your cover and go - wow! I want to see more. Then you have maybe twenty more seconds or so as they click on the book and read the blurb as they make their purchasing decision. So your blurb needs to be catchy, well written etc. Do not skimp on it. And in fact there are people who will write blurbs for you - at a price. After that you've hopefully gained a reader. You want to keep him or her. Now here's where all those long days spent crying and screaming at your editor pay off. Because if the book is well written, has a good story and has no or very few obvious mistakes, you've got a good chance of turning a reader into a fan - ie someone who'll buy your next book. And if your strategy is like mine to write more books - that's essential. You don't want to start off each new book from ground zero with no one out there looking for your next book. You want your books to build. Whether they're a series or not, you want your brand as an author to get out there and every book to have a following even when you swap genres. Now here's where too many authors make one bad mistake. They say I'll write different genres under different names. NO! NO! NO! Use your own name or use a pen name, but whichever road you take, that's your name for life. Do not even muck around with it. I am Greg Curtis. All of my books have that exact spelling. None have for example Gregory or GM. None ever will. You do not ever want to dilute your author brand (with very few exceptions - and most of them are the stuff of desperation). In fact many authors find that turning their names into actual word brands - ie same fonts, same letter colours etc, works to their advantage in improving name recognition. If people can look at a cover and spot in an instant that the book is by an author they've read before and enjoyed, that is a win. Last - and this one is vital and has already been alluded to - this is a marathon not a sprint. You, with almost no exceptions, will not put out one book and become an overnight star. Most authors, indie or trade, will work hard for many years, putting out one book after another, all of them quality works, and slowly garner a reputation. And if they do it right, each new book will add to their rep, and help the sales of their previous and future books. I now have twenty two books out (fifteen novels) and have barely started my career as I now think of it. There are some other tips that will help - but ones that because I'm an hornery bastard I cannot take. First write in one genre. I write in four but I know that comes back to bite me in the bum because readers of one genre don't always cross over. Still I am a pantster and have to write what the muse tells me to. Second write series - they sell better, especially fantasy and sci fi. Again, almost all of my books are stan alone - curse that damned muse of mine! Third, blog etc. Get your name out there. I do blog - but infrequently because I can never think of something to say. Someone find that damned muse so I can strangle him! Last, grow a thick skin. Not everyone will like your book. Be prepared for bad reviews and remember they're talking about the book not you or your ugly baby. And above all else - DO NOT RESPOND. Take hands - sit on them. There is almost never an upside no matter what you say to your reviewer. You will actually almost certainly get better results from taking up drinking instead and becoming an alcoholic! Hope that helps, Cheers, Greg.
I've been looking for a literary agent. Where do you find them? I'm starting to think they're mythical now because I just can't find a good literary agent for the life of me.
Wow, a lot of self pub bashing going on here. I think of it this way. 99.9% of the people who write will never be able to go the traditional way, no matter how good they write. I thank god everyday for the Ebook revolution. It allows all writers to get their story out even if we are not perfect in telling it. If you only want to go traditional, then good for you. But don't discourage people who don't agree with you. I am happy because when I finish my story, I can get it out. With self-publishing, I know I have to work harder to market, but it is nothing different than what I would have to do with a traditional publisher. They don't care about you. If you have a crappy quarter, you are put at the bottom of their priority list. They will chalk you up as a failure and move on. Same with your agent. Self publish and its all on you. If you work hard enough, you will reap the rewards. If you go halfway, you will still have your small following that like your work. Its up to you. Traditional publishing is dead. Why do you think Barnes and Noble are getting into the Ebook revolution and supporting indie writers now. People love there stories. That's what sells. I do not know one person that has said to me that they will only read stories from traditional publishing. But hundreds have told me to check out a new indie writer they have discovered on Amazon or Apple. Traditional writers crack me up. Put your stuff out there instead of wasting time on people who will not even read 10% of your story before they deny you. With self publishing, you will know right away if your stuff is crap, but at least you might make a few bucks before you realize it.
