# Authors who seem to do everything right but don't sell, what gives?



## Nicole M (Nov 1, 2012)

So, we all know you need a great cover, a great blurb, a great story, and then great marketing to sell. However, I've browsed around amazon and sometimes I see an author who wrote a series in a popular genre, got professional covers, has a great blurb, and yet for some reason their rank is in the six figures or higher. Every time I see these authors I wonder what is it? What did they do wrong? Is it lack of marketing? (Since I have no way of verifying how much marketing they did).  Is it just bad luck? Is heavy marketing 100% necessary? Is it classifying in the wrong genre? Bad keywords? 

I guess what I'm asking is...beyond having a great presentation, what are some common mistakes that cause authors to have low sales?


----------



## Vinny OHare (May 3, 2013)

I can tell you it is probably a lack of marketing, not doing it frequent enough. I have seen a few authors that keep promoting book 2 and 3 and not the first one. My guess is they are trying to hook the reader and have them go back and buy the first book. Could be a big mistake in my book. 

Do you ever click the inside the book and see if it is poorly written? Grammar? etc


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I'd say 98% of the time it will come down to the book itself. Odds are those books somehow failed to give their target audience what they wanted. Maybe they have a slow opening. Maybe the editing is poor. Could be a host of reasons. Usually it comes down to the book.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

You didn't mention what you thought of the story.

Maybe that's where they failed.

It may also be attributed to bad luck or simply ignorance. Not everyone realizes they need to market/develop a business strategy.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

As someone who falls in that category, I can tell you that it doesn't mean SQUAT.

I sell better in the UK than the US.

I sell equally on Kobo, Google Play, B&N and Apple as on Amazon. I'm about to go into 5 figures per  month.

Books go in and out of popularity all the time, also as you promote them.

Amazon US ranking at a specific point in time doesn't mean squat, squat, squat.


----------



## Nicole M (Nov 1, 2012)

I've looked inside a few of the novels and some of them had surprisingly good writing (given their ranking). I haven't read any though, so I'm just speculating here. It's entirely possible it's due to the book itself, like Annie B suggests. I just find it surprising that sometimes, a book with a homemade cover and what is (in my opinion) bad writing, somehow shoots up to top 1000 but other books with seemingly better quality struggle to break six figures.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

Nichole Moreno said:


> I've looked inside a few of the novels and some of them had surprisingly good writing (given their ranking). I haven't read any though, so I'm just speculating here. It's entirely possible it's due to the book itself, like Annie B suggests. I just find it surprising that sometimes, a book with a homemade cover and what is (in my opinion) bad writing, somehow shoots up to top 1000 but other books with seemingly better quality struggle to break six figures.


No matter the quality of the book, if it's in a category where demand is high and competition is low it's more likely to do well, especially if the author puts lots of effort into marketing.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Marketing. Or lack thereof.

At least that's been my experience. I just did my first promo after releasing the third book in the series and it's like night and day. Judging from the reviews trickling in, people either love it or like it, they just weren't aware it existed until now!

Now if the author did do a promo and had other books in the series, then maybe it didn't catch on or it's the book itself, but in my case most people weren't even aware that my book existed until I did a free run.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2016)

Nichole Moreno said:


> I've looked inside a few of the novels and some of them had surprisingly good writing (given their ranking). I haven't read any though, so I'm just speculating here.


My guess is its the book not delivering on reader expectations for the particular genre.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Don't forget the Dunning-Kruger effect. I'm not saying you fall into this category, but just because you think a book is good, or the writing is good, doesn't mean it is. 

Or it may be good, but it doesn't connect with the common person who reads at the 10th grade level (I've read that's the average). I'm constantly mystified by seeing books I consider mediocre sell bazillions (can you say 50 Shades?). Evidently they connect with an audience. Evidently the books that don't sell much despite marketing do not connect. If your books fall into that category, get some honest, brutal feedback from a successful author and listen.

As I get better known and sell more, I get inquiries from writers and wannabee authors along this line: "Why aren't my books selling." The longer I'm in this business, the more easily I can diagnose the problem, and when asked, I do.

They seldom listen. They want a magic bullet. There is no magic bullet, but there are a dozen ordinary bullets that are necessary but not sufficient for commercial success. After that, it's persistence and luck. I know a guy who's been writing for 28 years. It wasn't until 2010 and self-publishing on Amazon that he saw any success at all. Until 2014 he sold a few hundred a month, slowly building, as he published his backlist and wrote more, better books. He had about 30 books up and was selling a couple thousand a month, which was pretty good by most measures, when he started a new series that caught on like gangbusters. The first book alone probably sold 50K copies in 90 days, and he followed it up with 2 more in the series as fast as he could write them. That brought his whole backlist up and he's raking it in now. 

Persistence and luck. And, continuous improvement.


----------



## Michael Alan Peck (May 8, 2013)

I also wonder how many people are discouraged enough to give up after one book. I got into this assuming that I wouldn't gain much traction until I had at least a few out there. Given how slow a writer I am, I focus on the long game.


----------



## Nicole M (Nov 1, 2012)

Tilly said:


> My guess is its the book not delivering on reader expectations for the particular genre.


But how would new readers know this if the book doesn't have bad reviews?


----------



## Vinny OHare (May 3, 2013)

Nichole Moreno said:


> I've looked inside a few of the novels and some of them had surprisingly good writing (given their ranking). I haven't read any though, so I'm just speculating here. It's entirely possible it's due to the book itself, like Annie B suggests. I just find it surprising that sometimes, a book with a homemade cover and what is (in my opinion) bad writing, somehow shoots up to top 1000 but other books with seemingly better quality struggle to break six figures.


Maybe the homemade book cover owner has a blog with a huge following.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2016)

Nichole Moreno said:


> But how would new readers know this if the book doesn't have bad reviews?


Word of mouth.

A good book that ticks all the boxes will have readers talking about it. I've had lots of pms from friends telling me I HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK!!! and it's something I've never heard of, but I go buy it because my friends are raving about it. And that's also why an amazing story that pulls readers in, will sell even if it has a crap homemade cover.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

Sometimes it's easy to see why but there are other times I don't honestly know why. I have two friends who have written some of the most incredible books I've read by Indie authors. One is finally getting recognition when she branched into another genre, but that doesn't mean her first book wasn't freaking amazing. Another has all the right stuff, and it just hasn't taken off like I think it deserves. 

I'm sharing this just to encourage those writers who've tried everything. Sometimes I think it really isn't you.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

In 2014 Bill Robinson's "Yorktown" came out.

If you have seen the cover... it must be a really good book!


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

*************


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Patty Jansen said:


> As someone who falls in that category, I can tell you that it doesn't mean SQUAT.
> 
> I sell better in the UK than the US.
> 
> ...


I consider myself in that category too haha. There have been highs, but these days I'm selling less than book a day. The only answer as I see it is to keep doing everything as right as you can and hope that it clicks. And writing a whole bunch more books is the start of that.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

ChrisWard said:


> I consider myself in that category too haha. There have been highs, but these days I'm selling less than book a day. The only answer as I see it is to keep doing everything as right as you can and hope that it clicks. And writing a whole bunch more books is the start of that.


I sell more than that even on Amazon US, but my books rarely move above the mid-five figures in *Amazon US*. My total sales are made up out of a lot of different sites. You really can't judge an author's success, or lack thereof, by looking at just one retailer.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Neither the trad publishers, nor the indies will ever truly know what makes some books a success and others not.

I've read so many absolute stinkers which sold like sliced bread, I've lost count. Really bad books, bad writing, atrocious editing, so bad it really ticked me off to be asked to spend any length of time with them, and they sell well. No, it wasn't the _glorious story_ either. I've read books which shone in every respect, which easily were up on a level with many very acclaimed works, yet they didn't sell at all.

The short and harsh answer is: crap is easy to market to the masses. That's why pulp sells, that's why quite a few truly badly written books become bestsellers. Individuals, as in individual authors, often try to excel at what they do, and the moment they cease to see sheer money as a sign of quality and go for intellectual capacity and literary ability they will inevitably leave 90% of the audience out there behind them.

These days it takes me rarely longer than the sample to know whether diction, intelligence, originality, care and readability of a book are high quality and engaging or not. I would think that it is equally easy for someone wanting brainless, endlessly regurgitated and repetitive, _secure _and essentially undemanding mental fast food to decide they get it or not. As there are obviously 90:1 more people out there wanting the low-quality fast food read, success for those books is a simple mathematical equation. It's not without reason that there's this saying among movie and TV producers that _you have to dumb things down_ to reach the masses. Probably not a pleasant evaluation of the phenomenon.


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

Sometimes it's just inactivity. I was sitting in the top 5 of Gothic romance for several months, made it to number 2. Then I got hospitalized.  Multiple times over several years. My writing production came to a stand still. Sales dropped until I was lucky if I was selling one or two books a month. I'm just starting to get back in the rhythm. But I'm coming off of pneumonia and just starting to try and walk again. Doctors didn't think I was going to make it last summer. So I've been recovering since then.

But the bug as bitten me again, and I'm starting to work on some stories. It's going to be a long climb back I think, but I think I'm up to it. So yeah.... Long story... Inactivity can cause books or series to drop in ranking.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

Wow~ I'm glad you're feeling better Sharlow!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

SunshineOnMe said:


> Wow~ I'm glad you're feeling better Sharlow!


Me too. I'm so sorry to hear you've been so sick. Yikes.


----------



## kevin armstrong (May 6, 2015)

Yes,I think that marketing - or lack of same - has a lot to do with it. And frequency of publishing more books. Also, of course, the age of a book matters as well. My first book sold 200 copies in its first month but now (two years later) it sells a handful a month. But then I haven't promoted it for a while...


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

When it comes to marketing, your marketing plan is only as good as your marketing plan. It's easy to say "just do it" as it's easy to forget just how much learning marketing took. Being unblessed in marketing, I can tell you frankly that getting my brain wrapped around this has taken considerable effort. 

IMHO, no book has a problem. The way that you market it, however, that's a problem. The job of marketing is to match a book's experience to an audience that wants that experiences, and then the book gives them that experience. You're going to go wrong if you are offering the wrong book to the wrong market with the wrong experience.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Four P's in publishing: Product, Presentation, Pricing, Promotion. If you're seeing a good presentation and the book doesn't sell, it's a problem with one or more of the other three things. And just because the writing is competent doesn't mean the story is grabby: engaging and hooky. Or that the characters pull you into the story.

What really sells beyond marketing is word of mouth, and that's mostly story. But to get the word of mouth, you have to get the book in front of people, which is where promotion (they have to see the book), presentation (they have to click on the book, and that's got a lot to do with the cover, and then they have to look further--that's the blurb), and pricing (they have to not click away OR get a subconscious message that it's no good--too high or too low a price for the genre). 

And then there's the fifth thing: Is this the only book the person wrote? Or are they writing a book a year? Not really enough to make it either in indie or trad. I don't think you need a book a month or whatever--I haven't had a release for 4+ months right now, myself, because I've been writing ahead for this year--but I do think you probably have to be able to do 4 books/year to keep reasonable momentum and visibility.


----------



## NicolaSDorrington (Apr 18, 2016)

I'd love to know the answer to this because I think I'm one of those authors.

My books have never sold more than a handful a month apart from when I do heavy promotion, and as soon as the promotion is over they slide right back down again. According to the comments I've had on this site my covers are pretty decent.

Now of course, the books could just be complete crap. But with 48 reviews and none below a 3 star on the first book, and steady follow up sales of the sequels I feel like have to be doing something right. But somehow they have just never caught on. There are books in my category that actually have nothing to do with Arthurian legends that keep me off the top spot in my cat even when I am selling well.

It gets very frustrating. But then I also know that I am not good at marketing. I know I can't be bothered with Twitter and I haven't posted on my blog in months. I have a mailing list with about 10 people on it. So I know I'm partly to blame.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

It can come down to a bad niche. The highest performing genre is romance, I believe. I suppose it could be smut, but that isn't a road I'd want anyone to take. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have something like intergelactic space opera slash wearbears and paranormal romance, all smushed together. It won't sell. 

You can write for money or you can write for fame. Rarely can you have both.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AA2014 said:


> It can come down to a bad niche. The highest performing genre is romance, I believe. I suppose it could be smut, but that isn't a road I'd want anyone to take. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have something like intergelactic space opera slash wearbears and paranormal romance, all smushed together. It won't sell.
> 
> You can write for money or you can write for fame. Rarely can you have both.


Huh? Sure you can have both. Most people I know who make good money write what they most enjoy reading, and they have fame, too, if that means that people who read their genre know them. If you mean "literary acclaim," probably true, since literary fiction doesn't sell well unless you're in Oprah's Book Club or whatever. (But you still probably won't make fabulous money over a career.)

Genre fiction sells best--it's what people want to read. That doesn't mean it's trash.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

There's almost always some glaring issue, like failing to publish often enough or nice covers that still violate genre norms.

That said, the hardest thing for us to diagnose without reading the books is just that: how they read. If everything checks out on a superficial level, I'd agree that the problem is likely somewhere between the two covers. This could mean a beginning that fails to arrest readers, it could mean an unlikable or inactive protagonist, it could mean neglected or botched tropes--any number of things.

I don't believe in luck in self-publishing. If your process is properly designed to produce successful books, you should be able to do just that, every single time. I haven't yet seen a failure that couldn't be traced back to a bad process.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Well, what about if you have 1 million books, and you take the best 100,000 out of those, STILL only 1000 get to be in the top 1000. And, like a depressed mother with a colicky child gets told at the newborn clinic, some will still insist that It. Is. All. YOUR. Fault.

But I get the message. I suck.

KB never ceases to depress the shit out of me. I'm done.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

It may be down to any number of things; you can do lots of things right and still not have the book take off. And it's not always down to the writing, because enough people have to read the thing in the first place to make that a factor.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

I get that "There is no such thing as luck," can be depressing, but that's certainly not the intent. On the contrary, it means that we have control over things. Intrinsic attribution of failures hurts, but it means they can have an intrinsic resolution. If it comes down to luck, how does that work? How do I get lucky, exactly? Keep trying random things until something works? Because...magic?

Learned helplessness is a major theme in my life, so please trust me when I say that I get it if you feel like you've tried everything and nothing seems to work. That's the absolute worst. I still think there's a little more hope in believing that there's some missing piece, some minor epiphany that could sweep away all of those obstacles. The alternative is that we don't have control over things. We don't have agency. Not completely, anyhow, and maybe not enough. That's much more frightening to me than thinking that although I've failed all the days of my life till now, I could start to succeed on my own merits tomorrow.

One exception I'd make is that luck plays a role in how we enter this career in the first place. I'm white, so that worked out pretty well for me. Nothing I had any control over, nothing I earned, but it's certainly made my life easier than it could've been in the alternative. Luck of that kind can make it easier to get started, but once you're publishing, success of your brand and your products will come down to the quality of your process much more than any extrinsic factors.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Huh? Sure you can have both. Most people I know who make good money write what they most enjoy reading, and they have fame, too, if that means that people who read their genre know them. If you mean "literary acclaim," probably true, since literary fiction doesn't sell well unless you're in Oprah's Book Club or whatever. (But you still probably won't make fabulous money over a career.)
> 
> Genre fiction sells best--it's what people want to read. That doesn't mean it's trash.


Literary acclaim.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

If I relied upon Amazon alone, I'd still need a "proper" job. Amazon is under 50% of my income now.


EDIT: spelling, grrrr


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Amazon rank isn't everything. Iron Druid Chronicles is pretty famous. New York bestseller, thousands of reviews. First book 400k ranking. Latest book 100k ranking.

If you do the maths of number of serious authors by average number of books, there just isn't much room in the top 100k.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

David J Normoyle said:


> Amazon rank isn't everything. Iron Druid Chronicles is pretty famous. New York bestseller, thousands of reviews. First book 400k ranking. Latest book 100k ranking.


Are you looking at the print editions? The digital editions have far better rankings. His newest is a bit above 4k in the Kindle store, and that's at $13.99.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> If I relied up Amazon alone, I'd still need a "proper" job. Amazon is under 50% of my income now.


You'd still be earning way above the indy average, and you haven't published in two years!


----------



## cecilia_writer (Dec 28, 2010)

My feeling is that very few novels actually appeal to everyone, regardless of quality of cover, amount of promotion etc. Some have an inherently smaller potential market than others. This isn't a bad thing - one huge advantage of indie publishing is that it has increased the diversity of books available. (By this I don't mean diversity in the political sense)
Of course that doesn't help with visibility but maybe books find their market somehow (eventually!).


----------



## George Saoulidis (Feb 2, 2016)

Keyword is "seem."
There is both a formula and an art to making something that sells. Unfortunately, if you don't make something that makes people want to click on it, it will do poorly even with good promotion.
In this case, since the OP hasn't given us a real example, I can only assume there is a lack of promotion, as mentioned above.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

NeedWant said:


> Are you looking at the print editions? The digital editions have far better rankings. His newest is a bit above 4k in the Kindle store, and that's at $13.99.


Weird. I'm kindle seeing edition of Hounded(Book 1) at 400k (though I bought it recently) and kindle edition of Staked(Book 8 ) at 100k.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

David J Normoyle said:


> Weird. I'm kindle seeing edition of Hounded(Book 1) at 400k (though I bought it recently) and kindle edition of Staked(Book 8 ) at 100k.


For me Hounded is currently at 18,780 and Staked is at 3,906.

I'm looking at the Amazon US store.


----------



## MKK (Jun 9, 2015)

Patty Jansen said:


> Amazon US ranking at a specific point in time doesn't mean squat, squat, squat.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Nichole Moreno said:


> So, we all know you need a great cover, a great blurb, a great story, and then great marketing to sell. However, I've browsed around amazon and sometimes I see an author who wrote a series in a popular genre, got professional covers, has a great blurb, and yet for some reason their rank is in the six figures or higher.


I used to see the same thing. And I also used to see the complete opposite - books with poor covers and blurbs etc. riding high on the bestseller lists. Then I realized something: a book with a cover, blurb etc. _that appealed to its target audience_ sold. What _appeals _is neither good nor bad, it's just a marketing fact.

By way of example, I've read some romance blurbs that just sang with exquisite literary and marketing skill. They were brilliant, but I never bought the books because I'm not the target audience...


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Dolphin said:


> You'd still be earning way above the indy average, and you haven't published in two years!


I would probably... maybe... earn a little more if I put my sci-fi in KU. Maybe. My tests say no to all my OTHER genres, but I won't try my sci-fi. It's the backbone of my business. Some say Audible IS Amazon in drag. I guess from a company viewpoint it is, but I don't view it that way.

Readers at Amazon KU aren't the same as readers who just buy using Kindle. The same goes for all the other platforms. They aren't the same people. Audio listeners tend to buy more audio and fewer ebooks as time goes by. So as with audible, I want to cultivate all the other pastures.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Patty Jansen said:


> I sell more than that even on Amazon US, but my books rarely move above the mid-five figures in *Amazon US*. My total sales are made up out of a lot of different sites. You really can't judge an author's success, or lack thereof, by looking at just one retailer.


Quoting Patty here for emphasis. Unless the question is "Authors who seem to do everything right but don't sell *on Amazon*, what gives?"

I think, having read through the whole thread, that sometimes, probably even often, there's an issue with the book. Or the promotion. Or some of the other reasons posted here. But sometimes, as has been pointed out, the book has been higher rated and has slid lower. Or, just hasn't hit yet.

It's always good to re-evaluate one's work to see if one can do better, even if one's sales are good. Look at Russell Blake--he retools covers on books that are selling well to see if he can make them sell better. If there's anything to be learned from this thread, it seems to me that that's the takeaway from this thread. Keep doing reality checks on all aspects of the business.

