I posted this in my WF blog yesterday, but I thought it fit well here too. An author friend shared a link to this very interesting report on www.digitalbookworld.com by sociologist Dana Beth Weinberg. Based on a 2013 survey, where authors responded to a variety of questions, Weinburg analyzed some really important and interesting facets related to the self vs traditional publishing debate. Three types of authors were identified, ‘Self Published’, ‘Traditionally Published’, and ‘Hybrid’ (which means a combination of both other types). In looking at the graphs, the bottom line to me, is that self publishing is a risky game that, while personally rewarding, won’t bring in any real profit on its own. However, at the same time the most driven and focused authors, as inferred by profit and number of manuscripts produced, do not limit themselves from any outlet, but make up the majority of the ‘Hybrid’ category. Maybe these ‘Hybrid authors’ start out self publishing, and then move up to traditional publishing. Maybe traditionally published authors break away and make a go of it on their own once their name is established. I imagine that it isn’t as simple as that. Only one thing is really clear, the authors who earn more are those who produce more manuscripts, are more focused on their goals, and don’t limit themselves to any one publishing format. So what are you doing reading this? Get writing already!!
I would imagine (just from discussions among various published authors and publishing personnel) that most hybrid authors are trade published who have self-published their backlists. As you note, it really is more complicated than these graphs show as far as the hybrid authors. It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of that category itself.
Agreed, I wish we could see a breakdown of income/manuscript independent and traditional. I'd also be interested to know what the graph of # of manuscripts by author income would look like.
The numbers are misleading. Income probably has more to do with book quality than publication method. Traditionally published books represent a certain standard of quality. ("quality" does not necessarily mean "artistic merit", but rather "enjoyable to read".) For every hundred or thousand manuscripts sent to a publisher, they select the few that entice the reader the most. The numbers indicate little more than the obvious fact that a book that entices the reader will sell more copies than a book that does not.
On the contrary, 10% of aspiring authors make up to $5k. I'm surprised that they actually make anything. Once they make something, it must, logically, be because they've been published; the only question is whether traditionally or self-pub.
I found this last week and thought it very interesting. I saved it as a bookmark. Glad you have posted it here (I was not sure how to do it!) It has loads of information covered from many angles.
2013 was a long time ago in publishing terms - in particular the self publishing landscape is radically different 6 years later so i wouldn't read too much into it
