Revenues and Profits Increase at HarperCollins in 2014 Driven by Divergent Harlequin, on the other hand, probably makes profits more evenly but still with some authors selling a large proportion of the total.
James Redfield's The Celestine Prophecy was originally self-published, back in the days before ebooks. I don't know if that's considered literary fiction. I haven't read it. Though it seems to me that literary fiction might be a decent match for self-publishing. I don't know of any whom I've read who started via self-publishing.
Can you give me a citation or link for the idea that 99% of print books sell very poorly? (Is that what you're even claiming with your 99% stat? Maybe you could clarify what you're claiming, and then give me the citation to its source. Hard for me to find contradictory evidence when I'm not quite sure what you're saying.)
So we can read this as you taking back your insult that if a writer cared more about the writing than profit they were a hobbyist. Good, that needed to be taken back.
So, what are we arguing, now? That digital educational sales are poor? I'm not really prepared to contradict that...
Well, no, I'll call them hobbyists. I don't consider that an insult. If it makes you feel better, I consider myself a hobbyist, too. I don't make a living from my writing - it's a hobby.
It wasn't intended as insult. That's why I said "I think it's great" and "I know some people who are getting a lot of personal satisfaction" out of it. Is this de-rail an attempt to avoid clarifying the 99% stat?
"Get(ting) it out there" is why I wouldn't self-publish. From Hitchiker's Guide: "But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything." "But the plans were on display ..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'." If I self-publish my book, it's technically "on display". But in the current self-publishing market, I think that it would get more attention in that planning office file cabinet.
BayView, I believe you are on the right track. Those who try to secure an agent, and get published by a standard publisher, give up to early in the game. I would rather spend 10 years reaching for the dream, get $600,000 advance, and $1.35 per book sold, than $200 a year from self-publishing over 10 years...the figures are in favor of going standard. If you don't make it on the golden road, what is lost...nothing.
Okay, the "see post" game is fun, but post 106 has three different links in it - which one are you referring to? And post #122 was about some publisher on a panel? Have you posted a link to that? Preferably with a time stamp? And when I chase down all of these links, what is it that I'm going to find? Just for clarity - Are you saying that 99% of all PRINT books sell poorly, 99% of all books from publishers sell poorly, or something else connected to the 99% number?
Yeah. But part of the problem is you don't know that going into it. It's a black box either way. Most aspiring fiction writers simply aren't successful. People play odds differently, and their individual priorities can influence how they play them. If someone weighs those odds and their own concerns and decides to go self-publishing first, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of being informed when you make the decision.
I don't see a $600,000 advance as being more realistic than expecting to get rich with self-publishing. My impression is that the average published author is likely to make in the single-digit thousands from a book, and then maybe a modest dribble of royalties as time goes on. I don't know if that's accurate or not. But I doubt that the average self-published author makes even a tiny fraction of that.
But if I am accepted by a traditional publisher, and am traditionally published, odds are that at least a few dozen people will read my book. I'm not the least bit confident of an outcome nearly that good, with self-publishing.
Oh, I don't know. I think anyone can get a few dozen sales with self-publishing, if they're marketing the work. But that's not going to be considered very successful. I think you're right in that if you get a traditional publishing contract, odds are your book is going to get better exposure. Not a guarantee, but just playing the odds. And I think that's a perfectly legitimate decision. What I find odd is that people seem to have trouble with another person making a different decision. I think either decision is fine, so long as it's informed. Part of the problem, I think, is that writers tend to be an insecure lot, and they put a lot of time and emotion into their work, so there is a certain comfort in thinking there is one right way and believing it is whatever way you (speaking generally, and not directed at any specific person) have chosen. But you're looking at long odds either way, and I don't fault someone for taking the path with longer odds if there are other considerations that make them feel it is best for them, or even if they just want to take the greater risk starting off.
I think part of the controversy comes from where we decide to draw the line on what an aspiring fiction writer is. Like, half the people I know "want to write a book some day". I wouldn't consider them aspiring writers, but they might consider themselves so. A significant number of people write a few chapters, get frustrated and walk away, come back a few months or years later, walk away, come back, etc. Quite a few people bash out a NaNo first draft. Others take their first drafts and polish them, with varying levels of skill/experience/support. Some are naturally gifted, others are working against a huge deficit. Some people have great manuscripts, others have okay ones, and a lot have really crappy ones. And the stumper is, it's really hard for the person involved to know where their manuscript sits on that scale. So talking about playing the odds only makes sense if we're all talking about the same people playing the game. Like, if your manuscript is as illegible and awful as some of the self-pubbed stuff I've seen, then you have a near zero chance of success with that manuscript regardless of what publishing path you chose. You weren't going to get an agent, no reputable publisher would touch it, and very few people will buy the self-published version. But if you consider the very act of self-publishing to be a success, then you're 100% guaranteed to be successful. Everyone is. But if you've written a strong manuscript in a "hot" genre, you've got an excellent chance of finding an agent, a good chance of finding a publisher, and a fair chance of getting lots of sales. I personally believe the chances of getting lots of sales are lower with self-publishing because of the problem of discoverability, but there's still a chance. We can't treat those two different example manuscripts as the same when we talk about "odds", but it's really hard to distinguish between them because most authors are very proud of their own work and would likely consider their manuscripts to be strong. So it's hard to really get accurate numbers on any of this. ETA: And I agree it can be a strangely emotional topic, but I'm not sure it's because people are insecure about the way they've chosen. Most of the published authors I know are hybrid or intend to be. They clearly see the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. That said, if it's not insecurity about paths chosen, I'm not sure what it IS that makes the issue so often emotional.