Betsy


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

PhoenixS said:


> I have a standalone thriller that loves to be promoted and responds well to promotion. It has solid reviews. Promoted, it's hit in the Top 100 at Amazon, BN and iTunes a few times (as high as #4 on BN). It's been a Select Freebie a dozen or so times, always hits in the Top 100 Free, and even hit #1 Free once.
> 
> The minute I turn my attention off of it, it starts to slide into oblivion. There are no other thrillers in my personal inventory or in the Steel Magnolia inventory, so it has to swim the shark-infested waters on its own. Even so, it's made about $30K, even though it's currently in a promotion lull and is hanging in the mid-100Ks rank right now.
> 
> ...


this describes my entire catalogue.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

I'm voting with the mention of a _big lightning rod_. I've seen horribly produced books skyrocket within weeks of publishing and I've seen amazing books languish and quickly disappear.

I've been around a while and have tried just about every marketing/promotional technique mentioned here and there and everywhere. And I've developed a lot of terrific relationships with other authors who've also tried some of the same. Sharing results, discussing algos, the conclusion? For indie pub, it's a lottery. A few win, but many lose.

That doesn't mean you can't work a book. What Phoenix describes is exactly how I earn my daily coffee money. But if I relax on promotions, my books sink into the Amazon Drek, losing all visibility from prospective readers. The solution is to continue to market, continue to write & publish, and if lightning does strike, put on a big silly smile and cash in that lottery ticket.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

You often hear growing up on a friend who has a friend who has a formula that will beat the bookie. You then find out the friend of a friend is not rich, but the bookie is. The denial of luck or the claim that a low ranking must be because something is being done wrong is in the same category. To accept luck is a personal insult to many who work really hard (and successfully) at all the aspects that get talked about on kboards and in consequence anyone who challenges it gets told they are obviously still not doing it according to the formula. Eventually those who accept the huge amount of luck involved either keep quiet about it or leave kboards. Its the standard process of online communities: opinions are consistent because online communities always trend towards echo chambers. Someday I will got round to writing the book on it.

When I came on kboards I mentioned a book at 3,000,000 and was told you're looking at the print books there aren't that many ebooks in the Kindle Store. I checked and sure enough it was a print rank. Now I have a book in the Kindle Store at 3,000,000. The Kindle Store has a lot of customers, but even they can't keep up with reading every book when part of the formula is to publish at least every 90 days and part of Amazon's formula is to push Kindle Unlimited, which is a guarantor of Amazon's success, not our's. Amazon is the bookie.

Translation: bookie [abbrev. of bookkeeper] person who takes a punters money to bet on the outcome of usually sporting events.


----------



## H.G. Suren (Jan 23, 2012)

I have luck with Wattpad but failed with Amazon. I do promote my book every month, pick up 3 or 4 websites, pay them to promote my book. Yes, the money I pay for the promotion comes back, but that's all I gain. My book is featured on Wattpad, has a lot of readers, meanwhile, the sales on Amazon are slow. Maybe because Bookbub hasn't accepted my book, that's the problem? A lot of authors sell more books if they luck out to be accepted by Bookbub.


----------



## Allyson J. (Nov 26, 2014)

If I'm not constantly promoting or getting a BookBub, my series drops off on Amzn. Thankfully, I'm wide because my sales tend to stay more consistent at other vendors. My problem, I think, is that I only release a book or two per year, per pen name.

I do think luck has a lot to do with success, but I believe you should give yourself the best chance to get lucky by using professional covers, editing, etc. Don't give anyone a reason to pass over your books.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

I'll be honest, I don't see a lot of books with great covers, good blurbs, and interesting premises that are sinking. When people here have posted them, I can usually find something that sticks out at me. That might be selection bias though because I'm sure I could find something in the top selling books as well. 

I do think that pseudo-luck has something to do with things. A friend just launched a book to what I think is the worst debut she's had. Well, it's not luck that within two days of her launching, three big names in the genre released books and sucked all the oxygen out of the genre list. But it's not that she has a bad book either. I'm sure none of them is thrilled either as the three are trading off #1 instead of sticking on it for a month.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

B.A. Spangler said:


> I'm voting with the mention of a _big lighting rod_. I've seen horribly produced books skyrocket within weeks of publishing and I've seen amazing books languish and quickly disappear.


Let's be honest: lots of folks would describe series like Wool in these terms. Just because some features of a product are subjectively bad doesn't rule out the possibility that other features are so good that they can redeem it. Outside of things like scamphlets, I don't really think we can dismiss anything that sells well as "horribly produced." Some folks like something about it. It's more useful to understand what that is than to dismiss it out of hand.



Mercia McMahon said:


> Eventually those who accept the huge amount of luck involved either keep quiet about it or leave kboards. Its the standard process of online communities: opinions are consistent because online communities always trend towards echo chambers. Someday I will got round to writing the book on it.


I'm sensitive to concerns about echo chambers. What's led me to buy into so much of the KBoards conventional wisdom is simply that it's extremely coherent and consistent. I don't come across successes or failures that I can't explain with our groupthink model.

Now either that's because I'm trapped in the echo chamber, and I'm just not encountering the world of market-friendly products that are being shunned for no reason, or it's because the model is correct. I'm open to the first possibility. All I need is for somebody to show me the countervailing evidence, and I'll be forced to reconsider.

In the meantime, however, the model is compelling, and useful. It suggests a path forward for aspiring indies. It offers a guiding rationale. It can't exactly promise success, but I've been around for long enough to have seen it turn more than a few nobodies into outliers. I'm convinced that it produces much better results than blindly following your muse. That means it's worth practicing until someone can advance an even better theory.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

You definitely can't tell from the rankings. It's a snapshot and you don't know the backstory of the book. There are a few writers on here that do soft releases before hitting the promos. That could mean a book starts low in the rankings. I have a series that I've stopped promoting for a while because I felt it'd burnt out all the promo sites.  Some writers will release book 1, and maybe even book 2, but hold off on promo until they have book 3 out.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> I'll be honest, I don't see a lot of books with great covers, good blurbs, and interesting premises that are sinking. When people here have posted them, I can usually find something that sticks out at me.


I think my book a Monstrous Place has those things (DEFINITELY a great cover at least)(plus good reviews), but as soon as any promo ends, down it falls. Though that may be down to the age group it's primarily aimed at being a difficult market.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2016)

Don't you first need to define what we mean by "sales?" 

Or what we mean by "success?"

First, I think too many authors have a screwed up perspective of what "good sale" volume or "good rank" is. The mega-sellers have ALWAYS been a small percentage of the author pool. Because a lot of big sellers hang out here at KB, it gives the impression that the percentage of big sellers in publishing today is higher that it actually is. So the assumption becomes that if you aren't ranked X or selling Y volume in a month, you are a failure. 

Second, we tend to assume there is only one metric for "success" and that he who makes the most money is right. But this is also screwed up. Subway might make more money than the local mom-and-pop deli, but that doesn't mean the mom-and-pop deli is a 'failure" simply because they don't sell as much volume or make as much profit as Subway. 

I remember when I first sold 5000 copies of my Neiyar campaign setting. I was excited about that. This was like a DECADE ago before Kindle was even a thing. Most of those sales were PDFs. Now as someone involved in the gaming industry, I knew that 5000 was a good number for an indie campaign setting. Gaming is a niche market after all. 

But what was funny was the different responses I got from my friends. They ranged from "5000 sales! WOW, you must be rich now!" to "Only 5000? I'm sorry, I thought the book was good." Because they didn't have any real perspective about the marketplace and no understanding of the norms.

Third, as Patty noted, this forum tends to be very Amazon-centric. There are obvious reasons for that   But you can't look at an Amazon rank and assume anything about a book. Specifically, because Amazon caters to a specific demographic. Half my titles have hardly any sales on Amazon, but do very well elsewhere. I don't publish series. I do mostly stand-alone works and anthologies. Those don't really "work" with the Amazon demographic (which leans heavily on romance, YA, mysteries, and series).


----------



## Kevin Lee Swaim (May 30, 2014)

Authors who seem to do everything right but don't sell, what gives?

Hey, that's my jam!


----------



## T S Paul (Jan 6, 2016)

geronl said:


> In 2014 Bill Robinson's "Yorktown" came out.
> 
> If you have seen the cover... it must be a really good book!


I've read it, its pretty good


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

You're also forgetting that whole subscription service bias that a lot of readers now have. We see it with Netflix: "Well, I've paid my subscription, so I might as well watch whatever's on, even if it sounds mediocre." So things become popular sometimes solely because people want their money's worth.


----------



## hunterone (Feb 6, 2013)

Abderian said:


> No matter the quality of the book, if it's in a category where demand is high and competition is low it's more likely to do well, especially if the author puts lots of effort into marketing.


I have determined that to be a large factor. I have seen crappy covers, uninteresting blurbs in low competitive categories in #1 positions.

Some of the heavy categories like thrillers are super tough to rank in without going free with the first book and really writing a knockout.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

AA2014 said:


> It can come down to a bad niche. The highest performing genre is romance, I believe. I suppose it could be smut, but that isn't a road I'd want anyone to take. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have something like intergelactic space opera slash wearbears and paranormal romance, all smushed together. It won't sell.
> 
> You can write for money or you can write for fame. Rarely can you have both.


Romance is the best performing genre but it's also the most crowded. You will have a nearly impossible time taking off in romance without a solid marketing plan because it's so competitive. You may be better off in a smaller but less crowded niche. I have friends who write M/M romance. That is a smaller niche, so it has a lower ceiling, but it's also less competitive. Books can rise to popularity with only a bit of marketing and they stick for a while.

Rosalind already covered this, but I'll say it again for posterity. You can love what you write, write what you love. It depends on how commercial your tastes are, but most people can love writing one of the major genres (romance, erotica, thrillers, mystery, urban fantasy, there are others but I don't keep up on non-romance genres). I love all my books. In fact, I'm surprised my main series has done so well as it has so much of me, and everything I always wanted to write, in it.


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> They seldom listen. They want a magic bullet. There is no magic bullet, but there are a dozen ordinary bullets that are necessary but not sufficient for commercial success. After that, it's persistence and luck. I know a guy who's been writing for 28 years. It wasn't until 2010 and self-publishing on Amazon that he saw any success at all. Until 2014 he sold a few hundred a month, slowly building, as he published his backlist and wrote more, better books. He had about 30 books up and was selling a couple thousand a month, which was pretty good by most measures, when he started a new series that caught on like gangbusters. The first book alone probably sold 50K copies in 90 days, and he followed it up with 2 more in the series as fast as he could write them. That brought his whole backlist up and he's raking it in now.
> 
> Persistence and luck. And, continuous improvement.


This is the kind of thing I like to hear, because, for the most part, these things are under my control. I can keep on writing, I can market, I can learn how to do both better and more efficiently. I can keep up on trends and emerging platforms for delivery and marketing.

I've found through extensive reading  that if the characters are people I like with a great connection and are in a setting that I like, what the story is about is almost less important. There are only so many plots, after all. It's how these characters react to them that I find fascinating.


----------



## Thetis (Dec 23, 2015)

WasAnn said:


> There is a lightning component to it.
> 
> Lots of people who've already made it like to trot out that it's the book or the author, but the truth is that it's very difficult to figure out what makes some people strike and some not.
> 
> ...


I don't have a lot to add to this because it's all just... one big yep.

Of all of my books, the one I am most proud of never sells. Ok, occasionally... but rarely sells. My series with the lowest overall star rating sells best and most consistently.

Often, it's not that the writing is bad or that the authors don't know what they're doing, but rather that other authors are cranking out books that can be badly written but they're meeting a demand for non-mainstream sex or zombie apocalypses or whatever the huge trend is at any given moment.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

Patty Jansen said:


> Well, what about if you have 1 million books, and you take the best 100,000 out of those, STILL only 1000 get to be in the top 1000. And, like a depressed mother with a colicky child gets told at the newborn clinic, some will still insist that It. Is. All. YOUR. Fault.
> 
> But I get the message. I suck.
> 
> KB never ceases to depress the [crap] out of me. I'm done.


Aw, Patty, you're awesome. You don't suck.

Readers buy what they buy. To an extent we can do a lot to try to make our books appealing to them and make sure they know about them. But, when it comes down to it, we can't *force* them to buy our books. That is something we authors have zero control over, making the readers click that Buy button. If authors and publishers knew perfectly how to make them do that, every book would be a bestseller -- which, like Patty points out, is still mathematically impossible, because only 1000 books can be in the top 1000.

Myself, I'm happy whenever I break into the six-figure rankings. The people who read my books seem to like them, or at least the ones who leave reviews do. So I'm pretty sure my books don't suck too badly. But I write what I write, and it isn't one of the hot-selling genres. Mostly a weird genre mashup, too romancy for a lot of fantasy readers, too hard-core fantasy for those who mainly want romance, and then we get into the western stuff... Those are the stories I have to tell, though, and I'm happy telling them. Much happier than I'd be trying to write something that's hot but just isn't me.

Also like Patty said, if an author is wide, you can't tell anything by their Amazon rankings. Last month, I sold as much on Apple as I did on Amazon, and also sold some paperbacks in Europe. Other months, I've sold well on Smashwords. Amazon is still most of my sales, but far from all of my sales.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

In a competitive environment, not everybody gets to win. Otherwise worthy book can and will fail in the market. That's what it means to be in a competitive environment.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

P.J. Post said:


> Even the hackiest hackfest of the pulpiest pulp from the lowest of the low, played-out and cliched genres is still fundamentally ART.
> 
> *And Business Theory has not, doesn't now, nor will it ever apply to the commerce of art!*
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Great post, PJ. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## L.T. Vargus (Jun 21, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> And then there's the fifth thing: Is this the only book the person wrote? Or are they writing a book a year? Not really enough to make it either in indie or trad. I don't think you need a book a month or whatever--I haven't had a release for 4+ months right now, myself, because I've been writing ahead for this year--but I do think you probably have to be able to do 4 books/year to keep reasonable momentum and visibility.


I was going to ask the OP how old the books were, and theorize the same thing. I can't remember why I was even looking, but I noticed that Warm Bodies was ranking in the 90,000 range last month - a traditionally published book that had the bonus of being made into a movie. But that was years ago. The author has written a novella since then and now has a new book in the series on preorder (for Feb '17!), but the first book was originally published in 2011... six years is a long time to go on one novel + a novella.

You can bet that if we're talking about books that didn't have that kind of release success, they would be a lot further out than 90,000.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> I don't believe in luck in self-publishing. If your process is properly designed to produce successful books, you should be able to do just that, every single time. I haven't yet seen a failure that couldn't be traced back to a bad process.


I do believe there is some luck involved. I am not a huge success, but I know I got really lucky. I fell into a niche that was largely unoccupied, and even though I did everything wrong: wrong covers, 3rd person present tense, a heroine and (eventual) hero that didn't meet expectations, I still am doing okay.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> I do believe there is some luck involved. I am not a huge success, but I know I got really lucky. I fell into a niche that was largely unoccupied, and even though I did everything wrong: wrong covers, 3rd person present tense, a heroine and (eventual) hero that didn't meet expectations, I still am doing okay.


I could pretty much repeat your post with regard to myself.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Is there luck? Sure there's luck. I got a bunch of luck, and I know it. And yet . . . 

I spent $2,000 a couple months ago to put new covers on two series (ebook and print). My covers worked fantastically in 2012, but it isn't 2012. 

My indie ebook covers cost me $99 apiece. And yet right now on KBoards, there are a couple threads about how people can get book covers for $20 or $10 or $0. Yes, SOME people--a few people--can make fantastic covers themselves. 90% can't, but still, I see covers on KBoards all the time from people who say something about how they don't sell great and don't know why, or they always get turned down by BookBub and don't know why--and I can see why. Most people will never, ever click on that book. The cover is a weight around that book's ankle, holding it back.

A great cover isn't enough. Everything else has to follow through. But every element that isn't professional in somebody's work is another barrier in the way to Reader X discovering them. And success in indie publishing is made up of thousands of Reader X's. Reader X is the route to the word of mouth that is the REAL "luck."

When I first published, I sold really well, and then I sold great. I went back and re-edited all eight of my first books, though, after my first one came out in audio. That book got an Audie nomination, so it didn't stink, but when I heard it, I realized how many things I could have done better. (It was my first fiction, and I learned a lot.) I remember posting on here when I was re-editing, and virtually everybody said, "Why would you do that? Move on! That book is done!" But you know--people are still reading those eight books. They're still forming their opinion of me and deciding whether to read anything else based on that first book they read. I'd darn well better make sure it's as good as I can make it.

If all my books weren't out in audio now, I'd probably go do it again.  

"Good enough" ISN'T good enough. The competition is getting stronger every year. If you can't afford $100 for a professional cover and you think your editing is all right and the blurb is OK and who cares about typos anyway--don't worry, there are other authors for readers to find who DID pay for a professional cover and worked their blurb like crazy, looking up how to do it better, and who got their books edited. 

Also--hooky concept. Strong voice. Satisfying emotional experience. Those things may be hard to grab onto, but I suspect they have a lot to do with the "X Factor" that makes some books and authors succeed.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

It's funny to be reading this when I just pressed the button to publish a pre-order on Amazon for a book I pretty much wrote to market, with the right cover, and a blurb I agonized over. I've put/am putting together my ARC readers. I'm priming my lists.  Yet I feel like I want to throw up.  Because while I DO believe the adage that while luck plays a large role, the presentation of the book and what's between the pages (did you hit that hook?  did you meet those expectations?) that people on kboards talk about all the time are TRUE, I could be OFF in some way that I can't see that will tank the thing.  Or maybe the luck that DOES play a part won't favor me no matter how hard I worked.

I get Patty's frustration.  I haven't read her stuff, but my understanding is that she's an excellent writer and she just got her covers redone and has gotten Bookbubs, but she seems to feel that this isn't "good enough" because she's not a best seller on Amazon.  She probably feels like: what the heck?  If these kboards "truisms" were true then my books should be under 1000 or whatever in rank that's considered awesome!  BTW I do think she's doing great based on her income from her books, etc.

I think the situation is simply this: (1) the kboards truisms ARE true, but (2) there's luck/lightning in a bottle/zeitgeist whatever that does play a role (if even a small role) in any book.  If you miss something, maybe by an inch, it might as well be a mile.  Anyways, I'm going to go rock myself to calmness again, because this time I'm finally TRYING to do the kboards' way. Will it work?  Will it not?  Did I really do things "right"? I guess I'll see.


----------



## Steve Margolis (Mar 31, 2015)

When my first book came out, it sold a few copies and picked up a few nice reviews, but no where close to what I would consider successful. Then I landed a BookBub promotion. Same book. Same cover. Same blurb.

Since then my book has been doing quite well.

I remember when The DaVinci Code came out. It wasn't Dan Brown's first book. And they were interviewing him, and he said that because the DaVinci Code was a bit controversial, he got a lot of eyes on it. He said it was no better than his first book, but because so many people saw it and had to check it out, his audience grew quickly.

IMO, it all comes down to a good book, good marketing, and *a lot of patience. *


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I think selling genre fiction is a great deal like selling any sort of product: it obeys the same laws of supply and demand; responds to pricing and marketing moves in similar ways; has to cope with changing technology, just like other industries; and is just as much at the mercy of ever-changing fashions and trends. Luck and timing play a big role in outlier successes, just as in other industries. But most of us aren't going to write the first Google search algorithm or invent the iUrThing or write _The Pilgrim's Progress_ or _Harry Potter_ or _Fifty Shades_. For us, the industry works in more plodding and predictable ways. I don't see anything quasi-mystical about it. So far as I can tell, stories have always been an important part of human cultures; they have value, and valuable things can be sold or traded.