Why? I don't believe that's accurate at all. What's your basis for saying that? Remember, your "odds" are not the number of published books compared to the number of submitted books, because the number of submitted books includes every horrible, awful, scrawled-in-crayon-on-Christmas-wrap, work. Your percentage needs to be calculated AFTER the bad manuscripts are tossed out. I've seen statements (yes, yes, rough estimates, not proper studies) that if you narrow down to the decent manuscripts, your odds of being published are more like one in ten or twenty, rather than the one in one thousand that your 99.9 number would indicate. There is absolutely no assurance whatsoever of this. You're competing with a sea of badly written books. It's entirely possible that no amount of work will induce a decent number of people to even glance at your book. Really, it seems far crueler to tell the self publisher that his failure is All His Fault for not working hard enough, than to accept that only so many good books will be traditionally published. The failed self publisher, and the failed traditional publishing hopeful, will both make no money, but in your world view the failed traditional self publishing hopeful has the added sting of being blamed for not working hard enough. (edited to correct error that completely flips the meaning of the last sentence.) Dead? So, I can't buy a traditionally published book for love or money? There's NOTHING out there but self-published books? Wow. Someone should tell Amazon that they can erase a large percentage of their database. They appear to be trying to sell a lot of things that don't exist. And I probably need to find a nice psychiatrist, because I would swear that I have a memory of buying five or six traditionally published books in the last month. I guess those are false memories? Ebooks are not equal to self publishing. Self publishing is not equal to Ebooks. They are completely different things.
If you don't want people to bash self-publishing, maybe you shouldn't bash other forms of publishing? I work with publishers and I self-publish. Lots of people do both. It's not a war between two camps, except for strange little explosions like yours, which tend to be based on a lot of misinformation. I hope you enjoy your self-publishing experiences. It can be lots of fun.
Hi, No bashing here please. Both trade and indie are legitimate forms of publishing for writers. They both have weaknesses and strengths. For me I'm an indie and proud of it, but I don't decry anyone who chooses instead to try and get a publishing deal. Yes, the odds of success are against them, and these days I think the likelihood of making money as a novelist has slid more towards the indie. But really the odds of anyone making a lot of money at this game are poor. Cheers, Greg.
Sorry I got your blood up. Just stating my opinion. Chicken: What I meant by reaping the rewards is, most self publisher know they are not the next Stephen King or GRR Martin. If they make enough to take a vacation with what they do as a hobby, then it is a success for them. And with the millions of writers now publishing is why I said 99.9%. I am sorry, you are right, but I imagine the number I gave would be pretty close if every single person tried to go the traditional way. And yes, you can buy traditional publishing books on amazon. Years ago in the beginning they would have been hard to find. But traditional publishing had to change because there writers complained that they were missing that market share. Now they do it and use it as an excuse not to market there writers work. Even going the traditional way you have to market yourself as a new writer. I have also purchased many traditional published books. I would have to say now though that my library on my Ipad is mostly filled with self published authors. Some are really good, some are garbage. But the good ones stick with me. The stories are incredible, and if it wasn't for self publishing I never would have been able to experience them. I took the side of self publishing because most of the post is saying don't do it. To me, it would look great going to a traditional house already being published so they could see that you are serious and want to be successful.
Hi, Okay, without the bashing, here's one set of stats from an agent indicating the rate of success of being picked up by an agent. Note this is just one agents stats. Others will be different. https://arcaedia.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/letters-from-the-query-wars-1-10-2014-with-2013-annual-stats/ In summary in 2013 she picked up two new authors / books out of 6,000 submissions. Now there are things you can do to swing the odds your way - starting of course with actually submitting in the manner the agent wants which apparently knocks a hell of a lot of submissions out. Also submitting to relevant agents and multiple agents. But over all the odds are heavily against anyone trying to get an agent let alone a publishing deal. This is why I think the overall economics / chances of success swing more to indies. But having said that, for those who do get a publishing deal, the economics swing to them. As I say, both are legitimate roots to writing success, but each has weaknesses. The counter for indies is that most self pubbed books sell less than 200 copies - can't remember where I heard that stat, but it's repeated a lot. Cheers, Greg.
You argued "no matter how good they write". There aren't millions of good writers trying to publish. Which is "they"? I assume that this means that self-published books would have been hard to find? Because Amazon started out as a seller of traditionally published books. Their primary product certainly wouldn't have been hard to find on their site.
