I think I've said this before, but, really, we should stop treating "traditional" publishing as if it's a monolith. If you get a Big 5 contract and don't sell 3K books, something has gone fairly seriously wrong. I'm not saying things never do go seriously wrong, but it's not the norm, at all. If the publisher gives you a $10K advance, they're expecting your book to sell quite a few copies. But there are lots of other kinds of publishing houses are that are lumped in under the "traditional" umbrella. Small but prestigious boutique publishers, academic presses, e-first houses, etc., etc. It really doesn't make sense to treat them all as if they're the same. And it really doesn't make sense to pick and chose the worst features from each type of publishing house and conglomerate them all into one negative mass. (Not saying you did this, @Steerpike - just continuing my train of thought!) Like, if we say that there's an impersonal feel to Big 5 publishers and a lot of small publishers don't offer advances and e-first houses really only want steamy romance (or whatever the perceived failings are), we can't then say that all traditional publishing involves an impersonal feel, small advances, and only steamy romance. Of course we can't go in the reverse, either, and pick and choose only the best features from each style of publishing. Not all traditional publishing involves huge advances and artistic prestige and fast MS-to-market timelines. One of the best things about being fairly prolific is getting to experiment with a lot of different publishing styles, and from what I've seen they all have their pros and cons. But in my experience self-publishing has lower sales than any other style I've tried. Now, I don't do a lot of promo, so that could be part of the problem. But it's a problem that's largely been solved by placing books with good publishers who do do promo for me. Which makes it weird to hear people saying publishers don't do promo...
@BayView I agree with what you said, above. To clarify, with respect to the 3000 readers, going to traditional route first means you have to acquire a traditional publisher who is willing to publish your work. Yes, if you're with the Big 5 you should sell 3000 no problem. Smaller presses may be a different story. However, if your work is good and you self-publish it and do even a small amount of marketing of the work, I don't think 3000 sales is overly-ambitious. Seems like that would be easy enough. If you limit by time (e.g. 3000 in the first month) that's another story.
I've only self-published a few things, but I don't think they've ever gotten anywhere near 3K copies sold. One of them (that I self-published in a different genre under a new pen name) has sold less than 50 copies. They're written as well as my other books. It's just really hard to get anyone to notice self-published books, in my experience.
I self-published a children's book and I've sold more than 3000 copies. I did some advertising (Google AdWords) early on and tried to spread the word a bit online, but that's about it. This was in 2011, so maybe the landscape has changed a bit.
Or maybe your book was really excellent, or the children's book market is different, or you got lucky, or.... whatever. That's part of the problem - there are so many damn variable to consider! Did you try to find a publisher for the book, or go straight to self-publishing?
I went straight to self-publishing. I had an agent who was interested in it after I had already self-published it, based on what I had sold, but I never sent it to her
Hi, I have to agree with Steerpike. Your chances of getting 3,000 readers going indie are not that huge. Yes there is a steep learning curve. Yes you have to have the right book in the right place at the right time, done well. You need your cover and blurn done perfectly. A little marketing may help. But while most self pubbed books sell less than 200 copies, you don't have to be most. Where trade publishing excels is in getting 30,000 readers etc. The big five can put books on shelves in stores. They have marketing programmes. And they also have professional editors and cover designers you don't pay for. And in the once upon a time dreamland that probably never was, they could let an author be an author and not have to do promotion work. No one's denying that there's advantages to trade. But you also have to get past that initial barrier which is a major sod. You also lose some of your creative control. Cheers, Greg.
Assuming he sold at an average price of $16 ($23 + $9 divided by 2) x 6,000 copies = $96,000 over 7 years = under $14k p.a. - less his production costs = a hobby, especially compared to what he probably makes as a dentist. This is NOT bashing self-pubbing, merely pointing out the hard economic facts that self-pubbing (as with traditional) is probably not going to put you into the JKRowling bracket.