The problem is that the widgets we're trying to sell are harder to make than many others. A lot of moving parts have to come together in an effective way. I think we're seeing that indies are better at doing that than the big traditional publishers, who have a lot of upfront expenses and seem to get too caught up in their own ideas about what's "in." Perhaps indies just have their ears closer to the ground and are more willing to change gears and experiment. But just because one's willing to write to market to optimize sales doesn't mean one will be able to do so successfully. It's hard. And there's tremendous competition for visibility once one does get a book out there. And of course random events and non-events have a big impact.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Rosalind, it seems to me that you're saying: Marketing is always the problem no matter how you're selling. You always want to sell more, and that means that you always need to improve your marketing.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Books are art and they are a product. Anything you sell is a product. To sell them, you need to create the right emotional reaction. To satisfy your customer, you need to deliver the experience they want. Now, I admit that most of my knowledge of business comes from pop economics books and _Shark Tank_, but books are not all that different than your average non-essential product. People do not need books to live. That means you need to offer them an experience they want AND you need to convince them they want that experience.

I do think there is luck in terms of timing. If you released a Stepbrother novel a year ago, you would have been hitting the trend right as it started and you would have a good chance of doing well. But if you released it now, you'd be behind the curve, and you'd have a poor chance of doing well. Sure, you can control for some of this. But sometimes you get lucky and you write a book that happens to line up with the newest trend (or you get unlucky and fail to hit a trend).



Rosalind James said:


> When I first published, I sold really well, and then I sold great. I went back and re-edited all eight of my first books, though, after my first one came out in audio. That book got an Audie nomination, so it didn't stink, but when I heard it, I realized how many things I could have done better. (It was my first fiction, and I learned a lot.) I remember posting on here when I was re-editing, and virtually everybody said, "Why would you do that? Move on! That book is done!" But you know--people are still reading those eight books. They're still forming their opinion of me and deciding whether to read anything else based on that first book they read. I'd darn well better make sure it's as good as I can make it.


I'm rewriting a well-selling, well-rated book right now because I know I can do better. Now, there's a point at which this becomes too much. You should know if you're more of a perfectionist or more of an it's good enough type. I'm a perfectionist, so I have a rule that I cannot extend a deadline if my book is at an 8/10. But this book is a six. I want it to be at least an eight. It's the first in my series. If I want the series to keep selling, I need that book to do a lot of heavy lifting.

It is already in audio and paperback, so those editions won't get the benefit of my rewrite, but them's the breaks.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Sometimes Amazon hurts sales. Sales for one of my books that had been selling steadily suddenly stopped. I should have checked the book's detail page on Amazon, but I didn't until several days ago and saw sponsored products that are supposed to be related to my book on the detail page: two erotica billionaire books and two cozy mysteries. I have nothing against erotica billionaire books and cozy mysteries, but my book is literary women's fiction, genre domestic life. I wouldn't have checked if someone hadn't told me that she had planned to buy the book but didn't when she saw the *Sponsored Products Related to This Item*.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Marian said:


> Sometimes Amazon hurts sales. Sales for one of my books that had been selling steadily suddenly stopped. I should have checked the book's detail page on Amazon, but I didn't until several days ago and saw sponsored products that are supposed to be related to my book on the detail page: two erotica billionaire books and two cozy mysteries. I have nothing against erotica billionaire books and cozy mysteries, but my book is literary women's fiction, genre domestic life. I wouldn't have checked if someone hadn't told me that she had planned to buy the book but didn't when she saw the *Sponsored Products Related to This Item*.


Amazon has no interest in doing something like that unless their algos tell them it's a good call. You probably have readers who enjoy both. I'd be very surprised if those weren't just functioning like alsobots.


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

B.A. Spangler said:


> The solution is to continue to market, continue to write & publish, and if lightning does strike, put on a big silly smile and cash in that lottery ticket.


I'm terrible at self-marketing. Hated myself for my lack of drive in that regard. But I decided to lay down the coulda-shoulda-woulda, and write. Almost always, the process makes you a better author and your readership grows. Even if you don't hit the lottery.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

H. S. St. Ours said:


> I'm terrible at self-marketing. Hated myself for my lack of drive in that regard. But I decided to lay down the coulda-shoulda-woulda, and write. Almost always, the process makes you a better author and your readership grows. Even if you don't hit the lottery.


I like you're attitude.


----------



## Nicole M (Nov 1, 2012)

Wow, this blew up while I was sleeping and at work!  I'd love to reply to each individually but that would take so much time. First, thanks everyone for your feedback. I appreciate all the information I can get. Second, it seems that marketing is a HUGE deal, as I expected. Luck plays a part too, it seems. That's also to be expected. I think what any aspiring author can do is make sure they have everything right (including marketing) and then just hope all the stars are aligned for them. Eventually, doing the right thing has to lead somewhere, right? One would hope. 

I hope nobody felt bad reading this thread. It wasn't my intention. Clearly some people make it big while breaking all the rules, and some fail while following all the right steps. Reminds me of this movie Europa Report (It's on netflix, I recommend it!). It came out at the same time as Gravity so it failed and sadly, most people don't know about it. I'm sure that happens often in publishing. Just gotta keep trying. Thanks everyone! Feel free to keep commenting!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Douglas Milewski said:


> Rosalind, it seems to me that you're saying: Marketing is always the problem no matter how you're selling. You always want to sell more, and that means that you always need to improve your marketing.


I also think you always need to improve your writing, and you also have to make sure you're satisfying your audience. I don't write to market--meaning write to trend--but I do try to write a book my readers will want to read.

I DO read all my reviews and always have. How else will I know what resonated and what didn't? I think it's helped me as both a writer and in terms of sales to take that feedback on board. Of course, I don't accept everything as gospel, but I sure do look for trends and think about what I did. How might I have explained that character better so readers understood him better? Or do I like what I did anyway, and have to just accept that some people will hate him? Feedback is good, even if it can be overwhelming.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I also think you always need to improve your writing, and you also have to make sure you're satisfying your audience. I don't write to market--meaning write to trend--but I do try to write a book my readers will want to read.
> 
> I DO read all my reviews and always have. How else will I know what resonated and what didn't? I think it's helped me as both a writer and in terms of sales to take that feedback on board. Of course, I don't accept everything as gospel, but I sure do look for trends and think about what I did. How might I have explained that character better so readers understood him better? Or do I like what I did anyway, and have to just accept that some people will hate him? Feedback is good, even if it can be overwhelming.


Rosalind, I just have to say that I'm so thankful you still post here. So many big sellers have left kboards. Spending your time to give advice is awesome. <3


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

@Becca Mills & SunshineOnMe  Thanks guys! I appreciate it.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> I get Patty's frustration. I haven't read her stuff, but my understanding is that she's an excellent writer and she just got her covers redone and has gotten Bookbubs, but she seems to feel that this isn't "good enough" because she's not a best seller on Amazon.


Just a tangent, because this struck me. I might be wrong, but I dont think Patty "seems to feel that it's not good enough". I think she's annoyed that people disregard her success because Amazon is not her 99% income source. I think that's a big, big difference. And probably exactly why Patty is annoyed at that thread.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2016)

Marian said:


> Sometimes Amazon hurts sales.


No it doesn't. Amazon wants to sell books, that's how they make money. If a reader chooses another book over yours then there is an issue with *your* product.

Amazon is a retailer. They push the products that are selling. If your book isn't selling then go back to the basics - cover, blurb, opening pages. Something is making readers navigate away from your book and choose a different product. Look at your product objectively and figure out where the issue lies.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Regarding covers. I've changed mine four or five times during the life of each book. Styles and trends come and go. I'm embarking upon a new refresh soon on my Rune Gate. It's like being a home owner. Maintenance is never ending.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Maybe it's still too early to report, but I think I made a mistake by not delaying the 'official' publication until the Look Inside was visible. Naturally people want to see a preview before they buy anything...


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Down on the low-end, you're out of the feedback loop, which makes improving rather difficult. You don't get reviews saying what people liked or didn't like. Given no information, you have no information. It's kinda hard to go anywhere with nothing. Once you do start getting reviews, then you see what people like (yay) and don't like (shucks) and you can address those issues directly as you write more books. You pour in more 'like' and avoid the 'dislike' and hopefully sell more books.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Douglas Milewski said:


> Down on the low-end, you're out of the feedback loop, which makes improving rather difficult. You don't get reviews saying what people liked or didn't like. Given no information, you have no information. It's kinda hard to go anywhere with nothing. Once you do start getting reviews, then you see what people like (yay) and don't like (shucks) and you can address those issues directly as you write more books. You pour in more 'like' and avoid the 'dislike' and hopefully sell more books.


That's what beta readers are for! You should get feedback and edit before publishing on Amazon. Otherwise you might end up having a bad launch with bad reviews - and those reviews stick forever.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

SunshineOnMe said:


> Rosalind, I just have to say that I'm so thankful you still post here. So many big sellers have left kboards. Spending your time to give advice is awesome. <3


This!! 
Thank you for continuing to contribute.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Nathalie Aynie said:


> Just a tangent, because this struck me. I might be wrong, but I dont think Patty "seems to feel that it's not good enough". I think she's annoyed that people disregard her success because Amazon is not her 99% income source. I think that's a big, big difference. And probably exactly why Patty is annoyed at that thread.


I agree . . . I read Patty's post as extreme sarcasm. People were implying that if you're below a certain rank or number of sales you're not "successful" and Patty's point was that no one else can tell her whether she's successful: she's the one that gets to decide that. At the same time she was acknowledging that it can hurt a bit when you think everything is great and someone comes along and pours poop on your head. Even unintentionally. 

On topic, I can't speak except for me as the last marketing course I took was over 35 years ago. But I know that when I browse for new books -- usually via Amazon or Goodreads or here (reader signatures are great because they're not just ads for something someone wrote, but evidence that someone else read it and probably liked it or else why would they have put it there ) -- the cover does a lot. There are, for me, definite styles for different genres and, depending on what I'm in the mood for, I'll look for those types of covers, or pass right over 'em.

I also see a lot of covers as I go through the Book Bazaar threads that just look very home made. In some cases these are books that have been out for years and are regularly bumped. Every time I see 'em I think "how in the world is this person getting anyone to look past the cover." But I assume some are, so clearly no everyone feels the same way. I also sometimes see covers that have exactly the elements that appeal to me -- I was trying the other day to see if I could be more specific about what that is, but so far I've not been able to -- and those I'll often click through to check out more thoroughly. Depending on the price and KU status, I'll then buy, borrow or wishlist. Or, of course, I might decide that the blurb _doesn't match_ what the cover said the book was about and go no further.

That last point is important. If the cover looks like a certain genre, and the blurb makes it out to be something else, I probably don't buy it. But at least I looked. If it's exactly the genre I like (say historical mystery) but the cover looks like something else (say contemporary romance), I'm probably not even going to click through.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that it's important that your cover convey the genre clearly as that's likely the first thing prospective readers see. Most folks won't have the patience with a 'wrong style' cover to check and see if, after all, it is the Romance they were looking for. Even fewer, I would think, will click through a cover that looks like their 7th grader's artwork.  Unless, you know, it's mean to be a kids book. 

But, again. All this is my opinion based on my personal experience as a reader/shopper/Amazon customer for 50/40/20 years and I may, in fact, be very atypical.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2016)

But are they? Doing everything right, I mean. Because clearly they're not. And though most often it's the book, there are so many factors involved, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the reason for a flop. I could tell you step by step what I do before, during, and after a release and it might not help you in the slightest. Small things like timing and placement can dramatically impact a release. All you can do is give yourself the best chance and learn from your mistakes. Because the real truth is that there is no spoon.


----------



## amdonehere (May 1, 2015)

Marian said:


> Sometimes Amazon hurts sales. Sales for one of my books that had been selling steadily suddenly stopped. I should have checked the book's detail page on Amazon, but I didn't until several days ago and saw sponsored products that are supposed to be related to my book on the detail page: two erotica billionaire books and two cozy mysteries. I have nothing against erotica billionaire books and cozy mysteries, but my book is literary women's fiction, genre domestic life. I wouldn't have checked if someone hadn't told me that she had planned to buy the book but didn't when she saw the *Sponsored Products Related to This Item*.


This happened to me too. A while back I ran a free promo. The promoter also promoted erotica and afterwards my also Boughts were populated with all eroticas. I have no issue with eroticas except my book has nothing to do with that and stuck with these, I couldn't get on the also-bought list of books in my genre. There's nothing I can do about it. I just ran another promo and some new books now got through, but the 3 books of billionaire erotica are still the first to show up except for my own second in the series and one other book. It's unfortunate but there's nothing to be done unless I run a promo that will hit over 1000 DLs to kicked these off.

I don't think it hurt my sales though. Anyone coming by will see from the cover to the blurbs and categories that my book is not billionaire erotica. So don't feel too bad about it. Just make sure you distinguish yourself enough and continue to promote to your target audience. Also, if you run a free promo that get you enough DLs, that should get those off your also-bought list.


----------



## ElisabethGFoley (Nov 20, 2011)

NicolaSDorrington said:


> I'd love to know the answer to this because I think I'm one of those authors.
> 
> My books have never sold more than a handful a month apart from when I do heavy promotion, and as soon as the promotion is over they slide right back down again. According to the comments I've had on this site my covers are pretty decent.
> 
> Now of course, the books could just be complete crap. But with 48 reviews and none below a 3 star on the first book, and steady follow up sales of the sequels I feel like have to be doing something right. But somehow they have just never caught on. There are books in my category that actually have nothing to do with Arthurian legends that keep me off the top spot in my cat even when I am selling well.


I could pretty much echo this. My last release, for instance, got a dozen enthusiastic four- and five-star reviews, sold very well its first week or two...and then simply fell off a cliff. As Nicola said, the reviews tell me I'm doing something right-but somehow I've never been able to get a book to "take" in the respect that readers find it by themselves, buy it, read it, and review it of their own free will. It always takes a promotion of some sort to give a book a kick up the rankings or acquire a new review or two. And the brutal truth is that I really can't afford to pay for advertising at the moment. If I could find an effective method of getting my books in front of potential readers that didn't cost anything, I would be very, very happy. 

I know part of the reason is that I'm not writing in a popular, fast-selling genre. Yet on the other hand, shouldn't it be theoretically easier to climb the rankings in a less popular category? Maybe the trouble is that in the Historical and Western categories, all the romances rise to the top and leave the rest of the books in the category a few pages back. But it's not just me-I have some friends who've written terrific books in more popular genres like fantasy and sci-fi, and I really thought they ought to have caught on with readers just on their own merit.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

ElisabethGFoley said:


> I could pretty much echo this. My last release, for instance, got a dozen enthusiastic four- and five-star reviews, sold very well its first week or two...and then simply fell off a cliff. As Nicola said, the reviews tell me I'm doing something right-but somehow I've never been able to get a book to "take" in the respect that readers find it by themselves, buy it, read it, and review it of their own free will. It always takes a promotion of some sort to give a book a kick up the rankings or acquire a new review or two. And the brutal truth is that I really can't afford to pay for advertising at the moment. If I could find an effective method of getting my books in front of potential readers that didn't cost anything, I would be very, very happy.
> 
> I know part of the reason is that I'm not writing in a popular, fast-selling genre. Yet on the other hand, shouldn't it be theoretically easier to climb the rankings in a less popular category? Maybe the trouble is that in the Historical and Western categories, all the romances rise to the top and leave the rest of the books in the category a few pages back. But it's not just me-I have some friends who've written terrific books in more popular genres like fantasy and sci-fi, and I really thought they ought to have caught on with readers just on their own merit.


I'd maybe think about getting new covers, if I were you. Look at what current professional covers for your subgenres are and think about switching it up? Cover art is one of the easiest things to experiment with, and one of the first things writers often fall down on.


----------



## PenNPaper (Apr 21, 2016)

Annie B said:


> I'd maybe think about getting new covers, if I were you. Look at what current professional covers for your subgenres are and think about switching it up? Cover art is one of the easiest things to experiment with, and one of the first things writers often fall down on.


Absolutely agree with this. Authors who aren't selling and can't understand why should also take a hard look at their openings compared to the openings of the best sellers. Books live and die by how quickly they draw readers in.


----------



## L.T. Vargus (Jun 21, 2013)

Re: "decent covers"

I think this thread says a lot about the difference between a decent cover vs a great cover: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,232907.0.html

It's not always about a cover being bad. Sometimes it's about your cover not being holy-crap-amazing. Or not clearly communicating the genre. Or both. I put off redesigning some older covers because people frequently commented that they liked them, even though I knew they weren't holy-crap-amazing nor did they nail the genre.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

L.T. Vargus said:


> Re: "decent covers"
> 
> I think this thread says a lot about the difference between a decent cover vs a great cover: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,232907.0.html
> 
> It's not always about a cover being bad. Sometimes it's about your cover not being holy-crap-amazing. Or not clearly communicating the genre. Or both. I put off redesigning some older covers because people frequently commented that they liked them, even though I knew they weren't holy-crap-amazing nor did they nail the genre. I don't have hard results because they just went up, but I KNOW they're better covers.


When I buy genre books I couldn't care less about covers. Indeed, most romance and erom covers are turn-offs for me. I wouldn't buy a book for those if you gave me money for it. Most romance covers are so shatteringly obnoxious and embarassing I formerly used to rip them off or cover them in packing paper. There are very few covers which even vaguely intrigue me, and they rarely belong to modern genre books.

I never just browse Amazon, if I browse, it is after I did a keyword search. I don't pick books according to covers then, I have a peek at every book matching my keywords - regardless of cover. However, most books I notice because friends recommend them, or because someone somewhere likes them a lot. A good review (not on Amazon, instead on one of the social book sites) can entice me. On Bookbub and Cie. it isn't the cover either, it is genre and the blurb.

The point I am making is that not all readers look for books the same way. Else I really agree with PJ Post's post here.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

And yet, while I don't know or care much about cover "tropes," there are many books I first got interested in because of their covers. The current Kindle first offering that I chose, I looked at first because I liked the cover (see left-most book, _About the Night_, in my reading bar). So yeah, different folks, different strokes.

Betsy


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Nathalie Aynie said:


> Just a tangent, because this struck me. I might be wrong, but I dont think Patty "seems to feel that it's not good enough". I think she's annoyed that people disregard her success because Amazon is not her 99% income source. I think that's a big, big difference. And probably exactly why Patty is annoyed at that thread.


But here's the thing: isn't the OP asking why at least on Amazon when people do everything right and don't sell on that platform what the issue is? Clearly, Patty has professional covers, good blurbs, and good writing skills as evidenced by the fact that she SELLS elsewhere. So why not on Amazon? It would indicate that there's something more going on than just those things that people tout on Kboards that are necessary for success on the Amazon platform (not overall).

Like Patty who sells well elsewhere, I actually do incredibly well with my serial site, but I haven't cracked the Amazon code yet and would not call myself "successful" on that platform. I know what to write for my readers who have stayed for years and supported me through everything. But I don't use them to buy my individual books. They get them free with their membership. So those sales are "lost" to me. I come to Amazon with just the power of the books themselves and while my Merman series has done okay, its certainly not done anything like Amanda's series or many others. Now some will say my books are not hitting the right tropes or the covers are not spot on or the blurbs don't work and I don't mind hearing these things because maybe they are RIGHT.

While I have success elsewhere I want success on Amazon, too. I don't feel badly about that or think I'm a terrible writer because I have success in other areas, but I certain want to learn what I need to do to get success in other places, too. That's why it puzzles me sometimes when people feel the need to make sure everyone knows that Amazon is not the only place there is where you can sell, because I think that's known, but it is the biggest behemoth in the room and who WOULDN'T want to sell well there?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I think it is often a mistake in business to equate your habits with everyone's habits. Covers clearly matter to a majority of readers and influence buying decisions.

I changed the cover recently on a four year old book. Before the change, it sold 1-3 copies a day. After the change, it sells 5-15 copies a day. No other changes. Went from an outdated and mediocre cover (not a terrible one, just not wow-factor) to a wow-factor cover that is current for the genre and eye-attracting.

So at least for my target readership, covers matter a great deal.