But that doesn't tell us anything. How many submissions (1) followed submission guidelines and (2) were any good? That's the number that we need. There's also the question of (3) whether the author's books are of a traditionally publishable category or format. The existence of good books that are not of a traditionally publishable category or format--too long, unrecognizable genre that's too difficult to market, etc.--is the main value that I see for self-publishing. There's also (4)--whether the author can write a decent query letter. It appears to me that this agent had 26 books out of that 6,000 that fulfilled (1), (3), and (4), because that's the number of partials/manuscripts that she asked for. I don't know how many of those fulfilled (2)--obviously the two that she picked up did. (3) is why I think that self-publishing desperately needs some sort of evaluation mechanism--something real, rather than the shoddy mishmash that is the Amazon review system. I'd guess that that evaluation mechanism would reflect positively on well under five percent of self-published works, perhaps under one percent, so authors of bad works would still wail and rail. But by existing, it would give those good self-published works a market. If a book fulfills (1), (2), (3), and (4), I think that the odds of making a meaningful amount of money with traditional publishing are much higher than the odds with self publishing, and that does account for the modest odds of getting published at all. And speaking of "getting published at all", if an author qualifies on (1) and (3), but is failing to get an agent or publication deal, or even encouraging if ultimately "sorry, no deal" communication, I think that they should seriously consider the possibility that they don't yet qualify on (2) and (4). Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it's a mistake to assume that lots of agents are just too stupid to recognize one's genius. If the argument is that self-publishing increases the odds of publication for lousy authors, well, yes, of course it does. I don't care about that. I care about the odds for good authors.
You're repeating a lot of misinformation, here. I mean, the "origins of Amazon" stuff is just weird - it started as a bookstore selling, well, books - the e-book stuff came later. But I think you're also off base on the idea of marketing yourself as a new writer. Large publishers have entire marketing departments; even small publishers have people who handle marketing. Sure, the author is expected to take part - like, agree to be interviewed, write guest posts for the blogs the publisher contacts, etc. But it's all supported and organized by the publisher, and the publisher has access to a lot of marketing venues that simply aren't available to self-publishers. I have no what you mean when you say the publishers use... something... as an excuse to not market books... Anyway, as I said, there doesn't need to be a war between different paths to publication. But I think maybe you've been absorbing some misinformation from people who DO think there's a war, and who seem to really, really want self-publishing to be seen as the best option.
Hi Chicken, You seriously want to argue that of the six thousand books five thousand nine hundred and ninety eight all failed on your criteria? That's bizarre. And yes in answer to your question, self publishing does increase the chances of publication of pretty much every book. Good ones, bad ones and the ugly ones too. The chance of publication is 100%. That's the point of having no gatekeeper. Everyone gets through. As I say if you want to go trade there are ways you can improve your chances of getting an agent and then a publisher. That's not the issue. The issue is that a lot of other authors already doing all of those things are not getting agents and publishing contracts. And you can't just pretend it's because the books are all not up to par. It's not. That's simply a feature of the trade publishing system. It's a competition and not everyone can win. That's one of the big negatives of the trade publishing system. There are positives for it as well. Just as there are positives and negatives for going indie. If some people want to believe that yes if only their book is good enough, and commercial enough, and their cover letter and synopsis is good enough, and their compliance with agents requirements is good enough, and they submit to enough agents, that they will get a contract - good luck to them. I personally think its a mugs game and you've actually got a better chance these days of getting a publishing contract if you self publish and your books do well. But there are legitimate reasons for wanting to get a trade publishing deal, and if that's where your heart is, go for it. Just know what you're letting yourself in for. Cheers, Greg.
I referred to the odds of making money, not odds of getting published. When I refer to odds of getting published, I'm rolling those into the overall package of odds of making money. And by "making money" I'm referring to more than the price of the occasional burger. Edited to add: I'd say that, oh, a burger a day for a couple of months after publication would be "making money". I doubt that most self publishers make nearly that much.
My dentist, his name is Dr Brian Shapiro, self published a small children's book about a dinosaur who helps kids learn how to brush their teeth. He self-published in 2008 and with very little marketing he has sold over 6000 copies. He did it for fun with his daughter. Its 28 illustrated pages with a cute story. He started I think selling it hardcover for 23$. I think you can get it for $8.99 now. It's not on ebook because he doesn't have the time. All his marketing is mostly a flier he has when you walk into his office and a couple book sites not to many people even heard of. He told me at the time that he didn't go traditional because it was a waste handing in anything to publishing houses and he didn't want to deal with there attitudes when he could just do it himself. You guys probably despise people like that.
@Raven484 are you so defensive because you don't think you're good enough for traditional publishing? I don't understand where you're coming from at all. And you don't seem to understand that some of the people you're replying to are self-published authors.
