Are publishers really interested in good writing?

I'm not sure "chasing the market" is the right way of putting it (or maybe I used the term myself and have forgotten...). I'm actually thinking more "writing to genre standards and expectations", which largely remains the same. You need to fit into the market you're writing for, that's all. But yeah, no point chasing trends - for that to be useful you'd need to be able to predict trends, which obviously editors and content editors are paid to do exactly that. I was once in a job where my boss expected me to have some intuitive grasp of customer desires and popularity trends amongst our website's viewers, and to think of content accordingly - I was a fresh graduate without experience or training, so I'm not sure what made my boss think I could do it. I couldn't. But this is exactly the kind of thing publishing is into, I think - predicting trends and pushing out content accordingly. It's doable but I've never figured out how to do it myself.

Publishing is a business in the end - by self-publishing, you become an entrepreneur. Only most writers are not businessmen and do not have the knowledge to do it, nor the desire to do it properly. Again, the skills behind targeting an audience are not at everyone's disposal, nor is it something most of us are honestly willing to spend that much time learning. Most writers would, understandably, prefer to use that time writing.

 

Where are you getting your numbers from? One of the most frustrating things about these conversations is that no-one really seems to have hard data, so if you've got a source.... exciting!

 

I read it in an article about understanding the need to market yourself as a writer, regardless of which publishing path you pick, written by an author who uses both traditional and self-publishing (based on genre and content). Of course, now that I want to cite it, I'm having trouble finding it. Traveling rest of today, I'll see if I can find it tomorrow. It was very eye opening. He actually gave his real numbers for units sold and revenue, broken down by market (all brick and mortar stores lumped together, eReading by platform).

 

Honestly, if you're going to market yourself, anyway, what is the point of finding an agent and traditional publisher?

 

A professionally edited and prepared book by a known publisher is a very different product from a self published book. Even if the author has to do some of the marketing, the product being marketed is much more salable.

 

Isn't that what the publishing house does? So what does the agent do then, besides taking 15% of what you make and partaking in a collective effort to make you suffer via queries?

 

The agent finds the best publisher for your book and negotiates the best possible contract.

 

The agent makes and manages the deal, and helps nurture the author toward a deal, as I understand it. And how do you suppose they're supposed to do anything without queries?

 

15% for just that seems like a lot, I'll be honest. For 15%, I'd not only expect them to do all the marketing but to be querying writers, instead of the other way around :\

 

Sorry this is a bit of a tangent, @ChickenFreak, but if all the agent is doing is nurturing a deal with the publisher, well, maybe instead of putting all that effort into catching an agent so that he can catch us a publisher, maybe we should just be catching the publisher ourselves? I always assumed that agents did more than that, like marketing...

 

That's a good plan. Why don't you just announce to the agenting world that you're now open to queries and see how that goes?

 

My understanding is that most publishers don't accept un-agented queries. And I'm not saying that's all they do; I don't know all they do.

 

It depends on which agent you get, but some agents will do a lot of things for you. If you get an agent, you'd have to discuss exactly what's expected of either of you in the relationship, but mine did some proof reading, critiquing and editing. They can also open doors to a lot of publishing houses as some don't accept un-agented submissions. They also know who best to contact in certain houses and can arrange other services for you, like a professional edit, at better prices than if you had cold called them, but basically the fifteen or so percent they get from selling your book is basically allowing you to use their networking skills to sell your goods so you can write instead of networking. And networking is a somewhat vital skill when it comes to publishing and one a lot of writers are lacking.

 

I agree about the networking, but when I see agents in interviews suggesting we network with them via book fairs, etc, in order to find an agent, it just seems rather redundant.

 

We hear lots of people on both sides of this issue saying (quite rightly, I suspect) that agents and publishers are only interested in what will sell. That makes sense, because they are in business, and without sales they don't make a living.

However, I would like to ask agents and publishers, "What doesn't sell? How can you be sure that a certain type of story, or certain length of story won't sell?" Of course it won't sell if it never gets published—so that's an answer I'll probably never get. However, I do wonder if maybe agents and publishers might benefit from reviewing their criteria for what they think won't sell (quality of writing aside, of course) and maybe look at ways of promoting offbeat stories and authors, rather than simply rejecting them because they don't fit. "Not a good fit for us" isn't always a polite excuse for rejecting somebody's work. It might be a real reason, in that the agent/publisher likes the work but it doesn't fit their template, so to speak. This template could change.

I know I have a slightly offbeat taste in books, but I spend a scary amount of money every year on books I like. I don't think I'm alone in this. I'm a potential customer, no doubt about it.

Several of the most enjoyable books I've read over this past year have been from self-pubbed authors. Three of these are from authors on this forum (@K McIntyre, @Lew and @JE Loddon ) and two from people who are not on the forum (Mark Rice and Ronald Knapp), but whom I know personally. These are well written and very capably produced books. They just don't fit into any niche comfortably enough for the authors to attract agents.