----------



## Ted Cross (Aug 30, 2012)

For me I think it's about people just not knowing your books exist, and if you have a fairly small circle you can't keep spamming them to 'market' the book, and you can't get Bookbub very often. What else works with marketing? I can't afford a NY Times spread. Then at times you feel you've saturated what little market you do have, so you stop for a while and the books sink. I'm a slow writer and I don't write in a traditional series. It all adds up to not much, at least for now. I'll just keep writing what I want to read and hope to catch on someday.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Annie B said:


> So at least for my target readership, covers matter a great deal.


That may be so. It is however my experience that often the most target-oriented covers hide the least readworthy books according to my tastes. On the other hand I've found a couple of gems whose covers were less than stellar or even a bit indifferent.

I don't disagree with you, by the way. I just take something entirely different away from it. To me the covers you describe as marketable are for me the signal to stay away from the books, because these books contain tropes and content which I don't much care about. Lowest common denominator, or mass taste. The conundrum PJ Post went on about.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Nic said:


> That may be so. It is however my experience that often the most target-oriented covers hide the least readworthy books according to my tastes. On the other hand I've found a couple of gems whose covers were less than stellar or even a bit indifferent.
> 
> I don't disagree with you, by the way. I just take something entirely different away from it. To me the covers you describe as marketable are for me the signal to stay away from the books, because these books contain tropes and content which I don't much care about. Lowest common denominator, or mass taste. The conundrum PJ Post went on about.


Yep. Which means they are doing their job, since you likely aren't the reader for those kinds of books. Everybody wins?


----------



## Thetis (Dec 23, 2015)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> Regarding covers. I've changed mine four or five times during the life of each book. Styles and trends come and go. I'm embarking upon a new refresh soon on my Rune Gate. It's like being a home owner. Maintenance is never ending.


Yep. FWIW to new authors... changing a cover on a book that isn't selling at all is unlikely to make it start selling by some sort of book fairy magic.

I see a lot of recommendations here to change covers as soon as someone posts, "Why isn't my book selling?" and if the cover is really, truly awful, then sure... change it! But if you're getting zero sales... it's unlikely to make a difference.

I think the difference comes in when the book already sells ok or even well but the cover is just decent or passable - THEN, I think, updating those covers can make an appreciable difference in sales.

I updated a cover on a book that doesn't sell well just because I wanted to. It didn't breathe new life into that book.  I've got a series with covers that are decent but in the "sells ok" category - at some point, I will most likely update them because that's an area I can see new covers making a difference. But you know, YMMV and all that 

Also, let me type "difference" one more time just because I didn't use it enough in this post


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

P.J. Post said:


> I keep seeing people talking about books as products, as if they can make your whites whiter, get better gas mileage, that the new 21st century colors are stain resistant, the fabrics wrinkle-free, or that they're free-range, more organic, or that the new ones have a lower carbon footprint, that they are low-cal, heart healthy...or even New and Improved - we all know what that means...and, you know...no, they're not.


Look, a lot of us disagree with you, myself included. Books absolutely, unequivocally, are products. Pen names, series, and authors are brands. All of the lessons of marketing apply. Books can still be art as well as products, but you're potentially forgoing income if you decide to be too precious about it. Up to you.



P.J. Post said:


> Yes, keep and eye on the business stuff, because money is changing hands, it is a business (spreadsheets and all), and lots of that stuff matters, but start being the artists you are - create from that place of who you are, not how you think audiences will react. I love Wendig's thing..._you be you_, even if that means writing to market, that's cool too.


The thing is that we're all what we've chosen to become. If you're a beginning writer, or you've been around for a while but still can't support yourself, you have the option of comparing your personal preferences to the preferences of the market and deciding where to compromise or adapt. Even writers who've already built a successful business have the option of evolving into something even more successful. We aren't static, any more than our characters should be. We can and should change.

If this thread describes your work, then you're probably trying to become someone who sells more books. Who you _are_ is a person who's writing for a living (or trying to), but struggling to make headway. That's an issue. There's no shame in it, there's no shame in changing to address it, and there's no reason why it logically follows that your work will have less authenticity or aesthetic merit afterward. On the contrary, I think it takes a lot of honesty and courage to get to that mental state.

And if you're going to argue that earning money isn't your primary concern, then why's this tread matter to you? The whole question is "Why aren't these books selling as much as they should?" You can go about your business if earnings aren't part of your definition of success.

At the risk of undermining my own points, every human should watch Exit Through the Gift Shop if you haven't already. It's apropos.


----------



## FireBadTreePretty (May 24, 2015)

Covers are a big thing for me as a reader when I browse for books online. Its just the simplest way to cull the herd. A good cover isn't a guarantee of a good book, but its a big visual clue that the author thought about the full reader experience. I am in KU now so I will take a chance if I am in the mood for browsing, but I didn't take chances when I had a limited book budget.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Annie B said:


> I think it is often a mistake in business to equate your habits with everyone's habits. Covers clearly matter to a majority of readers and influence buying decisions.
> 
> I changed the cover recently on a four year old book. Before the change, it sold 1-3 copies a day. After the change, it sells 5-15 copies a day. No other changes. Went from an outdated and mediocre cover (not a terrible one, just not wow-factor) to a wow-factor cover that is current for the genre and eye-attracting.
> 
> So at least for my target readership, covers matter a great deal.


If you're talking about Avarice, I'm probably in the minority, but I vastly prefer the original cover to the current one. The original cover was a large part of what prompted me to buy the book, after I saw it in your signature. The current cover is one that I probably would have skipped over.

Though I'll still buy Wrath, whenever it comes out, because I like the Pyrrh series a lot.


----------



## bberntson (Oct 24, 2013)

Kevin Lee Swaim said:


> Authors who seem to do everything right but don't sell, what gives?
> 
> Hey, that's my jam!


You are not alone, but I'm still not sure I'm doing everything right, either. How do I even know? I have the resources I do, which might not be many. I write the best books I can, labor over them with pain, blood and tears, and hope they resonate with people. I would think all us writers do that if we are truly honest with ourselves and our art. I don't consider myself a pulp writer, but I do a lot of cross-genre stuff, so maybe that's a big part of it. Still, I am seeing some glowing reviews for works I have, and I think when people are mentioning the heart and soul of your stories, how it made them feel, that they added you to their 'must reads' list, there is true success in that, despite the figures. The figures, hopefully, come in time, and hopefully it will resonate with a large enough audience. Of course, that's my way of making myself feel better, because I am still struggling with that. But man, when the connection is made between reader and writer, when you made someone laugh or cry or shudder in fear, then you are really doing something magical, and there you are succeeding. When people say they can't wait to read your books again and again, then I think I would take the risk of that road and it's hardship. It might take longer, be more painful, but maybe in the end it really will be worth it and more rewarding. How much are you willing to suffer for what you're creating? - I think is a good question. Many here are doing exactly that, otherwise, they wouldn't still be here. Many don't even consider it a choice.

I think I'm sounding like a Hallmark card, and got completely off topic, so forgive me. Not my intention. Peace and Happy Festivus!


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> If you're talking about Avarice, I'm probably in the minority, but I vastly prefer the original cover to the current one. The original cover was a large part of what prompted me to buy the book, after I saw it in your signature. The current cover is one that I probably would have skipped over.
> 
> Though I'll still buy Wrath, whenever it comes out, because I like the Pyrrh series a lot.


Sorry, but yeah, you are in the minority. Changing the cover was the difference between that book making me 3-6 bucks a day and making me 30-40. That's why business decisions should be business decisions. Writing is an art and a craft, but publishing is a business.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

bberntson said:


> You are not alone, but I'm still not sure I'm doing everything right, either. How do I even know? I have the resources I do, which might not be many. I write the best books I can, labor over them with pain, blood and tears, and hope they resonate with people. I would think all us writers do that if we are truly honest with ourselves and our art. I don't consider myself a pulp writer, but I do a lot of cross-genre stuff, so maybe that's a big part of it. Still, I am seeing some glowing reviews for works I have, and I think when people are mentioning the heart and soul of your stories, how it made them feel, that they added you to their 'must reads' list, there is true success in that, despite the figures. The figures, hopefully, come in time, and hopefully it will resonate with a large enough audience. Of course, that's my way of making myself feel better, because I am still struggling with that. But man, when the connection is made between reader and writer, when you made someone laugh or cry or shudder in fear, then you are really doing something magical, and there you are succeeding. When people say they can't wait to read your books again and again, then I think I would take the risk of that road and it's hardship. It might take longer, be more painful, but maybe in the end it really will be worth it and more rewarding. How much are you willing to suffer for what you're creating? - I think is a good question. Many here are doing exactly that, otherwise, they wouldn't still be here. Many don't even consider it a choice.
> 
> I think I'm sounding like a Hallmark card, and got completely off topic, so forgive me. Not my intention. Peace and Happy Festivus!


Awesome post, my thoughts as well.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

FireBadTreePretty said:


> Covers are a big thing for me as a reader when I browse for books online. Its just the simplest way to cull the herd. A good cover isn't a guarantee of a good book, but its a big visual clue that the author thought about the full reader experience.


Not exactly. It is more a clue that the author regards their writing as a product and has learned or aped something about marketing. The more one reads, the more one will eventually lean towards that perception. This is an acquired thing. Among indie books a dressy looking cover used to prove "the author cared about the basics". However, lately the majority of an immense slush pile of authors have learned that such looks are selling more books. Proof of that is that even the scammer non-books start to look like _real books_ in much the same way that phishing and spam work.

The funny thing is, in the genres I read a lot in, I've started to come across an ever growing in number type of book I tend to call _empty_. Perfectly turned out, perfectly branded, written to the market, and entirely uninteresting content without soul, or possibly the "art" PJ Post talks about. Whether it is science fiction or LGBT doesn't matter, these books are empty shells. The curious thing about them is how professional they look. With which I'm not arguing against turning out a book well. I'm just saying that readers will eventually learn to be wary of slick indie products not vetted by an actual gate keeper. It's inevitable and I see it already happening here and there and notice it in my own reluctance to credit indie books like that with the same attributes of trad published books.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Be that as it may, putting a crappy cover on your book in order to look like you've written a more "authentic" story wouldn't be my marketing choice. Whatever you-the-author think, the majority of your potential readers will equate a more polished cover with a more polished book. If you want readers to see your book as indistinguishable in quality from a tradpubbed book, you need to make it look that way. 

There always seems to be a divide, which I don't really understand, between authors who want to sell books and authors who don't care if they sell books. But whether you write literary fiction or the most commercial possible fiction, your best chance of finding readers who will appreciate what you do--that is, selling books so people read them--is if you signal what kind of book it is with a genre-appropriate, polished, professional cover, and then sell the book more with a genre-appropriate, engaging blurb. 

If you think "selling" your book is a dirty word, you're probably better off trying for a tradpubbed deal, because your reluctance to see your book as a product requiring marketing is likely to get in your way. If you do sell it to a publisher, trust me that THEY will see it only and always as a product requiring marketing--at least, the people charged with making it sell will see it that way. 

If you really want to see your books only and always as art, you're probably better off putting them up for free on Wattpad, so you can get the max possible readers without making any compromises in terms of covers, etc.


----------



## Marseille France or Bust (Sep 25, 2012)

Well said.


WasAnn said:


> There is a lightning component to it.
> 
> Lots of people who've already made it like to trot out that it's the book or the author, but the truth is that it's very difficult to figure out what makes some people strike and some not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> If you think "selling" your book is a dirty word, you're probably better off trying for a tradpubbed deal, because your reluctance to see your book as a product requiring marketing is likely to get in your way. If you do sell it to a publisher, trust me that THEY will see it only and always as a product requiring marketing--at least, the people charged with making it sell will see it that way.
> 
> If you really want to see your books only and always as art, you're probably better off putting them up for free on Wattpad, so you can get the max possible readers without making any compromises in terms of covers, etc.


Repeating for emphasis 

And as Annie also succinctly pointed out further up thread - writing is an art, publishing is a business. Being indie is about bringing the two sides together and, you know, *selling* books.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Annie B said:


> Sorry, but yeah, you are in the minority. Changing the cover was the difference between that book making me 3-6 bucks a day and making me 30-40. That's why business decisions should be business decisions. Writing is an art and a craft, but publishing is a business.


Oh, wow ... worked on me. That's a great cover.



P.J. Post said:


> I keep seeing people talking about books as products, as if they can make your whites whiter, get better gas mileage, that the new 21st century colors are stain resistant, the fabrics wrinkle-free, or that they're free-range, more organic, or that the new ones have a lower carbon footprint, that they are low-cal, heart healthy...or even New and Improved - we all know what that means...and, you know...no, they're not.
> 
> If books are simply products, the 60's would never have happened. Kerouac would never have gone on the road. Dylan would have become a dry-cleaner or something. Much of the 20th century happened because books are in fact, not products, they are not interchangeable widgets...they are not just print on a page to occupy our time like Sudoku or solitaire.


Art is art. But when you sell it, instead of keeping it or giving it away, then it becomes also a product. The productness of art doesn't diminish its artness. The categories apply in different spheres: one is the thing's identity within the field of human intellectual endeavor, the other its identity within the system of economics. Life is full of double, triple, and other-multiple categorizations that do not cancel one another out. When I go to a nursery and buy a sapling for my yard, I am buying a living being and also a product. We encounter these slightly discomfiting category overlaps constantly, though we may not often stop to think about them. Many products are not "simply" products. They're weighted in all kinds of other ways. Think of the emotional resonance of a house. Or the value of a desired item to a collector. Or of the devastation one bullet can cause. Or of seeing the bulbs you planted in the fall bloom in the spring -- that primal feeling of having made it through another winter, even though making it through winter isn't something most of us in the developed world really have to worry about anymore, in a literal sense. How about a cheap plastic rosary that becomes a focus for intense prayer and devotion? Or the collar of your favorite dog, which you still have stashed somewhere, even though he died years ago. Plenty of things produced within the economic machine and wholly subject to its laws are also more than they "simply" are. Art is not special in having this property. It's important, but it's not strange or mystically other.



Nic said:


> The funny thing is, in the genres I read a lot in, I've started to come across an ever growing in number type of book I tend to call _empty_. Perfectly turned out, perfectly branded, written to the market, and entirely uninteresting content without soul, or possibly the "art" PJ Post talks about. Whether it is science fiction or LGBT doesn't matter, these books are empty shells. The curious thing about them is how professional they look. With which I'm not arguing against turning out a book well. I'm just saying that readers will eventually learn to be wary of slick indie products not vetted by an actual gate keeper. It's inevitable and I see it already happening here and there and notice it in my own reluctance to credit indie books like that with the same attributes of trad published books.


You're making the mistake of seeing your experience of books as somehow objective and applicable to all readers. Obviously it's not, or those "empty" books would be dragged down by masses of disappointed reviews saying something to the effect of, "I had such high hopes for this book because the description sounded exciting and the cover is so cool, but it's boring and derivative, just like a million others ..." But guess what? Those books only have a handful of those reviews. Mostly, they have great reviews and continue to sell like hotcakes because _most readers are not like you_. Look, I know exactly the kind of experience you're talking about. I have it too. But most people don't react that way, and our reactions are no more valid than anyone else's. Heck, I have a flippin' doctorate in English literature, but my reactions to books are nevertheless no more valid than anyone else's. There is no reliable system of aesthetics undergirding such reactions. We each stand within the system of aesthetic values we've been trained in or adopted on our own. We can functionally argue _within_ those systems, but insisting that one system must replace another -- that valuing ambiguity, character depth, and uniqueness is _better than _valuing clarity, adherence to type, and respect for generic formulae -- is like insisting everyone must like Granny Smiths better than Red Delicious. There's no supportable way to explain _why_.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> You're making the mistake of seeing your experience of books as somehow objective and applicable to all readers.


I don't. If you go anywhere else but Amazon these days for your book reviews or reader interaction you'll discover that this change is already rolling in. I didn't say "_The more one reads, the more one will eventually lean towards that perception. This is an acquired thing._" just to voice off. It is corroborated by reviewers I follow and crops up, more and more, on a variety of social book sites I frequent. Readers are becoming aware that quite a few authors sell nicely packaged snake oil.

Just this weekend I've read at least a dozen reviews, one of which is on one of the major review blogs out there, which state the very thing I'm referring to here:_ catching blurb, promising an interesting plot, beautiful cover, but when read it is boring, cliched or not living up to the promises of the sales spiel_. A month ago this were maybe only nine or ten such reviews I noticed, the month earlier maybe only five, but as I don't read hundreds of reviews, just a few dozen per month, that's a solid tendency.

Calling this incidental is looking at it with a much too short-sighted view. By all means do so. Don't tell people later that there was no hint of such a change in reader perception of advertising and background ever happening. Or that it is without a reason or cause.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

It is always on the book. 

All you do by improving your Presentation, Price, and Promotion is get people to engage with your Product. From there, you have to draw your reader in, keep them engaged, and satisfy them to the point that they want--or, better yet, need--to read your next book. 

The fact that effective Presentation works to convince a reader to pick up a book doesn't make it hollow or meaningless. Of course Presentation isn't enough by itself; I don't know anybody who actually thinks it is.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> I don't. If you go anywhere else but Amazon these days for your book reviews or reader interaction you'll discover that this change is already rolling in. I didn't say "_The more one reads, the more one will eventually lean towards that perception. This is an acquired thing._" just to voice off. It is corroborated by reviewers I follow and crops up, more and more, on a variety of social book sites I frequent. Readers are becoming aware that quite a few authors sell nicely packaged snake oil.
> 
> Just this weekend I've read at least a dozen reviews, one of which is on one of the major review blogs out there, which state the very thing I'm referring to here:_ catching blurb, promising an interesting plot, beautiful cover, but when read it is boring, cliched or not living up to the promises of the sales spiel_. A month ago this were maybe only nine or ten such reviews I noticed, the month earlier maybe only five, but as I don't read hundreds of reviews, just a few dozen per month, that's a solid tendency.
> 
> Calling this incidental is looking at it with a much too short-sighted view. By all means do so. Don't tell people later that there was no hint of such a change in reader perception of advertising and background ever happening. Or that it is without a reason or cause.


It sounds like you've found the reviewers whose tastes resemble yours and are following them. If instead you go to the Amazon pages of the books in question and have a look at ALL the reviews -- the ones by readers NOT like you as well as the ones like you -- I think you'll see a different story. That's the case for me, anyway. I just checked out the reviews for a few books that give me the reaction you're describing. Those books don't give most of their readers the reaction they give me. They all have tons of reviews and averages well over four stars. Closer to five, in a couple cases. Clearly, most readers are really enjoying them. There may well be growing objection to the books you're calling "empty," but it could be quite a small swelling, taking place only on the ground occupied by you and the small percentage of genre readers who share your tastes. If it isn't bothering a significant group of readers, it's not going to matter to those books' success.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Tastes change. Trends change. 

Way back when, I grew up on SF and Fantasy. After college, I found myself bored with the same genre. I thought it was me. Lately, I've been reading in the era that I grew up with and having a blast. The problem wasn't me, and it wasn't the books, it was that tastes and trends changed. We are now far enough into the indie revolution that we are pushing the central trends and themes of genres. With that movement, some readers will be left behind. That's always been the case.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> It sounds like you've found the reviewers whose tastes resemble yours and are following them. If instead you go to the Amazon pages of the books in question and have a look at ALL the reviews -- the ones by readers NOT like you as well as the ones like you -- I think you'll see a different story.


Right. I think this is confirmation bias.

I'm very critical of books, personally. I seldom finish reading the ones I start. I can't tell you how many books I see with 4.5, 5 star averages and find that I can't get through the first paragraph without being overcome by revulsion. If I'm in the majority, though, it's a silent one. By and large, Amazon reviews are overwhelmingly positive on anything that sells well.

If your thesis were true, Nic, I'd think that we'd be seeing more and more reviews to the effect that "I was drawn in by the cover/blurb, but it turned out this was trash. Never again." What I'm finding much more often as I survey Mil SF reviews is "This isn't something I'd normally read, and the cover/blurb put me off initially. Finally I tried it and loved it!" The folks in this room might be the wrong ones to ask, as acutely aware as we are when it comes to negative reviews, but I'm not seeing the pushback that you've described.