And if, as a writer, I spend two years of my time providing the novel, my time is worth at least that much... isn't it? Assuming, of course, that I'm any good as a writer.
Thanks for sharing all that, Greg. This is one of the few replies that seems aimed at actually answering the OP's question(s) and by far answers them to the fullest. I'm grateful to you for taking the time. May your future be bright.
In theory, yes, but in reality, writing just doesn't pay that much. That's why most authors also have a day job. It's a lousy reality, but it is a reality.
Its hard. Its daunting. Its time consuming. With very little effort I can e-pub in an evening and its out there for the entire world to enjoy. Assuming they can find the damn thing. My suspicion is we are in a transitional period in publishing. My belief is that e-books will grow in popularity as the up and coming generations embrace technology ever more. I examined my own buying habits and honestly, paper books have become SO expensive I rarely purchase them. I can buy e-versions for a fraction of the normal price (or free, with Amazon Prime) and have more books than I can hope to read. Perhaps because I'm a writer, I seek out indie e-books instead of blockbuster best sellers. This has shown me an unfortunate truth: most indie e-books suck. A lot. Terrible or non-existent editing, meandering stories, 'books' that are little more than a short story or chapter...all conspire to give indie e-books a bad name. (My personal tip to find good ones is read the book synopsis. If the author can't use proper grammar or string a sentence together I pass.) Since two of my three novels have judicious profanity and sex I'd wager most traditional publishers would shy away from them. I'm not sure in my case I'd have a chance at 'real' publishing no matter my talent level or ferocity in pursuing agents. Is it worth the 6 months of my life I spend writing these books to sell 20 copies? I can't answer that. It is gratifying to have my work out there. It isn't a 'practical' use of my time monetarily. My feeble hope is that, over time, I can generate a following. Meager as it may be it could snowball into something more. Its happened to other e-novelists. I've got as much of a shot as they did. I look at it this way: at least I'm doing something and I have made my work accessible. My method may be right or wrong, but at least I'm doing something.
Unless you're writing juveniles, profanity and sex aren't an issue. I'm very confused as to why you would think they are. Are you in a country with very stringent government censorship?
@ChickenFreak No, I'm here in the good ol' US of A. My sex scenes probably aren't worse than Fifty Shades but I don't know that a 'mainstream' book with my character's f-bomb proclivities would find a mass-market audience. I do live in a rather conservative area and perhaps this skews my opinion.
And we all know what opinions are like. There are a lot of people who've done very well self-publishing and many that have been picked up by big publishers after self publishing. It's not an everyday thing but it's hardly impossible. Personally, I don't particularly care about being picked up by a major publisher. I've probably made more money self-publishing than I would have with a major publisher, given what I've found out from others in my genre about the typical contract and royalties for new writers.
Yep. One of the first things I was told by a well-known science fiction writer (who does actually make a full time living at it) was that almost anything you decide to do other than writing has a greater chance of providing you more money, more consistently, than writing. This was said to me before Amazon changed the self-publishing landscape, but I suspect the advice holds more or less true, particularly if you start looking at it on a per-hour basis.
FTW: "And self publishing is a viable option if you take it seriously." It will take one to five years of constant research after you've spent 5-10 years getting good at the actual craft of writing. I'm self-published. I sell between 10-100 units a month right now on Amazon with four titles available. It takes time, and it takes passion, and then it takes more time, and some mistakes, and then some more passion. Oh, and patience. I'm not there yet, but I'm in control, and that makes all the difference (for me).
What I mean is, I don't think you can say that everyone is going to take five years of constant research to make any money at self-publishing. What really makes you successful is having a book or books people love and not only want to read but want to recommend. It can take five years or it can take five weeks.
It can, but I don't think that it's useful to behave as if five weeks is as likely as five years. The most likely outcome is never, five years is within the realm of plausibility, five weeks is vanishingly unlikely unless you're building on previous success that probably took much longer than that five weeks. In that case, it's just extremely unlikely.