Why would I? He found a rare niche where self publishing worked. He had direct contact, and a relationship of mutual trust, with a substantial perfectly selected market of people who were in precisely the right state of mind to buy his book, when they encountered his book. It's dandy that he succeeded. But that sort of perfect setup doesn't happen that often.
Flashy covers (regardless of electronic or hard copy) don't mean crap to me. If your story is not interesting all the glitz and glam is for not. I have books that don't have cover art they are so old, and no little blurb. They are just books. Whats the point in doting on how shiny something is? I enjoy quality over quantity. Then again no piece of fiction is without sin.
Your right chick, it doesn't happen that often. But if it wasn't for self publication, it never would have. That's my point. When I finish my work, more than likely I will try traditional, but I will not wait long. I believe in my story, and if a publisher took time to read it maybe they would take it. Either way, I will be published before 2018.
Since he didn't try traditional because of their attitudes (whatever that means), you have no idea whether it would have happened or not, and at what scale, if he had tried. Perhaps he would have sold 60,000 by now.
It never would have because he wasn't interested in traditional publishing. It's not as if traditional publishing failed him; he didn't try it. You are completely dismissing the possibility that you have more to learn, that you are not yet a person who has all the skills of an author. You can choose to dismiss the value of work and improvement, but if you do, I don't think that I'm the one who's giving bad advice.
I think in threads like this is in important to distinguish the quarters whence the advice originates. If we have people who are saying: I prefer [traditional/self] publishing for reasons X, Y, and Z. If you don't, that's fine, but whichever route you choose just go in with your eyes open and have as much information as possible. I think that's perfectly legitimate, and those people are probably going to give you decent advice. If you're talking to someone who simply has a bias against self-publishing and tries to tell you that traditional publishing is the only thing that is worthwhile or matters, then you should ignore whatever that person is saying. You're not getting sound advice. The same is true for the reverse, which is less common but which I have seen from some of the more vociferous self-publishing advocates. Both routes are perfectly legitimate. Learn as much as you can about your chosen path.
But when someone offers the non-positive side of the information about self publishing, they're generally accused of being biased.
Sometimes. I've seen the same sentiment expressed when someone offers the downside of traditional publishing. To me, if you're going into any such endeavor you certainly need to know the non-positive information - all the pitfalls, problems, or other negative aspects of that path. Doesn't mean you don't still choose that route, just means you're now educated on it. So, yes, you can't reject a viewpoint simply because a person is giving the negative aspects of what you're choosing. Also, there are negatives to both paths, so acknowledging that about your own chosen path doesn't mean it is a bad idea to take that path.
I think that another issue is the author's goals. Looking at the dentist's picture book, for example, I'm guessing that the goal was to engage in a creative effort that was substantially different from what the dentist normally does, and to get some appreciation for the effort. I assume that the goal was not fame, or literary reputation, or literary self-development, or tons of readers, or money. A dentist probably makes far more per hour than an author does, so the money end of being traditionally published was likely not all that appealing, and spending any time at all promoting the book was probably un-appealing. And while the small chance of the book being a huge national hit would be cool, the odds are small--smaller with self-publishing than traditional publishing, but very very small in either case. So for that dentist, with a built-in audience, self publishing did a better job of fulfilling his goals. Me, I know that the odds of big fame or big money are very small either way--again, smaller with self-publishing, but quite small either way. But I do care about a decent number of readers--a few thousand rather than the few dozen I'd likely get with self publishing. I do care about improving myself as a writer, and I think that traditional publishing as a "carrot" will drive me more in that direction, and if I catch that carrot, I think that the experience will also improve me as a writer. And I'm not interested in becoming an editor, marketer, graphics designer, or any of the other professions involved in publishing a book. I want the readers. I want, oh, three thousand readers who actually read my book from beginning to end. And traditional publishing is my best shot at that.
@ChickenFreak I agree with your general point about the author's goals being paramount. However, at least from my research on the matter and from talking to people who have gone both the traditional route and self-publishing route, I think it is quite likely that your chances of getting 3000 readers who will read your book all the way through (and watch for your next one) are higher going the self-publishing route. You start with a major obstacle already overcome - the book is out there and available. What's left at that point is getting the word out sufficiently that 3000 readers who will absolutely enjoy the book will be able to find it.