I'll happily tip my hat if it turns out you're right, years from now. Just as I'll tip my hat to the people who said Amazon would be paying us 10% royalties by this point, should that day ever come.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

I've bookmarked this thread -- lots of gold dust advice sprinkled in the posts.

Of particular 'goldy-goodness' are the posts about covers. Sadly, I've spent more on cover changes than a book/series has made. Ouch! ◔̯◔

IMO, for a book with little to no visibility, changing the cover is not going to suddenly add sales or pages read. Without visibility, 0 x 0 is still 0.

Where a cover change can make a difference is when one of your other books begin to sell. That's where the backmatter helps. Links to your web page(s) with your backlog (and updated covers), give the curious reader something interesting to click on. Sometimes the only visibility a book might get is from another book.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Nic said:


> Neither the trad publishers, nor the indies will ever truly know what makes some books a success and others not.


The opening sentence of this quote says it all. There are plenty of trad-published book that end up in the trashcan and pulped. I doubt it could be said that trad-published books don't cover all the bases. Of course, they are generally in the different market place of bookstores, and to paraphrase the Heineken ad, their marketing can reach places only they can reach. They do have eBooks, but price them at the high end of the scale. Those books that fail, die in a relatively short period of time, with no further effort expended to resurrect them. End of.

For self-published, the market is almost exclusively eBooks. The majority are known to be self-published, if only because of price, so they are competing for a market segment against themselves, rather than trad-publishers. We, as self-publishers, can only market with the tools we have available, which are far less than trad-publishers. Assuming we have mimicked trad publishers in getting the story ready for publishing, then it is all down to marketing for the initial 30 day to get visibility in categories, and to obtain reviews for sales to continue. Just by sheer weight of numbers, the majority won't make it.

Luckily, we don't get pulped ,and serious authors may have a book or books in the sin bin, but many can be, and some are resurrected, even two years down the line with a promo push.

One thing is for certain, the majority of books have a short lifecycle and not one that will go on producing bestsellar, or even a modest income forever.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Most people who review books either LOVE it to death, or HATE it to death. Most people don't review at all. So you could call the reviewers who do review books, extremists


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> I'm very critical of books, personally. I seldom finish reading the ones I start. I can't tell you how many books I see with 4.5, 5 star averages and find that I can't get through the first paragraph without being overcome by revulsion. If I'm in the majority, though, it's a silent one.


I finish more of the books I start than you do, but I have to say that more often than not I'm turned off by the writing in the first few pages of a sample. When I do find an author with better-than-serviceable prose, I'm thrilled.

I've been deep in the throes of tightening up the writing in my next book before sending it off to the editor, so I haven't had time to comment here yet, but I think this is a great thread.

My feeling is that there are sooo many moving parts to this book-writing and -publishing business that it's very hard to get everything right on a consistent basis, at least not at the beginning. We need to:

Create a compelling story.
Write well on a sentence/paragraph level.
Package well. (Cover, formatting, etc.)
Distribute and price appropriately.
Promote
There's always more to learn in most of these areas, and when it comes to pricing, promotion, and trends in cover art, you're aiming at moving targets all the time. The storytelling and writing skills needed are more consistent over time, but IMO are more difficult to master. Also, I've seen excellent packaging and promotion overcome story and writing problems if the story hits tropes (see above about shaking my head at the sample of some top-selling books).


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

If anyone wants a good cover test:

Take a screenshot of the genre bestseller list of your genre. Then using Photoshop or Canva or Gimp, put YOUR book cover as a layer over one of the books. Yes, the title underneath it will be different, but that's okay. Then ask people, what books on THIS list would you click on? If your book isn't one of them, then it's time to retool the book cover. 

Your book cover has to meet genre expectations, but still stand out. It's a very hard thing to balance, and on top of that, your book covers should IMMEDIATELY tell a reader it's by you and no one else. If they can't readily identify that you are the author, then the biggest draw for a reader if they've already written something by you, that you are a favorite author, is sabotaged.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> I'm just saying that readers will eventually learn to be wary of slick indie products not vetted by an actual gate keeper. It's inevitable


I started writing and publishing in 2012 and I heard then and I've heard every year since how readers are going to go running back to "gatekeepers." I've yet to see any evidence that's happening. Covers catch the eye and communicate in a symbolic language what the book is about. Blurbs sell the story. And your writing determines whether they are going to buy another book from you in the future.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I think everyone responds based on their own experiences. If someone has made a change to their books and sales went up as a result, that's empirical evidence to them that it works. Maybe it's really only anecdotal evidence that it works for that book with that cover.

If someone makes a change in their cover and the sales don't increase, that's empirical evidence to them that changing covers doesn't work. Maybe it's really only anecdotal evidence that it didn't work for that book with that cover.

If [generic you] you're happy with your sales, don't change what you're doing. If you're not happy with your sales, consider some of the suggestions. Nothing is mandatory.

Really, all people are doing here is sharing their experiences and their opinions based on that experience. That's what a discussion board does. If what someone proclaims doesn't apply to [generic] your books, then it doesn't. Take everything with a grain of salt--consider the source, what they say, how similar their genre, etc, is to yours and decide if you want to try what they say works. Don't take things personally where it's not meant personally.

Your mileage may vary, don't drink and drive and always wear your seatbelt. Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think everyone responds based on their own experiences. If someone has made a change to their books and sales went up as a result, that's empirical evidence to them that it works. Maybe it's really only anecdotal evidence that it works for that book with that cover.
> 
> If someone makes a change in their cover and the sales don't increase, that's empirical evidence to them that changing covers doesn't work. Maybe it's really only anecdotal evidence that it didn't work for that book with that cover.


That's why it's important to test each change in isolation with paid traffic. For example...

Change the cover and buy 500 targeted clicks from Facebook. Record the number of sales.

Wait a week. Then, change the blurb headline (not the entire blurb) and buy 500 targeted clicks from Facebook. Record the number of sales.

Wait a week. Then, make another change and buy 500 targeted clicks from Facebook. Record the number of sales.

Most people seem to be making multiple changes at once and throwing zero controlled traffic at their sales page. Consequently, they have no idea concerning what's working and what's not working.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

7seasonsgirl said:


> So I don't know how people claim with certainty, that when something doesn't work it's always the fault of the book. For me it's only a visibility question, nothing more.
> As for the reviews, my first books have a lower average than my latest. Is it really because of the quality? At least here I can clearly say that it's absolutely not the case. It's just because now my mailing list, although tiny, reviews my books and when I start even with 10 good reviews it's hard to fell low since the regular readers don't review that much.
> So even if someone who doesn't like the book reviews it, its review isn't that significant. And I think this is what happens to most of the books that sell.
> So once you gain visibility, you automatically can claim that your book is good because people respond to it? Not in my opinion and this is what bothered all of us after reading this thread, claim that when something doesn't sell is because there is an issue. Sometimes there is none.


I think you're right that visibility is the central struggle, and your experience with Amazon promotions is a great illustration that luck does play a role in how things shake out: your books happened to catch the attention of someone who was constructing promos for the .fr site, and if a different person had had that duty that day, someone else's book might've been chosen -- because people working at Amazon have their own tastes, and I'm sure there are always plenty of promising books to choose from in constructing promos. Once you have Amazon promoting your books as you're describing, the struggle is over. Awesome. 

But as you say, your books had to be somewhat successful already in order to catch that Amazon worker's attention, so you were doing something right from the beginning. And the books have to be good enough inside to generate that amazing level of sell-through. So it's not _just _visibility. If it were, only the particular book Amazon was promoting would sell.

It could be that different tactics work on the .fr site than work on the .com site. I know I hardly ever sell books in France. Germany, yes. Italy, yes. But France? Very rarely. Maybe French shoppers tend to prefer standalones and have different tastes in covers. Also, you say you started two or three years ago? If so, it was quite a bit easier to get noticed then than it is now, and easier to get the ball rolling without the very grabby and highly branded covers many people are using these days.

All this is to say, yes, luck does play a big role, and visibility is the central struggle, but I think the general advice given on this thread is still sound: if your book isn't selling, taking a look at its content and presentation is a good step to take. Maybe you won't find anything that could be improved, but maybe you will.

Also, keep in mind that it's not just a matter of "quality," judged in some abstract way. With covers, for instance, it's a matter of fitting into design trends. I like my covers. They were made by a professional, and I think they're handsome. But do they fit into design trends in the genre I'm trying to sell in? Absolutely not, not at all. Almost all my my sell-through comes from readers who find my first book in boxed sets that have much stronger covers, so I'm getting away with it for now, but it'd still be a good idea for me to change those covers.


----------



## bberntson (Oct 24, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think everyone responds based on their own experiences. If someone has made a change to their books and sales went up as a result, that's empirical evidence to them that it works. Maybe it's really only anecdotal evidence that it works for that book with that cover.
> 
> If someone makes a change in their cover and the sales don't increase, that's empirical evidence to them that changing covers doesn't work. Maybe it's really only anecdotal evidence that it didn't work for that book with that cover.
> 
> ...


Well said, Betsy, and spot on!


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> Writing is an art and a craft, but publishing is a business.


And you should keep them separate. Write the book as if it's art. Then put on your business hat for everything else (editing, cover, blurb, marketing, etc.). Authors and publishers are often at odds because one person is an artist and the other is in the business of selling.

If you're doing your own publishing/business management then you need to set your art aside, pick up your product, then determine the things needed to make your product sell.



> Most people who review books either LOVE it to death, or HATE it to death. Most people don't review at all. So you could call the reviewers who do review books, extremists


And the people who started it and didn't finish it won't take the time to leave a review. Thus, the 4.5 star reviewed books that aren't that good.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

> Art is art. But when you sell it, instead of keeping it or giving it away, then it becomes also a product.


Years ago I was peripherally connected with a major international art showing of a deceased and very famous artist, a painter whose works works were then selling in the hundreds of thousands per work....when they were available.

I had a lot of opportunity to talk to the widow, and her tale was enlightening: throughout his life, her husband insisted on looking on his work solely as art. He refused to be 'soiled' by commercialism...and as a result his family sometimes went hungry. His widow spoke of "stealing" one of his canvasses piled in the studio and sneaking down the street to sell it to a sympathetic dealer so she could buy food for the children and pay the rent. They lived hand to mouth throughout their married life, and it was only toward the end of his life that he really began to be noticed and they started having a little extra money in the bank---thanks to that sympathetic dealer and the works the widow had been able to sell over the years.

After his death, the widow actively worked with some carefully chosen dealers to really get the works out there. She picked the canvasses she sold with care, ensured they were marketed appropriately and respectfully, and saw the prices for each work begin to rise into the high five figures, then six figures, then high six figures....

She said she still had a very large collection of his works that she was releasing only selectively and not too frequently because that helped the market....and ensured the trust would provide for her children and grandchildren in the years ahead. Provide very very comfortably, since she was, by then, a multi-millionaire.

She wasn't bitter about all those hard years--she clearly adored her husband and believed passionately in his work--but without her business savvy and others who believed in his work AND were willing to treat the works as "products" to be marketed, bought, and sold, those works of art and passion might well have just been cleared out with the trash and sold at yard sale prices after he died.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

> Art is art. But when you sell it, instead of keeping it or giving it away, then it becomes also a product. The productness of art doesn't diminish its artness. The categories apply in different spheres: one is the thing's identity within the field of human intellectual endeavor, the other its identity within the system of economics. Life is full of double, triple, and other-multiple categorizations that do not cancel one another out. When I go to a nursery and buy a sapling for my yard, I am buying a living being and also a product. We encounter these slightly discomfiting category overlaps constantly, though we may not often stop to think about them. Many products are not "simply" products. They're weighted in all kinds of other ways. Think of the emotional resonance of a house. Or the value of a desired item to a collector. Or of the devastation one bullet can cause. Or of seeing the bulbs you planted in the fall bloom in the spring -- that primal feeling of having made it through another winter, even though making it through winter isn't something most of us in the developed world really have to worry about anymore, in a literal sense. How about a cheap plastic rosary that becomes a focus for intense prayer and devotion? Or the collar of your favorite dog, which you still have stashed somewhere, even though he died years ago. Plenty of things produced within the economic machine and wholly subject to its laws are also more than they "simply" are. Art is not special in having this property. It's important, but it's not strange or mystically other.


Becca....I just wanted to say: That whole damn paragraph is art.


----------



## MKK (Jun 9, 2015)

Dolphin said:


> I'm very critical of books, personally. I seldom finish reading the ones I start. I can't tell you how many books I see with 4.5, 5 star averages and find that I can't get through the first paragraph without being overcome by revulsion. If I'm in the majority, though, it's a silent one. By and large, Amazon reviews are overwhelmingly positive on anything that sells well.


Ironically, this is why I think subscription services like KU and lists curated by trusted individuals/institutions will continue to exist and possibly flourish. In a world with millions of choices, only a select few will be chosen, some by accident but others on the recommendation of others. With a service like KU, you can throw the book back like a fish you don't want.

I am quickly learning that to be an successful author requires mastering much more than grammar and prose...a little luck doesn't hurt either.


----------



## CrissyM (Mar 14, 2012)

I am one of those authors. I think it's lack of marketing. 

Someone mentioned they think 97% of the time it's the book. I find that hard to believe if no one is even reading the book. For my own books I have almost all 4 or 5 star reviews, and the feedback from beta readers and other authors is all good. But without sales, and eyes on the book, no one knows I'm there. I'd almost rather have a couple bad reviews if it meant there was something wrong with the book, but really... It's just hard to get people to notice you in a huge stream of books like this. Especially in some nitche markets. 

The blurb might also have something to do with it... But even then, if people don't see the book to begin with they can't read it.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

CrissyM said:


> I am one of those authors. I think it's lack of marketing.
> 
> Someone mentioned they think 97% of the time it's the book. I find that hard to believe if no one is even reading the book. For my own books I have almost all 4 or 5 star reviews, and the feedback from beta readers and other authors is all good. But without sales, and eyes on the book, no one knows I'm there. I'd almost rather have a couple bad reviews if it meant there was something wrong with the book, but really... It's just hard to get people to notice you in a huge stream of books like this. Especially in some nitche markets.
> 
> The blurb might also have something to do with it... But even then, if people don't see the book to begin with they can't read it.


There is no real way to know if eyeballs are ending up on the book though. I mean, I suppose you can look at what happens during a promotion and if your results are above average, or you can run FB ads or something and see if you get clicks, but these things are inexact. So for all we know, the stuff that doesn't sell is being seen by people and they aren't clicking. Odds are though it is a visibility problem as well. However, I almost never see someone post asking about why their sales are low and nobody can find pretty obvious potential reasons.

Doesn't make us right, of course, but usually there's something obvious.


----------



## Kevin Lee Swaim (May 30, 2014)

bberntson said:


> You are not alone, but I'm still not sure I'm doing everything right, either. How do I even know? I have the resources I do, which might not be many. I write the best books I can, labor over them with pain, blood and tears, and hope they resonate with people. I would think all us writers do that if we are truly honest with ourselves and our art. I don't consider myself a pulp writer, but I do a lot of cross-genre stuff, so maybe that's a big part of it. Still, I am seeing some glowing reviews for works I have, and I think when people are mentioning the heart and soul of your stories, how it made them feel, that they added you to their 'must reads' list, there is true success in that, despite the figures. The figures, hopefully, come in time, and hopefully it will resonate with a large enough audience. Of course, that's my way of making myself feel better, because I am still struggling with that. But man, when the connection is made between reader and writer, when you made someone laugh or cry or shudder in fear, then you are really doing something magical, and there you are succeeding. When people say they can't wait to read your books again and again, then I think I would take the risk of that road and it's hardship. It might take longer, be more painful, but maybe in the end it really will be worth it and more rewarding. How much are you willing to suffer for what you're creating? - I think is a good question. Many here are doing exactly that, otherwise, they wouldn't still be here. Many don't even consider it a choice.
> 
> I think I'm sounding like a Hallmark card, and got completely off topic, so forgive me. Not my intention. Peace and Happy Festivus!


I may not have the right covers, and I may not be marketing my books correctly, and I may not have the best blurbs to indicate the content of my book, but I continue to get reviews where people are quite impressed with my books. The one constant in their feedback seems to be how unexpected the stories are. Many of them say they don't like the vampire genre or the military thriller genre, but they always end up saying the books aren't like anything else they've read before.

I plan to continue to write my books my way. Maybe I'll sell more. Maybe I won't. I'd like to make money for my work, but nothing compares to the fan mail I receive where people say they are blown away. That, more than any amount of sales, keeps me going.

Of course, it's been said that money IS the sincerest form of flattery and that men, like women, love to be flattered.


----------



## amdonehere (May 1, 2015)

Oh folks! All your wild theories. Come on, we know the real reason the books that have all the right ingredients aren't selling is because Kim Kardashian hasn't tweeted about it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

AlexaKang said:


> Oh folks! All your wild theories. Come on, we know the real reason the books that have all the right ingredients aren't selling is because Kim Kardashian hasn't tweeted about it.


/mic drop


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

AlexaKang said:


> Oh folks! All your wild theories. Come on, we know the real reason the books that have all the right ingredients aren't selling is because Kim Kardashian hasn't tweeted about it.


hahahahaha! Awesome.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

ameliasmith said:


> _snip_
> 
> My feeling is that there are sooo many moving parts to this book-writing and -publishing business that it's very hard to get everything right on a consistent basis, at least not at the beginning. We need to:
> 
> ...


It's like wrangling cats. Or juggling a never-ending stream of balls, many of them with spikes. Or shooting arrows at a moving target.

I believe all I can do is tell the best story I can, present it the best I can, promote as much as I can, and then move on to the next book. I don't expect to be a best seller, and would be happy with a consistent mid-list career. Others have different goals, and that's okay by me.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

AlexaKang said:


> Oh folks! All your wild theories. Come on, we know the real reason the books that have all the right ingredients aren't selling is because Kim Kardashian hasn't tweeted about it.


I'll remember to include her in my ARC list on my next release.  Oh, and Oprah, too.


----------



## ShadowcatEdits (Aug 11, 2015)

CrissyM said:


> I am one of those authors. I think it's lack of marketing.
> 
> Someone mentioned they think 97% of the time it's the book. I find that hard to believe if no one is even reading the book. For my own books I have almost all 4 or 5 star reviews, and the feedback from beta readers and other authors is all good. But without sales, and eyes on the book, no one knows I'm there. I'd almost rather have a couple bad reviews if it meant there was something wrong with the book, but really... It's just hard to get people to notice you in a huge stream of books like this. Especially in some nitche markets.
> 
> The blurb might also have something to do with it... But even then, if people don't see the book to begin with they can't read it.


I think you're completely right. There are a lot of excellent books that don't get eyeballs on the page - and some truly awful books that do very well. Marketing is a *huge* part of the equation, which stinks because it's the part most of us know the least about and least enjoy doing. The ideal solution is to hire a marketing person, but since most independent authors are working on a shoestring budget that's a tough choice to make.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Visibility has always been an issue in publishing. Tradpub is still stuck in the 'produce' model where they throw hundreds of books out there in a year without much marketing push and see which ones stick. Many are remaindered or stripped within a couple months and you never see them again. A handful do well.

As indies, at least we have the power to manage our backlist and create new blurbs, covers, editing passes, and keep backlist alive in a way that tradpub authors, chained to crappy contracts, cannot. 

Write, publish, repeat, and then maintain the backlist. I think Chris Fox used an orchard analogy at one point. Each book you write and publish is a fruit tree you plant; as it continues to live, you prune and fertilize and water and maintain those plants, even as you plant new ones. Some of the fruit won't be popular from the get-go, but others might do great. You won't know when reader interests or market shifts will happen, but as long as you're maintaining those big ol' trees, you can freshen them up and make them presentable to a new audience.