The problem with self-pubbed really is distribution. People who refuse to read any self-pubbed books because they assume the quality will always be bad are certainly missing out. Yeah, it's a minefield, and there are lots of self pubbed books that really are crap—or, more charitably, are published before they are 'ready.' But how does a polished self-pubbed author reach his or her potential readership? That's the real problem, and it will be a game-changer for writers if we solve it.

Unless they're also focused on achieving a significant income from their writing, authors are usually interested in simply writing an excellent book and getting it read. Many authors know their niche readership will be small, and they're not bothered by that fact. These authors aren't about to tailor their subjects and styles to fit 'the (overall) market' which is focused on sales figures. In other words, these authors are not playing the same numbers game as agents and publishers. They just want to write their own book, their own way, and get it read by the kind of readers who will enjoy it. Self-pubbing is the only recourse they have.

Self-pubbing can be done to a very high standard if we simply take the time and effort to make it so. Public recognition of our work is that one final leap we still need to make. Damn. Frustrating! But fun, as well. I think it will happen, eventually. And when it does, increased sales may follow—along with a much wider range of subjects, lengths and styles. Diversity, roll on.

 

Amazon should offer it's members money to write a full review of a book in addition to taking a small survey written by the author to prove they read it. Maybe 100$ to read one book? Amazon charges the author 110$. That's the basic model. Probably they would come up with something a little fancier, like a "book reading club" system with points and rewards, etc, and as a result offer a self pubber 50 guaranteed unbiased reviews for $1000.

 

Hmm. Interesting approach. I can see financially dodgy problems from Amazon's point of view when it comes to paying random reviewers. However, I think there might be some merit in Amazon getting together a group of reviewers whom they would treat as staff, and pay to review books. (A criteria for which books get picked for review would need to be established.) This could work the way staff reviewers for newspapers and magazines work. These reviewers would need to be trusted by the public for this to work, which would mean their reviews would need to be accurate, informative and unbiased. They'd need to build their reputation. But I don't think it's impossible. Certainly worth thinking about and creating a model that would work.

If a good review from a trusted Amazon reviewer results in more sales for the book, then Amazon AND the author would both benefit. Much better than the book languishing and going unsold because nobody knows it's there.

 

I do like this idea, but I don't know if Amazon should be charging the authors to review the books. If an author gave Amazon money to review an awful book and Amazon reviewed it honestly, then it would probably hurt book sales and the author would probably be upset that they just gave money to Amazon to kill their book. Because not all bad authors realize they're bad authors. I do think there should be some impartial reviewers for Amazon just because I'm really tired of finding really bad books with 5 star reviews that were obviously given by the author and their best friends. And, to be honest, that's more why I'm hesitant to shop self published books. It's a heavier slog to find good books among the bad. At least with conventional publishing, I know at least one person who knows literature read that book and thought that is was good enough to be saleable.

 

I'm of the impression that agents not only know what the market's current trends are, but they have the contacts that allow them to choose the most suitable editor directly instead of making blind queries as we the authors would have to do. They are in a better position to find the right fit for our book. Also, the agent would help polish and edit before pushing it out to a publisher, as I understand it. Then you have all the legality of publishing contracts that again, we as authors know nothing of and most wouldn't spend the time to educate ourselves anyway, if we're honest. The agent would be knowledgeable in this area and able to negotiate for us. This kind of knowledge is certainly worth some cash. You're in essence hiring someone to make the path as smooth as possible for you. And yeah, many reputable publishing houses don't even accept unsolicited queries in any case. Considering the infamous slush piles that agents have to go through - and agents themselves have a slush pile reader before a manuscript is passed on to the actual agent herself - I'm not surprised that's how the publishing world operates. It's just quality control and saving themselves time.

 

"Not a good fit for us" is probably quite a valid reason - imagine, the agent may know only certain genres of books and subsequently know only editors who would be interested in specific things. You can't be an expert in all genres or be expected to have contacts throughout the publishing world. You specialise. Sure this book might sell but if I don't know anyone who would buy it, and might not know the genre well enough to know with any certainty that someone would want it, then it's just not worth the time and risk.

As for getting that recognition for self-pubbers, the answer is intuitive - you need to have an online presence and you need to market your book. It's marketing skills, SEO, and the effort of actually networking, as well as the skill that goes into attracting traffic for a website - those are the things most authors are lacking. Business skills. That focused interest in simply writing an excellent book and not a care in the world for what others might enjoy or what might be popular is something that works against the author in this regard, because when you wanna attract readers and traffic to your website and grow your readership, sussing out what your readers find interesting and caring about it is everything.

This is probably also why traditional publishing usually works out much better for authors who want to be read. The publishing house does all that business stuff for you.