Why not do both? In my opinion, if I can speak my message through the popular ideas of today then more people will be entertained by my book, and at the same time, have to ponder these things I want them to during my story. Like the teacher who started rapping to connect with her students. Except in a much more subtle and interesting way. Sales would be the prime reason to seek self-publishing out. You cut out the middle man, and now it is much more reasonable to do so. Sure it is a big risk, but if you have confidence in your story and have the marketing knowledge and ploys set up, you can do it yourself just as effectively as a big-name publisher.(with more time maybe, but that's the price for more profit) it's when you don't care so much about the money that big name publishers are more convenient. And if they have enough power over you through your contract, they can even muddle your voice as an artist to make the content pandered to the audience. So self-publishing has it's merits for those who don't want their voice obstructed and those who want to make as much money as possible from their book. The gatekeepers are easy for us writers to turn to and that gives them more power than they should. Finally only now do we have the chance to stand up for ourselves. Why not take that opportunity? Because of probability and tradition? Just what do you think writers are? We are gamblers and risk takers, spending hundreds or even thousands of hours on something no one might ever want to read. Of course we know that it can easily amount to nothing, a drop in the sea of creation that has become our normal everyday lives. Now more than ever are risks bigger, scarier, and more confrontational. Yet we still decided to write. The risks between publishing and self-publishing are a grams on the kilos.
@BayView success, to me, is individualized, so it's hard to set an objective standard for it. I mean, there are the easy cases. If you've made millions with your fiction, I think everyone would say you've been successful. But that's not the only measure. My self-published children's book hasn't sold tons by any means, but I consider it successful in a couple of ways: 1) I wrote it for my daughter, with no intention of publishing, and the times we read it together made for fond memories; and 2) I've received emails and other comments from people who have read it with their children, in some cases more than once, and the kids got joy out of it. To me, that's a success, and every time I get a message like that I'm even more glad I decided to put the book out there. It has hardly been an overwhelming financial success (although if you take the word count and were to apply a professional rate to it, per word, I've made a lot more than that, so I guess that's something; it's a short work). As for when someone is an author - well, if you've written a book or story you're an author. That's based on the plain definition of the term. You may be a good one or a bad one, but you are one. Whether you're a professional author depends, in my view, on whether you're making a substantial portion of your income on your writing. If you're supporting yourself via writing, then you're a professional writer, whether you're self-published or traditionally-published. That seems to me to follow along a definition of "professional."
Well, I disagree that you can sell as well as a big publisher. There are avenues that just aren't open to self-publishers. The biggest one is bookstore distribution - the vast majority of brick and mortar bookstores don't stock self-published books. Self-publishers don't have the distribution channels. So that leaves e-books for most of the sales, which is still fine - lots of people read e-books. But how do they find YOUR e-book. I've read studies that show that a lot of people will go to physical bookstores to browse the books, then go and order e-books online. Not going to work for self-publishers. Some people choose their books by reading reviews - a lot of reviewers don't review self-published books. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think self-publishers are working at a disadvantage. I care quite a bit about money, and I use big name publishers whenever possible. Guaranteed money upfront is a lot nicer than dream-money that may never come. And, again, most studies show the vast majority of self-publishers are not making a lot of money. The "obstructed voice" thing? I haven't experienced it,but, yeah, I think concerns about that would be one of the not-profit-driven reasons for self-publishing, for sure. Nope, not true of me. I'm sure some writers are gamblers, but I'm not. I write because I don't find any part of it risky, scary, or confrontational, and because it's fun. And because I like money.
Congratulations on the children's book - that's lovely! And for every person who's gone to the trouble of contacting you about it, there are probably lots more who've enjoyed it but not bothered to get in touch. I'm not sure about your second paragraph, and don't want to raise Ginger's ire with any more discussion of "professional" vs anything else... but I think the idea that anyone who's written a book or a story is an author is what I was getting at. If we look at a generic "author", all we know is that s/he has finished a story. So trying to draw meaningful odds of success (however we define it) based on only that knowledge is pretty impossible.
I won't argue that it's a disadvantage. But lets say that you sold 1,000 copies with a big name publisher in the first week. As a self published writer it takes 2 months to get to 1,000 copies. Now you'd think that the big name publisher will keep wide lead right? But in fact that once your book finds its audience, that audience will buy however many copies it takes to satisfy that audience. However your audience finds that book, doesn't matter, same amount of copies will be sold in the long run. (with proper self advertising of course.) Well sure, but most self-publishers probably did try the gatekeepers first. If they couldn't even get past the gate keepers, why did they think they stood a chance by themselves? But for those that would be accepted by a big name publisher, do they need that route now? I think that can be argued. Most writers are gamblers, even if they themselves don't realize it. Writing something is fun, but doing it with the idea that no one will ever read and like it makes us writers feel lonely. So we usually have a reader in mind when writing.(e.g. a letter) It's when we decide that we become so self indulgent that we say we want as many people as possible to read this and like it for having done so. It's these thoughts that turn us into gamblers and risk takers. Time is money, and we spend lots of time. The more time we spend the more we are risking, so to you it might seem like a casual thing, but to anyone who meticulously crafts and plans their stories, it is a lot more than that. And the thought that something like that can still easily fail is something most can't stand. It is a lottery, that is why it's gambling. But the ticket isn't in your publisher, it's in the book.