In the meantime, keep learning and keep writing. It's a journey, not a sprint or a marathon.


----------



## evawallace (Aug 7, 2014)

Now I'm not sure if my books are good, bad or only useful for wiping your ass on, but even with promotion I still struggle getting any traction. Now I know my humour is very British and therefore not to everyone's taste but would this stop getting even mild sales?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

evawallace said:


> Now I'm not sure if my books are good, bad or only useful for wiping your ass on, but even with promotion I still struggle getting any traction. Now I know my humour is very British and therefore not to everyone's taste but would this stop getting even mild sales?


They look like non-fiction. So in your case, it might be covers? It might also be that humor is a tough sell.


----------



## evawallace (Aug 7, 2014)

Annie B said:


> They look like non-fiction. So in your case, it might be covers? It might also be that humor is a tough sell.


 Thanks Annie, I've been looking at that, but a lot of the feedback about the covers has been positive. I may get some new ones done and give it a try.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> Luck isn't the proper term, that could be anything, but what consistently affects the success of books, regardless of marketing, is this Art aspect (Artness) I'm talking about, the Celebrity component. The Artness of books speaks to consumer self worth, image and aspirations prior to purchase, often even without purchase. The Artness inspires the consumer, who bestows worth onto the object that then reaffirms their own identity or aspect thereof. And while this scenario isn't unique to purchase behavior, the fact that it is a circular, self contained system that eschews all other purchase consideration is - it makes the "product" infinitely non-fungible. (A monopoly.)


Oh, definitely. Art can contribute to the art-consumer's self-worth or create social capital. Literary fiction has this effect. That's why a lot more people than have read _Ulysses_ or _Infinite Jest_ have those books on their shelves. But for the average genre fiction writer, I don't think it's a significant effect. If you get big and become a talked-about presence in your genre's fandom, then it would be a factor. The are-you-the-sort-of girl-who-likes-Harry-Potter-or-_Twilight _thing, for instance.

Books aren't fungible, but they aren't wholly irreplaceable, either. Once a reader truly commits to a series or an author, those books can't easily be replaced with something else. But a lot of readers don't _truly_ commit. They sort of commit, and if you leave them dangling too long, they forget about you and move on. Even super-fans "replace" your books with other authors' during the times when you don't have new books available. You might be their favorite writer, but they can't very well read only your books all the time, so they read their next favorite, and their next-next favorite, and their next-next-next favorite. Etc. Genre fiction facilitates this quasi-interchangeability by promising a similar experience from book to book. The goal isn't true fungibility, but something similar to it: a constant stream of books capable of scratching the same itch, albeit not in *exactly* the same way.



P.J. Post said:


> This is why YMMV because Art is true.


I have no idea what statements like this actually mean. In what sense is art "true"? Art is _human_, so it reflects all we do. It includes profound falsehood, manipulation, evil, and so forth. It's value-neutral and can be used in ways both wonderful and wretched.



P.J. Post said:


> The value proposition is twisted into substantiating the individual's unique consumer attributes, the Artness is a relative measure on a scale without discrete units, but their perception of this Artness has a significant and dramatic influence through their socio-economic, cultural and tribal interactions. The Celebrity component of the Artness fluctuates as it gains acceptance.
> 
> None of this is under our control, yet it probably accounts for 50% of the purchase decision in readers.


Really? The same 50% for this as for this? How can you possibly know this? Why would it be the same for all artworks? Doesn't dropping $60 million at Sotheby's convey more socio-economic cachet than buying an ebook, which people might not ever find out you own? Being able to buy a Van Gogh has no more impact on your self-identity than being able to buy that $2.99 ebook by ... what was his name again? You remember liking it a lot, but you've read thirty other books since it came out ...

This just doesn't make sense to me. A lot of written material is fairly disposable entertainment, and most (but not all) genre fiction fits into that category.



P.J. Post said:


> Why do people want Izod, or Air Jordans, or a Prius? Some of it is basic psychology, like color theory: orange and blue focus attention, olive green relaxes. Demographics and psychographics explain even more about consumer behavior, but all of it collectively can't explain why markets embrace Celebrity so randomly.
> 
> Marketing begins and ends with the product, period. That's true in our industry and pretty much all retail markets, and then we layer in the rest of the marketing mix (product, price, promotion and place), but it always comes back to the product, which in our case, is the book - which is Art.
> 
> ...


I think the lines between art and all industrial design are a lot blurrier than you're suggesting. The person who designs a toothpaste tube may not think of their work as "art," but an awful lot of ordinary-product work does end up in museums, once it gains a patina of age and its place in the history of design becomes more apparent. I'm pretty sure Donald Deskey's iconic Crest packaging will be in museums long after my books are forgotten. I suspect genre fiction, as a body of artwork, is no less ephemeral than design work. Some persists; much is forgotten.



P.J. Post said:


> As an exercise, take a few minutes and think about Adele, try to explain why she's the phenomenon that she is, explain why she has literally billions of views on You-tube.
> 
> You might talk about how raw her voice is, how vulnerable she is, how accessible, how beautiful her voice is, how honest she is, or how much marketing she does, concerts, public appearances, the thing is, you could write millions of words trying to explain and define what makes Adele Adele, but in the end, you'd still never be able to answer the simple question of why an average girl from London became beloved the world over. And if you can't explain it, you can't repeat it, and if you can't repeat it, then it defies analysis - which means we don't understand it, we can't quantify it, which means it's a mystery - period.
> 
> Typically, products (or in this case a brand) aren't mysteries, like Tide, or Burger King or Trader Joe's or BMW, but Art is, was, and always shall be - it's in Art's nature to be elusive.


Some art is, some isn't. We've seen ... what? ... three recent threads by KBers who intentionally wrote to market, engineering books that are selling extremely well? And a number of others have done it and talked about it after the fact. There's little mystery, here. There's analysis of what readers want and an effort to give it to them. It's understandable, quantifiable. We've seen that very skilled writers who want to do this can do it; if it were profoundly mysterious, they wouldn't be able to.

Personally, I think a lot of the so-called "mystery" of art is due to what you call "Celebrity" above -- stuff catches on due to its complex interaction with a particular historical moment, and once it catches on, reading it/seeing it/knowing about it becomes a thing. Exactly why something catches on, how it interacts with the moment, may not be possible to suss out, but that's not because art is mystically Other; rather, it's just very complicated. Figuring out why a particular politician captures the public's passionate attention at a particular moment is equally complex. These problems are hard to solve because they are not, in fact, "simple questions." They're very complex questions. But a complex question's resistance to an answer is not, in and of itself, a reason to abandon all attempts to find an answer. Complex systems interact complexly; they're not mystically unknowable.



P.J. Post said:


> The standard response to using famous people or books as examples is that they are outliers, anomalies, so they skew the metrics. But that's a rubbish analysis, because she isn't an outlier. She's exactly the same as every other artists that's ever enjoyed Celebrity, just on a way larger scale. The "process" is always the same - the anointment of "Cool", whether it's in high school, the local music scene, poetry slams, SxSW, America or the world. Whatever made Adele Adele, is the same thing that made King King and Hugh Hugh.


This is true in the same way that it's true to say that what makes bread bread is the same as what makes lasagna lasagna. They're both products of a process of combining ingredients and applying heat in an oven. But the ingredients are mostly, but not entirely, different, and so is the heating process. The particular set of ingredients that made Hugh catch on with _Wool _will mostly (but probably not entirely) differ from the set of ingredients that made Adele catch on with ... whatever her breakout moment was (sorry, I like Adele well enough, but I'm not tuned in to her career arc).



P.J. Post said:


> This is the phenomenon or mechanism I'm talking about.
> 
> We must understand our products and therefore, our audience, not as a segment of a preexisting genre audience, (that's someone else's readers), but as _OUR_ audience. This is why I'm always going on about the you being you thing (Wendig), instead of trying to emulate someone else. Cultivate your own fans, your own Celebrity. Write for the fans you want, write for the fans that want to listen - they'll love you for it.


Well, that's what I do. But it's not what everyone wants to do. Some people value making money over the being-you thing. I don't see that as selling out or a negation of art, or whatever. I see it as a pragmatic decision. We live in a society -- especially here in the U.S. -- where people _must _have income. Depending on your situation, there's very little/nothing to fall back on. All that stuff about being yourself isn't worth a hill of beans when you lose your house. The dirty bottom line is that you-be-you works out great if "you" turn out to be a Chuck Wendig. Not everyone does, so counting on the idea that your true fans will show up if you just do yourself represents a significant risk. One best taken by people who have stable jobs and are not relying on their writing income, from my admittedly cautious point of view. So, if some people who _are _relying on their writing income want to be the genre instead of being themselves, or combine mostly generic adherence with some unique elements, that seems eminently sensible to me. Could just be my middle age talking, but I've seen some of that never compromise your vision/be true to your dreams/listen to your heart stuff end in penury, divorce, and getting very sick with ooops no health insurance among my RL friends and family.



P.J. Post said:


> It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's a matter of understanding our market and the multitude of variables at play, it's about accepting the limitations of analysis and promotions, because that tells us where to invest our usually limited resources. But, when we look to the market and try to figure out what and why and how (in order to sell as many books as possible), we have to look at the wonky and esoteric nature of our market too, the Artness component that morphs into Celebrity, and that mimics the Art Market, like Music, much more than the toothpaste market.
> 
> Or reject it with the belief that spread sheets can explain everything: a new shiny cover is all the book really needs, or a Bookbub, that would probably do it...maybe if you just spend more on promotions, release books even faster, double down on the snarky computer hacker heroine, maybe a _new and improved_ sticker?
> 
> ...


I think that's a fine approach, though it's good to keep in mind that the percentage of bands that graduate from dives to stadiums is passingly tiny. And I've seen some truly amazing bands in dives.

It's _also_ fine to decide to follow Chris Fox's, Domino Finn's, J.A. Cipriano's, and Annie Bellet's examples and try to build a bestseller by studying and reproducing what's working in the genre. The latter approach isn't easy, by any means. It also doesn't preclude great work. Shakespeare wrote directly to market, for instance. Only in the latter part of his career did he break from strict adherence to the standard genres of the period. And with the exception of maybe _The Tempest_, those more innovative later works are no one's faves.

Sorry to be so slow answering this, by the way. I figured it'd be epic, so I saved it for when the movers were here. An excellent diversion. Lord I hate moving.


----------



## cebap (Dec 15, 2014)

I'd say that "doing everything right" is more than just writing a story. 

For example, I work in the video game industry. There are lots of beautiful, unique games that don't monetize at all. On the flip side, there are mobile game clones that basically print money. It's very hard to strike a balance between the two while keeping people employed. 


Up front, you need to figure out what you want from writing. If it's money, your foundation needs to be the market. I write my for-money books based on a list of popular tropes and look to see what's hot in the industry. I like to say that "you have to speak money's language to have it come to you." More often than not, the language of money doesn't inspire as much as a passion project might.


For the books that fill my soul with happiness, I try to strike a balance between marketability and creativity. Marketing is still a huge part of the process, but the decisions aren't exactly based upon the "new hotness". These are the stories that have been in my head that I have to get out before I die. My expectations for financial success are lowered for these books. Different KPI's.


The problem comes up when people expect financial success just because they wrote a great book with a professional blurb and cover. If you don't build from the ground up based on the market it will fail on those metrics.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

cebap said:


> I'd say that "doing everything right" is more than just writing a story.
> 
> For example, I work in the video game industry. There are lots of beautiful, unique games that don't monetize at all. On the flip side, there are mobile game clones that basically print money. It's very hard to strike a balance between the two while keeping people employed.
> 
> ...


Exactly. There is a difference between writing to trend and writing to market. I wrote to market, I didn't write to trend. I wrote what I wanted to read and made sure I didn't accidentally miss the tropes that help make popular UF popular. I did my own thing, just made sure the parts that weren't "my" thing were true to the genre. I don't see that as selling out, I see it as making sure the books I'm writing appeal to the audience I'm writing them for.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

B.A. Spangler said:


> ...for a book with little to no visibility, changing the cover is not going to suddenly add sales or pages read. Without visibility, 0 x 0 is still 0.
> 
> Where a cover change can make a difference is when one of your other books begins to sell. That's where the back matter helps. Links to your back list (and updated covers), give the curious reader something interesting to click on. Sometimes the only visibility a book might get is from another book.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Becca, your posts continue to be thorough and eloquent. I'm 100% behind what you're writing here (and not just because you mentioned me)! Specifically that products and art live in and serve different spheres of purpose.

The whole "Books are not Widgets" argument gets thrown around a lot, but I think it does a disservice to widgets. I mean, no one is saying selling books is guaranteed if you follow a formula. But don't pretend that widgets are easy to sell either. If everybody could sell toothpaste profitably then a lot more people would be doing it.

I'd never claim there's no such thing as an X factor when it comes to sales, but books (or even art) aren't the only special snowflakes that have X factors. What makes Red Bull or Monster energy drinks take off when others don't? Is there no art to their taste and presentation? Does a toothpastes mouthfeel not count as subjective?

(And let's be realistic. I'm not saying toothpaste is as artistic as a novel. But there's room for product and art in the same package.)


----------



## Phantammeron (Apr 23, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> Don't forget the Dunning-Kruger effect. I'm not saying you fall into this category, but just because you think a book is good, or the writing is good, doesn't mean it is.


I agree with this comment. What one person likes might not read well to another. There is a certain subjectivity to all creative works. And the success and quality of a book are not proportional. I would say writing for pop culture book buying trends and large series and numbers of books is a closer measurement of success online and on Amazon than writing a quality novel. Some very poorly written novels have hit the big time, so success is not about the writing. The fact you mentioned that you found low ranking books with bad covers but quality writing is also proof. Marketing or fancy covers alone wont bring success to those books, either, if they do not match the market. That's why the best measure of literary merit to me is still with the Booker, Nobel, Newberry, and Pulitzer. Those prizes are given to novels that may or may not be bestsellers on Amazon but certainly were after being read and recognized outside of the online book selling world.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

Phantammeron said:


> I agree with this comment. What one person likes might not read well to another. There is a certain subjectivity to all creative works. And the success and quality of a book are not proportional. I would say writing for pop culture book buying trends and large series and numbers of books is a closer measurement of success online and on Amazon than writing a quality novel. Some very poorly written novels have hit the big time, so success is not about the writing. The fact you mentioned that you found low ranking books with bad covers but quality writing is also proof. Marketing or fancy covers alone wont bring success to those books, either, if they do not match the market. *That's why the best measure of literary merit to me is still with the Booker, Nobel, Newberry, and Pulitzer.* Those prizes are given to novels that may or may not be bestsellers on Amazon but certainly were after being read and recognized outside of the online book selling world.


Given the degree of nepotism and old boy networking that goes on in the literary world, and the barriers to writing faced by the less well advantaged, it isn't to me. Have a read of this for example: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/
We all have our own measures of literary merit, but relying on literary prize awards of good writing shouldn't be our only guide.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Abderian said:


> Given the degree of nepotism and old boy networking that goes on in the literary world, and the barriers to writing faced by the less well advantaged, it isn't to me. Have a read of this for example: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/
> We all have our own measures of literary merit, but relying on literary prize awards of good writing shouldn't be our only guide.


Agreed. Apart from everything else, almost all professional awards require you to submit your work and pay an entry fee. It's not as though there's a committee sitting around somewhere earnestly engaged in seeking out and acknowledging the absolute best work that they can find. They're business ventures.

I always struggle to make sense of it when people say they're looking for that kind of traditional literary validation. Is that really going to feel more genuine or meaningful than a heartfelt note from a reader who was moved by your work? Helped by it? That seems like a much better brass ring to me. Make somebody feel something.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Over the years, I've read some fantastic articles on popularity. There are scientists that study this very effect. Some things succeed. Some don't. Simplified, early adopters are a big part of that theory. They makes or breaks your launch. If you can get the early adopters paying attention to you, then they are the bridge to wider adoption. In that respect, any success in books is really a success with early adopters until you get more widely known. 

I don't have any good article links on hand, but I encourage you to go find those articles.


----------



## Phantammeron (Apr 23, 2016)

Since 2000, all our search engines, as well as book seller's online systems, are all designed around algorithms, where the winners who get to be seen are those able to manipulate their content to match what the engines require - a form of popularity contest. The algorithms behind these system end up rewarding the popular search engine players against the will of other content holders....ie web site owners who dont have the money or time to leverage those systems. That's why years ago, we used to beat Google at their search game by plugging in keywords into web pages, headers and metatags to cause web pages to rise in the search rankings, until Google got smart about 10 years ago and changed that system, while adding AdWords that shifted the search model. Im a software engineer and have built a lot of online systems and done my share of SEO. You cant forget these are all computer driven systems......there's very little "art" in them beyond setting up product supply to meet demand. So original talent, unique art, and literary merit is just going to get lost there. That's something that Big Data predictive math, like non-linear regression and neural network mathematics cant measure, thank goodness. 

My point is Amazon is a microcosm of that type pf popularity contest in selling books. Some people here seem a bit naive in thinking that the winners here are simply writing "great" books then magically rising through the ranks. But that's not always the case. Its also knowing the marketing rules, etc. Whats written is matching popular trends which is marketing, too. So selling books is just like any search and sales online system; its driven by rules to sell products. Figure those rules out and you win the game. That explains why some poorly written books are being sold in record numbers. Just look at the authors who came on board the eBook Kindle site when it first started, and how many of them admit today that they rocketed quickly in popularity simply because they had less competition and had stronger marketing opportunity. Again, book quality not a strong factor.

I'm not saying there's not incredible writing going on, and great books being added online to the system which find success with a wider audience because of an author's talent. *But I am saying, based on the original poster's remark, that finding well written books with bad covers buried in the system is proof its flawed*. Hard work and talent doesn't always make you the prom queen in terms of online sales.....but popularity will. And knowing the rules and writing to fit genres is a big driver, simply because they are designed by smart people and built to generate income that connect products with reader's demands, not great "art".

It doesn't help that mass market fiction is not a barometer of literary merit, either. Just look at all the talented authors rejected by trad. publishers over and over the past 150 years. That means the winners today have figured out the system and are designing products to match demand, whether they do it consciously or unconsciously. Sorry, that's not art. That's a hunt for money, which is fine. I would say that's the hidden truth in book selling success online. But again, that should have nothing to do with the value of literature and art getting written and created, why its written, and the long term value or importance of the author and his work apart from online sales success and readership. We just have to hope vendors like Amazon will look at those well written novels buried in their databases and wonder how those works can be valued beyond the wider popular culture online. It is a big problem.


----------



## Alvina (Oct 19, 2015)

I have just seen a book that seem to do everything right, gives you secret to win on Roulette and even teach you how to become a regular gambler in casino. Furthermore, the book is only $9.99 and 6 pages in content.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Alvina said:


> I have just seen a book that seem to do everything right, gives you secret to win on Roulette and even teach you how to become a regular gambler in casino. Furthermore, the book is only $9.99 and 6 pages in content.


ONLY $9.99 and 6 pages? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.


----------



## Alvina (Oct 19, 2015)

Donna White Glaser said:


> ONLY $9.99 and 6 pages? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.


No kidding! You can search for "Roulette" in Amazon.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Donna White Glaser said:


> ONLY $9.99 and 6 pages? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.


It doesn't do anything right.

It has a terrible cover, bad title, lackluster description, and no social proof (I'm not counting the sock-puppet review).


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

The way the system is set up now, most good books can't succeed. Half of the daily Amazon ebook sales come from the top 0.25% of books. That's also the sales rank around 10,000 and lower.  With say 100 Amazon categories and a usable depth of visibility of 100 titles in each, there's your 10,000 books right there.  Same with pretty much all on-line entertainment. It's not "niche-ey" enough to have a flat sales distribution, because when you funnel everything through a single (or a few) sales site, you get, well, a funnel. This is the "winner-take-all" syndrome.