 

Well, yes, you're right. But the tradeoff for the publishing house doing the work for you is that you have to write what they want to sell—and sometimes their requirements are very specific and limiting. That's the problem for us who don't want to write that way.

I think what we can do—or at least those of us who are interested in self-pubbing—is look at ways to make it more feasible to bring our books to the attention of readers who would like to read them. I suspect we've still got a long way to go, as self-pubbed books are a relatively new thing. I do think we'll get there, though.

The author blog is only good if people know about the author. I would rather see books marketed by subject matter and/or style. For example, if I look for self-pubbed books in a certain category, I would like to find them listed. Preferably with good, thorough reviews by experienced reviewers ...the kinds of book reviews you find in magazines and newspapers.

Just today I read a review in the Sunday Herald of a book I would love to read, but would never have searched for. If I hadn't seen that review, I wouldn't know it existed. Of course this is a traditionally published book, but there's no reason we couldn't have a similar setup for self-pubbed books. This review was done by the usual Sunday Herald review staff, so we know they're not personal friends of the author.

I buy LOTS of books, sight unseen, based on reviews from reviewers I trust. Another example is SFX magazine here in the UK, which focuses on Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Their reviews are reliable. That's how I discovered Joe Abercrombie, China Mieville, George RR Martin, and many others.

 

I look at Hollywood, with its producers, bottom-lines, and largely recycled products, and then I look at entities like Netflix, HBOGO, and now Amazon, and how they have re-energized the entertainment industry with (relatively) bold and creative projects, and I can't help but feel like there should exist some sort of analogue for the traditional publishing industry. Obviously it could be Amazon self publishing, but it would have to be remodeled.

 

@jannert - you mean to have a website that specifically lists self-published books only, which has a search engine that allows you to search for genre? Surely such a thing exists?

The truth is, Amazon should just have the option of "self-published" in their search engine. Eg. anything published by CreateSpace/Amazon should be its own category.

Reviews would be a contentious point, to be honest. It is especially self-published authors who pay for reviews - I know my co-author has done that and though the sites claim the reviews are unbiased, they are always positive reviews. To ask prestigious reviewers to review your book is similar to snagging an agent/publisher I think. Truth is, no one wants to waste that much time on a book without first knowing it's been through some vetting for quality, so unless you're friends with a prestigious reviewer, it's unlikely to happen. If even amongst published books crap exists, then who wants to risk it with a self-published book?

Your point on author blogs are only good if people already know the author is exactly the point - building a website and knowing how to market it, attract traffic and keep traffic coming, and maximise SEO (search engine optimisation which allows Google to fish out the key words on your site and therefore list your site as high up the list as possible), reaching out to exchange links with fellow bloggers (the whole networking). If you do these things, people will know you, and subsequently find your book, and perhaps read it.

Brandon Sanderson is probably a very good example of this. His author's site has his drafts, deleted scenes, tips and advice on how to actually write and build a magical system, as well as obviously his books, including sample chapters. I believe he also has - or had - a novel he was writing directly online, posting it on his site chapter by chapter. That keeps traffic coming. I've heard of another author, this one self-published, who asked his readers to suggest names for minor characters - engaging his customers and making the experience interactive. Again, it means traffic. Traffic means more eyes, means larger readership. It's about bringing value to your customers - before you ask them for money, what do you offer them? A book they've never heard of isn't a good enough bait - you need something before that, something to get them onto your site and start browsing to begin with. How do you not only get viewers but keep them?

There are obviously ways - if publishers do it, then that means it's obviously humanly possible. But these things are difficult and they are skills that are learnt. Again it comes back to the fact that most authors do not wanna spend that amount of time learning this, as it can take absolute years with probably a lot of wasted time and money in between. Free advertising platforms are rarely beneficial, and the good advertising spots take cash. Knowing where and how to invest is not always intuition.

Having said all this, perhaps there's a gap in the market for self-published books - they lack representation. If someone opened up a website inviting self-published books to be brought in for unbiased reviews, it would probably work. However, surely such review sites already exist, some blogger who makes recommendations on which self-pubbed books are worth your time?

@123456789 - I don't watch enough TV, nor do I even watch Netflix, to really understand the injection of ideas/energy/new blood you're referring to... You may have to explain

 

Unbiased reviews on Amazon is exactly what I was hoping to see.

The reviewers would be professionals, and get paid—by Amazon, not by the authors—to do a few reviews per week, or whatever. There would be no 'stars' or ratings, just a review, written by a professional reviewer, of a new, self-pubbed book, which discusses the content and style of the book—like is presently done in newspapers and magazines for traditionally published books.

No author would pay for a review, any more than they pay for a review in a newspaper or magazine.

 

I'm not sure what would inspire Amazon to do this, and I'm not sure I'd trust their reviewers if they DID do it, considering that they have their own publishing arm with books that are in competition with the books of other authors...