What I would love to see is that 50% sales point move to the top 100,000 ebooks on Amazon (about 2.5%), because I think the top 2% is a realistic number of "good" marketable books that have an audience. But I really don't see how that is possible with a single storefront, and authors who are doing well are going to be hopping mad when it happens because their revenue will drop by about 10x.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

555aaa said:


> What I would love to see is that 50% sales point move to the top 100,000 ebooks on Amazon (about 2.5%), because I think the top 2% is a realistic number of "good" marketable books that have an audience. But I really don't see how that is possible with a single storefront, and authors who are doing well are going to be hopping mad when it happens because their revenue will drop by about 10x.


I think I agree with you in economic terms. Speaking generally and in the abstract, I'd love to see wealth distributed more equally. Checks out so far. It'd also mean greater representation for a greater number of voices, potentially, and that's to the good.

On the other hand, I don't have time to read 2% of all books. I don't have time to read one book by 2% of all authors. I have to be really choosy about the tiny handful of all words in print that I'm going to take the time to read, and the fact is that I want to play my favorites. If I get absorbed in something like A Song of Ice and Fire, that's at least half a dozen authors I've got to choose never to read at all.

It's an interesting question to think about at that level. Would the world be a better place if we read widely, instead of deeply? I'm not sure it would, because there's a lot to be said for depth: that's where expertise comes from. It'd be different, though, and I'd certainly enjoy some of those differences. I'd rather see ten authors earning $60,000 a year than one earning $600,000. We'll have to see what I do to put my money where my mouth is if I wind up as one of the fat cats, years from now.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2016)

Alvina said:


> I have just seen a book that seem to do everything right, gives you secret to win on Roulette and even teach you how to become a regular gambler in casino. Furthermore, the book is only $9.99 and 6 pages in content.


I assume this is a joke. Unless you mean the author is "doing everything right..." as in meeting all the criteria of a scamlet?


----------



## G.L. Snodgrass (Aug 12, 2014)

To address the OP. I have had books sell over 10,000 while others sell less than 1,000 and then another over 10,000. Same genre, same length, same price, all released within months of each other. Self-made covers. etc.

The only difference. The nature of the story. My popular books were about characters the readers connected with in situations they found interesting. The less popular books had less interesting characters in boring situations.

I found that the interesting books caught the attention of enough readers to drive the book up in the rankings which got more readers and increased word of mouth. One of them reached 795 in all of Amazon without advertising, mailing list, or price reduction. The less interesting barely broke 10,000 in ranking. 

Write what people want to read. Hit the tropes they want to see, price it correctly, put a correct cover that lets them know what type of book it is.


----------



## Holly A Hook (Sep 19, 2010)

Here's my take on "doing everything right" and not selling. This is long, so I apologize. I kind of got started and just kept going, but I think I came to something at the end.

******​
You work hard. Very, very hard, like you should. You've been at this writing thing for a couple of years, maybe even more. Maybe even five, if you started back in 2010 or 2011.

You begin your day early so you can get some writing done before you go to work. Your alarm goes off at 5am and you drag yourself out of bed, even though you could use a little more sleep. But you need to get up early to get your writing for the day started because you can't write at your day job without getting in trouble. That, and you know you're going to be way too tired after your 10 hour shift to get anything done.

So you sit down, blink the sleep out of your eyes, and write. If you're lucky, you get in a thousand words before you have to pack your lunch and start your 40 mile commute. You also pack your netbook and your thumb drive right beside your sack lunch.

That's on a good morning. If you wake up and the roads are icy or you've gotten a surprise 3 inches of snow overnight, that writing time goes out the window. You get right in your car and drive slow to work so you don't die.

You think about the same thing during every drive to work: when will it happen to me? When will I get to hand in my two weeks' notice? When will I finally have the freedom to pursue other things in life besides work, writing, and chores? Because you don't have time. You never have enough time. Your life is passing you by.

These have been your thoughts for years.

Years.

Because with every book release, you've dared to hope that maybe this book is The One. The one that will take off and bring attention to your backlist. The one that will rocket your sales to the point where you can live off your writing income. You've released five, ten, maybe even more titles. You had professional covers done and wrote for your genre. You had professional editing done and did blog tours. You've built a mailing list like they say you're supposed to. You've dome promo after promo. Sale after sale.

And every time it's the same.

You email your 1500 followers on release day and get between 5-10 sales. Maybe a few reviews. That's it. It's not enough to apply to promo sites before the 30 day cliff hits. You wonder what you're doing wrong. You got many of these mailing list sign ups through your back matter and more through Facebook ads, so at least some of them should be engaged. But most of them aren't interested in your new releases.

Amazon's algos quickly decide your book is not worth it. Your book dies. Every. Single. Time.

You ask for help. See if you need new keywords, or a new cover, or maybe a category change. You tweak your blurb. You drop your price to 99 cents in the desperate hope that someone might take a chance on you. And it never helps. You even run a sale and spend unspeakable amounts of money on promo sites (and only if you can afford it) to get some traction going. You do get a spike of sales, but they come nowhere close to recouping the costs.

And then your book dies again.

You've heard the advice. Write another book, and another. So you do. Soon you have a few books with good covers and editing. And nothing has changed. They all sell just a handful of copies per month. So you keep writing, hoping that Something Will Change.

You're doing everything right and you still fail. Maybe you don't tell good stories. Maybe you don't connect with readers - except that most of your reviews are decent.  There's no concrete reason for this.

So you do the only thing you can do. You write faster, releasing ever faster, hoping that something will stick. That's why you've taken your netbook to work. So you can write between bites on your lunch break. So you can pound out a book a month.

And you do. If you're lucky, it's another 1000 words or so before you need to punch back in.

Your work day ends and you do the long drive home. It's tempting to stop and grab something to eat, but since you don't want to die of an early heart attack, you know you should go home and cook. So you do. You get in the door. Go right to the stove, whether or not you have kids. (And if you do have kids, there are after school activities as well.)

If you're lucky and still have some energy, you write again after dinner. You're dead tired by time you're done. And the house is a mess. You know you should keep it much better and you try, but the place keeps turning into a disaster with so many people living in it. You know that, even though they don't say anything to you, that those you live with resent you for it.

You're lazy. A slob.

It's eight at night, so you check your sales instead. Four or five sales total. Ten books published. Today isn't that bad. At least there's something. On a good day, you might hit 10 sales, but today's average. Four or five. There are some days you have only one or two.

And then you check your email.

There's one great, awesome promo site out there that would change your career if they would only accept one of your books. Your heart begins to pound when you remember that you sent a submission a few days ago. But then you open the email, and it's that same form rejection letter you've seen at least 20 times. This awesome promo site doesn't even want your normally $8.99 box set that you're going to discount to 99 cents. They don't want your permafree with 170 reviews. They don't want anything with your name on it, and you have no idea why.

And yet others get accepted all the time and they don't have to hold down a day job, that's for sure. And they have half the books you do. They've been writing for half the time. They're doing something right and you're faltering. They've written great thrillers, romances, mysteries. Maybe even horror. They've written to market.

Then you look at your books. You've come up with some weird, strange, off-the-wall ideas and fit them the best you can in an established genre. You haven't followed the trends exactly.

And you've been paying the price for years.

You go to bed, realizing that this has been your mistake all along. You can change it, but you have to start over. Study the market and see what's hot right now.

This might be the solution, or it might not. After all, you've tried everything else.

You go to bed with this thought.

And before you know it, your alarm is blazing. It's 5am. Time to get back to work.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Holly A Hook said:


> And yet others get accepted all the time and they don't have to hold down a day job, that's for sure. And they have half the books you do. They've been writing for half the time. They're doing something right and you're faltering. They've written great thrillers, romances, mysteries. Maybe even horror. They've written to market.
> 
> *Then you look at your books. You've come up with some weird, strange, off-the-wall ideas and fit them the best you can in an established genre. You haven't followed the trends exactly.
> 
> ...


I could have practically written this post, but the bolded part is it exactly. Having nearly fifty books published, most of them not selling anything that month, the others not selling more than 1 or 2 copies. The bit about emailing your list of 1000+ people and less than 10 of them buying the book. God, I know that feeling.

You can do this. You can try _again_. I launched an unknown pen name (Val St. Crowe) a few months ago. I have two books in the series. One is ranked around #1500 and the other around #2300. I get mailing list signups daily. I've already made double the amount of money I need to pay my bills this month. The only difference between these new books and the books I wrote before (that don't sell) is that I wrote to an existing market and I tried to make them books that other people would like in addition to something I would like. I didn't try to be different or innovative or quirky.

Anyway, hugs. That struggle is crushing. And the fact you keep going in the face of it is only a testament to how badly you want this. And you'll get it. I've often heard it said that the only way you fail at this business is by giving up. Doesn't sound like you're there yet, so--in my book--you're succeeding.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

I think I'm one of those authors who's doing everything right but doesn't sell. It's improving slightly--this May is now the best month I've had yet. Maybe my stuff isn't genre appropriate (judging from the best-sellers in the Superhero category, what Amazon thinks of as superheroes and what I think of as superheroes are very different). Maybe my genres are too niche. Maybe my stuff is too short. Maybe I'm not marketing as well as I should. Maybe I'm just unlucky.

Or maybe I just suck and I'm too stubborn to realize it.

I'm trying to switch things up later on this year. Wrapping up all my series and then starting something new that will hopefully be more commercial.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Holly A Hook said:


> Then you look at your books. You've come up with some weird, strange, off-the-wall ideas and fit them the best you can in an established genre. You haven't followed the trends exactly. And you've been paying the price for years.


This is me, too. My books are epic fantasy... but not quite. They're sorta romancey, but not really. When I published the first, I put it in the romance category, but when it snuck onto a bestseller list, briefly, it was surrounded by nekkid men. So I took it out of romance. And my second book still gets huffy reviews because it looks like a typical YA, feisty teenage heroine, coming of age thing... and it really isn't. I've thought about writing to market, but I don't *read* on-genre-target books so I'm never going to be able to write them. I really like the quirky, unpredictable stuff.

But...

Despite all that, my books do sell, albeit at low levels. When a certain kind of reader discovers one of my books, they go on to buy the whole lot, and grumble that there aren't any more out yet! And each new book ramps things up a little more. I'm not earning a living wage from it, but I'm covering my costs and a bit more besides. And I'm good with that, but then I'm not stuck in a soul-destroying job that I desperately want to get out of.

For those who are, and who want to earn a living from their writing, there's no substitute for the whole write-to-market-and-write-fast thing. You can do that and still stamp your own personality on your books. I've seen people do it, so I know it can be done. You just have to be very determined, very driven, very focused. It's not easy, but no harder than what you're doing already.

Good luck with it, and thank you for your very evocative and thought-provoking post.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I do want to say what I've said many times. I don't read to trend, and I don't write to trend, other than one book that was for Reasons. I sell anyway, though probably not as well as I would if I wrote to trend. But I sell well long-term, over time. My books don't hit hard and then fall away to nothing. 

Right now, for example, I just had book 3 of 4 released in a very un-trendy series. It's romantic suspense, but from what I now know, follows none of the popular tropes. And I've written other romsus before this that also didn't follow the tropes. I had a book released in December that was a high school principal and a cleaning lady. That is NOT to-trend romsus! It did pretty well, got into the 100s at $5.99, even if not into the top 100. The series as a whole is a Big Social Issues series with lots of family stuff and nary a Navy SEAL or spy in sight. 

So it IS possible. You do have to make sure, though, that you are absolutely fulfilling what a reader of your general GENRE wants to find in terms of an emotional, imaginative, whatever kind of experience in reading your kind of book. You need a good hook, something to grab readers' attention. You need standout covers. Etc. (My first book in abovementioned series--he's a wheat farmer, but he's also a former NFL QB, and he's described in the blurb as a "cowboy," because I knew that would sell better, and he's that kinda guy from that kinda place. And it did work. The word "cowboy" gets used a fair amount in reviews etc.) 

It still probably isn't as sure a path as writing to X Trend. But it can work, and it can allow you the freedom to write what you like.

For me, I have no choice, because these are the only stories my brain comes up with. I'm not a Writer with hundreds of ideas, or who could be given a writing prompt and write a story or book. I don't have an imagination like that--at all. I just have these stories that occur to me because they're interesting and then grow to the point where I can make a book of them. 

I honestly think the whole "write to market and it'll work" thing is a bit of an oversimplification. I started writing because I loved the work of Susan Elizabeth Phillips, and she didn't write fast enough. Her books are not to trend and I don't think ever have been. The first book she submitted to publishers, though, found a publisher immediately, first try, and she's sold like crazy ever since. She puts out a book every 2 years or even longer. 

I think, if you went around and collected evidence, you'd find there are a lot of writers/readers like that. Yes, there's a certain segment of the market for Genre X that wants a very regimented, expected kind of book. But that isn't the only segment. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> I do want to say what I've said many times. I don't read to trend, and I don't write to trend, other than one book that was for Reasons. I sell anyway, though probably not as well as I would if I wrote to trend. But I sell well long-term, over time. My books don't hit hard and then fall away to nothing.


Writing to market is different from writing to trend. I think you might be touching on that when you say:



Rosalind James said:


> You do have to make sure, though, that you are absolutely fulfilling what a reader of your general GENRE wants to find in terms of an emotional, imaginative, whatever kind of experience in reading your kind of book.


If you replicate popular tropes well, you'll probably hit those notes, even if you don't understand them. On the other hand, if you have a solid grasp of what the typical reader is looking for in terms of an emotional, imaginative experience, perhaps tropes don't matter as much.

This is where it's a huge boon if you love to read the genre that you're writing. What do you love about it? What do you want to feel when you're reading those books? What kind of a world do you want to experience? What kind of thoughts should it evoke?

I think it's a lot harder to wrap your mind around things like that, instead of just replicating a bulleted list of reliable tropes, but give it a shot if you feel confident. My guess is that folks like Rosalind are able to move further outside of the box because an understanding of the reader's desired experience that goes way beyond 1) plucky heroine, 2) meets angsty billionaire, 3) perseveres through conflict, 4) [nobbc][/nobbc], 5) HEA and profit.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Dolphin said:


> Writing to market is different from writing to trend.


This. So this. Writing to trend is NOT the same as writing to market. Rosalind doesn't write to the trends, but her romance (yes, even your RomSus  ) hits right on the things that romance readers love (okay, maybe just *this* romance reader, but clearly not just me going on sales). Knowing your market just means knowing what people who would read the kind of book you want to write would want and making sure you put that in there. Often that's not necessarily Seals or Shifters or whatever, but something more general like themes and tone, character stuggles/conflicts, and how things end up.

I think one of the hard things about writing off-genre/cross-genre is that often authors don't know where exactly to put the book. Do you market the steampunk thriller to thriller readers or steampunk readers? They pick one and pray, and often seem to miss the qualities of what make a steampunk reader wanna read a steampunk book (or they stick it in thriller with a thriller cover when it's really mostly steampunk) or they brand all steampunk and it's really more of a thriller, or they missed the things that both audiences look for (in the book and in the marketing, often times). That's why I think picking an audience when you figure out what you want to write is a better choice for most (not all, just most) writers who want to have an audience in the first place. That could mean writing to trend, but it could also just mean writing the best freaking steampunk book you've always wanted to write and making sure it will directly appeal to people who love steampunk books as much as you do (ie... writing to market).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Annie B said:


> This. So this. Writing to trend is NOT the same as writing to market. Rosalind doesn't write to the trends, but her romance (yes, even your RomSus  ) hits right on the things that romance readers love (okay, maybe just *this* romance reader, but clearly not just me going on sales). Knowing your market just means knowing what people who would read the kind of book you want to write would want and making sure you put that in there. Often that's not necessarily Seals or Shifters or whatever, but something more general like themes and tone, character stuggles/conflicts, and how things end up.
> 
> I think one of the hard things about writing off-genre/cross-genre is that often authors don't know where exactly to put the book. Do you market the steampunk thriller to thriller readers or steampunk readers? They pick one and pray, and often seem to miss the qualities of what make a steampunk reader wanna read a steampunk book (or they stick it in thriller with a thriller cover when it's really mostly steampunk) or they brand all steampunk and it's really more of a thriller, or they missed the things that both audiences look for (in the book and in the marketing, often times). That's why I think picking an audience when you figure out what you want to write is a better choice for most (not all, just most) writers who want to have an audience in the first place. That could mean writing to trend, but it could also just mean writing the best freaking steampunk book you've always wanted to write and making sure it will directly appeal to people who love steampunk books as much as you do (ie... writing to market).


Really wise words.

It means reminding yourself in big bold letters, "It's a ROMANCE, stupid," even if that means printing it on a Post-It note and sticking it on your desk. Even if it's also a family story or a book about being on a historical-reenactment reality show or a murder mystery. The story has to be ABOUT how this man and woman get together--meaning it has to end strongly with that, most of all.

Happy glow. Happy glow. Happy glow.

Or whatever it is for, um, horror. (Don't wanna know.)


----------



## JTriptych (Aug 23, 2015)

Great thread. Im bookmarking this.



Vinny OHare said:


> I can tell you it is probably a lack of marketing, not doing it frequent enough. I have seen a few authors that keep promoting book 2 and 3 and not the first one. My guess is they are trying to hook the reader and have them go back and buy the first book. Could be a big mistake in my book.
> 
> Do you ever click the inside the book and see if it is poorly written? Grammar? etc


I think thats my issue: marketing. I have been focusing on just pure production for the last six months, now that Ive finished one trilogy I am working hard on book 2 of the second one (which is part of the same universe) and then I will write a sequel to my formerly stand-alone crime thriller. I havent spent much on marketing other than doing guest interviews and placing a free KU day on some of my books (with one minimal $30 ad) and they've shot up to #1 in the genre rankings- which lasts for weeks. So I figure some people might like them after all.

I'm still learning the ins and outs of this ruthless business and Ive got another year to work full time in this before I may have to go back to work if it doesnt pan out. So, I'm pretty nervous and excited at the possibilities. Keep on going and forever hoping just to get an ROI.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I will also add, since it seems to be my Weekend to Be Blunt: Lots of times, I see people on here on threads like this talking about how they just don't know how to market/haven't done it enough, or it's luck, or whatever, and right away, I can see really obvious things. Especially: Cover, blurb, lack of editing.

In other words: they aren't "doing everything right." They're not doing some things right that are fairly easily fixable, in fact.

I've said this before, too, but: *The most important marketing happens before you publish your book.* Writing in a popular genre. Having a hooky premise. Writing hookily in general. (I wrote a big post about that once and people chimed in a bunch; it was a cool thread and the concept worth thinking about, I believe. It falls under the heading of "craft," perhaps, and doesn't get the importance it deserves, but it really matters.) Getting your work EDITED so you don't have dangling modifiers or unclear antecedents (let alone typos) on Page 1. Cover, cover, cover. Blurb.

IF you can't read your title. IF your title/author treatment looks homemade. IF you have more than a couple reviews mentioning editing. IF your blurb is a synopsis or is so vague that a reader has nothing to interest him/her. (In other words, if it isn't hooky.) IF it's super obvious from your author page or your "Look Inside" that you're self-published . . . None of those things will fly in 2016. They may have a couple years ago, but the competition is much tougher now.

I'm not saying that's all there is, and I'm sure as heck not saying that I do all these things "right" myself, or that everybody who does all these things "right" will sell big. But you have to get those things MOSTLY right to have a realistic shot, and to have any marketing efforts you do make after publication bear fruit.

Good news is: If you do get them mostly right, you've removed some major obstacles that would otherwise be in the way of success. You've increased your chances and allowed the "luck" part to more easily find you.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Right, we see these things all the time in threads asking what's wrong with books that mainly just have the wrong cover/title/blurb. They might not even be bad, per se, but they're going after the wrong audience. It's a lot easier to get away with unusual twists if you make a point to market the book to the right audience.

Never forget which _*existing*_ audience you're writing and marketing toward. You don't get to invent new ones.

Incidentally, have people done seal shifter SEALs already? It seems so obvious, but I want to make sure we're on top of that. They'd be so...sleek.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Also whiskery. Beards are in.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Also whiskery. Beards are in.


I'll be so pleased when that's over.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> I'll be so pleased when that's over.


Three words. Son with beard.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Three words. Son with beard.


Write him out of your will. Not a court in the land would overturn it.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> I'll be so pleased when that's over.


My beard will be gone when you shave it off my cold, dead face.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> My beard will be gone when you shave it off my cold, dead face.


That can be arranged.


----------



## Wired (Jan 10, 2014)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> Most people who review books either LOVE it to death, or HATE it to death. Most people don't review at all.


This.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> That can be arranged.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> Three words. Son with beard.


I foiled my son's attempts to grow at beard with genetics


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> My guess is that the problem is lack of marketing. I have friends whose books are better than mine but I sell more because I market more.


I think you hit the nail on the head. I have good books but I don't promote them but I'm going to start doing that a lot more.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> Promote more, and you will (most likely) be rewarded.
> 
> The books I'm referring to as better than mine (but selling less) are better in all ways. The opening pages, blurbs, covers, and reviews are far superior to mine, and the potential audience is much larger.
> 
> Digression: I think sometimes readers' opinions about what makes for a good cover are different from authors' opinions. One of my books had a cover many authors criticized, as it didn't follow the guidelines (as set out here and elsewhere). When I changed it to a cover that did all the right stuff (according to authors, who said they loved it) sales went WAY down. It makes me wonder if the authors here who are saying they can glance at a book and tell right away why it isn't selling are not always 100 percent correct.


Nobody is 100% correct. Everybody is experimenting, guessing, and learning. It's an inexact science. There are general things one can do to improve one's odds, that is all.

I'm not talking about "Trend X" covers. I'm talking about objectively amateur-looking covers. Covers are a quality signal, among other things.

Most people in my genre would tell me to put naked male torsos on my covers. I don't, for reasons that to me, outweigh the potential benefits of the torsos. That's an example of "genre-appropriate covers" being another case of "it depends."

However, this is why I don't like the prevalence here of people not showing their books or their real author names. You do want to know who's giving you advice. Not all advice is created equal, particularly marketing advice.

(Note: If you send me a PM and want an answer, tell me who you are. I'm not anonymous, and I don't have private conversations with anonymous strangers. And no, I'm not going to one-star your book or steal your ideas or whatever it is you're worried about. For the record: very, very little negative has happened to me here, and I've never been anonymous.)


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> However, this is why I don't like the prevalence here of people not showing their books or their real author names. You do want to know who's giving you advice. Not all advice is created equal, particularly marketing advice.


I'm not sure that it necessarily helps to know more about the person behind the advice. There are a fair number of authors who are very successful, but haven't a clue why. Or they became successful three years ago when the market was very different. Or they've never really had to do much heavy-duty marketing, so they don't understand prawny issues. I think most people are capable of weighing up the value of advice, and whether it applies to them, without knowing whether the person offering it is a newbie or a USA Today bestseller. The only people I would say to be cautious about listening to are those who've not yet published, because the view is very different on this side of the looking glass.


----------



## UltraWriter (May 25, 2016)

I'm not self-published, so please don't hold that against me. Some reasons why writers may be doing everything right, but still don't get the returns. (Please forgive me, as I have not read every page in this thread).

Marketing and publicity have already been touched on and the points made were valid, I thought.

Some others ideas, though.

1. Your publisher is either not well known or in a niche market. In my case, a few of my books are with an LGBT press. No, I'm not gay--nothing wrong with that, just saying--yet I've written lesfic. Yeah, really! The company I work for is small, but puts out, I feel, quality work.

Niche markets may simply not get you the proper exposure if your novel falls outside that genre. It happens. If there are fewer people in said market, then you'll have fewer potential readers.

2. You're already in a glutted market. Guilty, here! I write primarily Young Adult Action/Paranormal novels. They've been highly rated in most cases (the Catnip series, Star Maps, Twisted, among others) and yet sales could always be better. Why? Millions of novels IN that genre. I'm competing with heavyweights in some cases and let's face it, many readers like their tried-and-true fave authors. 

3. Not engaging. It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Readers are not only buying your work, they're buying your personality, and that means engaging on social sites to a degree. A person I know recently wrote a nice book. Not great, I thought, but nice. However, in her posts on social sites, she comes across as being racist and reactionary, intolerant and rude, and she constantly complains that her novel is not selling because people are judging her character and not the contents of her book. Fair enough...but this has happened before with other writers. They've written good books, but espoused noxious views on certain ethnic or religious or racial groups. While that didn't kill their sales, it didn't help much, either. 

I'm sure the other points have been touched on as well, so I'll stop writing now.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

To paraphrase Wil Wheaton, "Don't be a jerk."  It's a pretty good rule of thumb.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

For me, momentum has been the issue. I was doing really well by spring 2015 after three years of figuring it out. I released two books last year, nearly six months apart. And then got slammed with a bunch of health issues. I didn't release anything after August, and I stopped marketing entirely in October. My sales tanked.

I'm just now gaining momentum again, after re-releasing two books this year and releasing a new one. I have another book coming out later this summer. My release schedule is every 2-3 months. And my production schedule is packed full.

I've noticed, from my own experience and from observing other authors, that you really can't rest on your laurels. Six months or a year between releases might as well be an eternity in this business.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Worth saying that it seems (assuming you have written a decent book), one of the great things about self publishing is just because it isn't selling at the moment doesn't mean you're dead as a writer. You can put a new cover on it and put some thought into a marketing strategy and energize it. You have the time to figure things out, whereas with trad it seems you have to find your audience ASAP or die.

Just a nice thought.


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

elizabethbarone said:


> I've noticed, from my own experience and from observing other authors, that you really can't rest on your laurels. Six months or a year between releases might as well be an eternity in this business.


This is absolutely true, no matter how successful (or unknown) you are.

And I also have to note, even though others have done it before, that writing to a specific market and doing so purposefully, from the start of a book or series, is hugely important for your promotion activities. That way you know exactly whom to target, and how. Writing quirky, unique (despite creative and perhaps even innovative) things that have no market demand will make promoting and selling extremely hard. REGARDLESS of the packaging. You can't hit it big (or earn your rent money) with something superb that only 5 people truly want & appreciate.


----------



## MJSauthor (Jul 7, 2016)

Everything about the book market is a twisting, shifting, moving target. And there are so many variables in what could make your book(s) successful (whatever that means to you). No one wants to hear it, I'm sure, but a lot of it comes down to a combination of luck and elements we can't control or see. The old cliche of catching lightning in a bottle... it's true. All we can do is write a good book, make sure its well edited, has a good cover, and do our best to promote it in as many ways as possible without losing our minds. And just stick at it. There's no right answer, as is the case for most things, sadly. And if you find something that works for you and your book(s), by God, hold on to it.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

kathrynoh said:


> I foiled my son's attempts to grow at beard with genetics


Sadly, didn't work with any of my three boys. Receding hairline? Oh, yeah. No beard? Nope. Hairy little monkeys. 

I agree that marketing plays a big role -- at least nowadays -- in getting books sold. I think I could have had more sales if I'd had money to promote from the beginning, and knew how to go about it. I'm behind the curve, but determined to catch up. I'm going to try to get my next book some listings so more than the five people on my mailing list, and the random searchers, will find it.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> I'm not picking on Veronica...


Maybe not PJ but I think you're being unfair anyway. The two takeaways from her post are:

1) Knowing the market you are targeting makes marketing easier.

This is a no-brainer and is absolutely true, regardless of quality of the book.

2) Innovation/ originality/ uniqueness/ whatever _without market demand_ makes marketing harder.

Veronica never opined on what was _better for readers_ or made _amazing books._ This is YOUR position that you are inserting against hers even though the two don't need to be at odds with each other.

You are completely correct that authors breaking new ground can have amazing results, but it's disingenuous to think that path is easier or even as easy as writing to market (when it comes to _selling_, which is what this thread is about).

No one said catering to existing audiences is a guaranteed way to make money, but it's often easier than starting from scratch and creating an audience.



P.J. Post said:


> As a reader, I think it sucks. There's pretty much always demand for entertaining, fantastically written books.


I can understand this position on an emotional level (because I am a shameless media snob), but intellectually, why does it suck? There are quirky, original books out there and there are comfortable genre books out there and everything in between. Isn't THAT better for readers? To have a choice? If you feel like turning your brain off and not being challenged by something new, shouldn't you be able to do that?

One of the biggest eye-openers for me coming into this biz was that a large percentage of readers are looking for the same experiences over and over again. That's why genre matters. And there's nothing wrong with serving that market.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> But is it easier? Marketing still requires creativity and persistence and opportunity and luck.


I don't see how it _isn't_ easier. Say (for the sake of argument) that marketing requires the 4 things you mention (creativity, persistence, opportunity, luck) with the 5th being an awareness of your market, isn't having one of your problems solved before you start going to make things easier? I mean, knowing your market is a facet of marketing, hence knowing your market makes marketing easier. To me, yes, that debate is a no-brainer.

That doesn't mean you can't do it any other way, and it doesn't mean knowing your market will make you more successful, it just means that it makes marketing easier. Having a good cover makes marketing easier. Having a compelling hook, or genuine passion, or a ton of other things make marketing easier.

I agree that covers play a HUGE role, but I would argue that successfully targeting your market is MUCH more important than promotion. Promotion helps get eyes on your Amazon page, but it doesn't make it sticky.

I do hear you about the focus of the indie community, though. We often see the sentiment that no one here talks about craft. That's true. But I'd argue that what makes us most unique as indies is NOT that we're authors but that we're publishers. If you want to talk craft, why does being indie matter? Find a forum with trads and indies and hobbyists and whatever.

I'm certainly NOT saying that non-business-minded self-publishers aren't welcome. I totally respect authors who write without a care for anything but the art. BUT I do think indie forums will naturally tend to focus on the independent-publisher aspect because that's what sets us apart.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Athena Grayson (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm trying to teach myself to write to market right now. It's like teaching my elbows to bend backwards. My instincts are to subvert the trope, lampshade it, lampoon it, and twist it. I know it backwards, inside-out, and upside-down, but I cannot play it straight yet.

Now, ask me to market to market, and I can do that--I'm one of the last on the bandwagon of whatever's been working for others for so long it's starting to go stale. That's the time I'm all over it, and everyone else on the planet is rolling their eyes and sighing at yet another author schmucking around with that tired old promo. Except for covers. I have a hard time trusting myself on covers, because the ones I love are rarely the ones that capitalize on genre appeal (see my space opera romance below? Big lady-head. No ship. No chesticles. I defy the gawds of two big-hitting genres like Prometheus sneaking into Mt. Olympus and then deciding that suffering humanity didn't need the gift of fire as much as they needed the little guest soaps in the side-bathroom in the upstairs hallway). But my covers are gorgeous, and my tribe of worshipful proto-humans will be the best-smelling frozen miserable people-sicles you'll ever find.

I suspect the real secret is an individual one--how much can you internalize/incorporate The Tropes into whatever's coming out of your heart and soul and landing on the page, and then putting on your big-kid marketing undies to make the look and feel of your "product packaging" match the other products next to it on the shelves. I think when you "do everything right" that maybe "everything" isn't quite your individual and personal blend of "to market" and "from genuine place."

And sometimes, it's because the venue is flawed. Writers releasing books in the second half of 2015 through KU had a much harder time of it (not saying every writer did) overcoming the spam that littered the venue. That was something the individual authors couldn't really control--promo will only do so much against that onslaught, and there's always more spam than legit promo. A certain amount of luck and timing goes into every book release. Sometimes you roll snake-eyes. But everyone here has an infinite number of chances to take another turn at it. And some of us may never learn how to bend our elbows backwards, but we'll always come out a little more flexible than we started.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Four P's in publishing: Product, Presentation, Pricing, Promotion.


Just to add to that, you have to work to the principles of product (not branding) ads and project, What it is, Where it is, and then How to buy it, with as little fuss as possible.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

P.J. Post said:


> Nothing about any of this is easy, but I'm seeing this commercialization group-think in the Indie community more and more. I think it can derail new writers: rather than pursing their passion (having something to say), they pursue acceptance.
> 
> And yeah, that sucks.


As a reader first and foremostly, because that is as what I started right in my childhood, I agree with you, and I guess this is your tangent as well.

On average I manage to read five or six books a month, and I listen to maybe double as many audiobooks while working my 9-to-5 job. That means I read upwards of 18-20 books per month. I prefer engaging, interesting, sophisticated and original books, and I try choosing such books when I buy. My spread, for the past few years was 1/3 established (Big 6) authors and 2/3 indies.

During the first years into indies I discovered many exciting new authors with fresh voices and stories I loved. I was quite happy with that status quo and never thought that could change. All these quirky, strange, different stories no one ever published before, because they'd never make it through any slush pile, or if, then only with great difficulties. Unfortunately this has changed.

During the last year there were less than a handful of indie books I found enjoyable and fresh. What I met though were many books written to the market. They come along at a faster clip than the trade publishers would publish them. They all are self-published or from small indie presses, and they swing with the _it-book_-flavour of the day. The volume is so enormous, that these largely mediocre to downright boring books drown out the very few which are still original voices. I'm talking books which are produced along all the lines of proper marketing, fully edited and given a good cover and blurb. They obviously even earn their authors handsome income, which is fine for the authors.

It's the reader me who is unhappy there. Because not a single written to market book I read or listened to the past two years was truly enjoyable. In view of how rare original and daring voices have become, I can well understand the despair of another author-reader over the push beginning authors are exposed to, a push to comply with these marketing rules. That smothers the content I would like to read. It's a bit like how the French view fast-food culture invading their cuisine.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

P.J. Post said:


> In my day it was: Product, *Place* (_distribution channels, not presentation_), and then Price and Promotion. Presentation is (was) covered by Product (packaging) and Promotions (POS displays and advertising.) Where you sell is as important as any other part of the marketing mix. The interesting thing is that for each distribution channel, you might have specific pricing, products (special editions with different packaging) and promotions to better target that consumer, it might be geographic, like another country, or any of the the other demographic segmentation strategies.
> 
> Just, fyi.
> 
> Yep, with the additional caveat that books WTM don't necessarily generate more income.


Those are my Ps for this product in this market. Place doesn't matter much now as you aren't selling physical products in a physical store. All about Presentation for us IMO.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Of course you have a few things for products in different stores: sexier covers for iBooks and Play, keywords in the Play description, maybe ads targeting the different stores. But those are tweaks compared to the supreme important of your Presentation. 

(I have an MBA in marketing and used to work with retail products as well as with mail order, so I do know the traditional way to define this, but I think the focus in indie publishing has to be quite different. None of that's rocket science though--I've seen that marketing in indie publishing is mostly common sense, getting the presentation right from the beginning, and trial and error to see what works for individual-you and doing more of that.)


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> As a reader first and foremostly, because that is as what I started right in my childhood, I agree with you, and I guess this is your tangent as well.
> 
> On average I manage to read five or six books a month, and I listen to maybe double as many audiobooks while working my 9-to-5 job. That means I read upwards of 18-20 books per month. I prefer engaging, interesting, sophisticated and original books, and I try choosing such books when I buy. My spread, for the past few years was 1/3 established (Big 6) authors and 2/3 indies.
> 
> ...


But Nic, if those "quirky, strange, different stories" were what most people wanted to read, they would still be at the tops of the best-seller lists. If more generically typical books have displaced them, that's because most readers prefer generically typical books. Now that indies are producing such books and making them affordable or free through KU, people are snapping them up like hotcakes. You're simply experiencing life as someone with non-mainstream tastes. Readers with atypical tastes have always worked harder to find books they like; your situation as a reader is nothing new.

You appear to be asking authors not to write the books most people want to read, thereby passing up the most likely route to supporting themselves, just so you have an easier time locating books you'll like. Why not just accept the fact that people like you have to look harder? Network with other readers who have similar tastes. Move more toward the blurry line between genre and literary fiction, where more unusual works tend to crop up. The books you like are still out there. Let the people who want typical genre fare enjoy the books they like, just as you enjoy the ones you prefer. Railing against the fact that most readers aren't like you is pointless, and asking authors not to do what it takes to make a living isn't fair. People who prioritize writing quirky, strange, different stories will still write them, while those who _need _to make money from their writing have a way to do so, assuming they can pull it off (I don't think writing to market is easy).


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> But Nic, if those "quirky, strange, different stories" were what most people wanted to read, they would still be at the tops of the best-seller lists. If more generically typical books have displaced them, that's because most readers prefer generically typical books.


I do not disagree. My opinion of the mainstream audience is about as low as it can get. This is the same audience who watches daily soaps, eats fast food and is being led about by a nose-ring by the advertising industry. You can sell such an audience the worst kind of junk and they will gobble it up. No contention.

That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. Or that others can't have a slightly more erudite taste. It also doesn't mean that Stephen King or JK Rowlings can't outsell and outlast EL James or Dan Brown.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> I do not disagree. My opinion of the mainstream audience is about as low as it can get. This is the same audience who watches daily soaps, eats fast food and is being led about by a nose-ring by the advertising industry. You can sell such an audience the worst kind of junk and they will gobble it up. No contention.
> 
> That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. Or that others can't have a slightly more erudite taste. It also doesn't mean that Stephen King or JK Rowlings can't outsell and outlast EL James or Dan Brown.


I'm sorry. Only one response is possible.












But seriously, I bet you're as in thrall as the rest of us to advertising and consumer culture. Different identity to advertise --> different products being chosen, that's all. It's just about impossible to escape this stuff. I know quite a few folks who'd never eat at McDonald's or shop at Walmart, but you sure couldn't pry them away from their organic, locally grown heirloom tomatoes; boutique fruit-infused balsamic vinegars; recycled-wood Waldorf-based children's toys; and "toxin" banishing green teas. It's all about what fits the identity you want to project. I spent an awful lot of years running in the latter crowd, and I still share some of those tastes. But I look around at the state of the world, and damned if just turning my brain off for a while for some easy fun doesn't sound pretty good a lot of the time. TLR: Totally understand the readerly desire to sink into genre. It's relaxing.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> But seriously, I bet you're as in thrall as the rest of us to advertising and consumer culture.


You would be quite mistaken.


----------



## MGD (Jun 16, 2016)

Nicole De Leon said:


> I've looked inside a few of the novels and some of them had surprisingly good writing (given their ranking). I haven't read any though, so I'm just speculating here. It's entirely possible it's due to the book itself, like Annie B suggests. I just find it surprising that sometimes, a book with a homemade cover and what is (in my opinion) bad writing, somehow shoots up to top 1000 but other books with seemingly better quality struggle to break six figures.


don't subtract the human quality. The more people the author knows. The more people who read the book and are willing to tell their friends. The more socially active their network is and so on. Also, book blurbs and professional covers say very little. I've seen many a book with obviously professional covers and such but when I read it and viewed it thought just another vampire story or sci-fi fantasy they have to offer something to the reader they don't already have. Don't judge a book by its cover, your best writers may not be able to afford to buy into the industry.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Nic said:


> I do not disagree. My opinion of the mainstream audience is about as low as it can get. This is the same audience who watches daily soaps, eats fast food and is being led about by a nose-ring by the advertising industry. You can sell such an audience the worst kind of junk and they will gobble it up. No contention.
> 
> That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. Or that others can't have a slightly more erudite taste. It also doesn't mean that Stephen King or JK Rowlings can't outsell and outlast EL James or Dan Brown.


As a reader who enjoys best seller/big name books I guess I've just been insulted. 

For the record -- I also read a lot of 'midlist' type books and quite enjoy the sort of things that mash up genres if they're well done -- usually they're small press or independently published titles. I grant you they're harder to find . . . . but I have my ways. 

Of course, I didn't start out reading off the wall stuff; I learned to read with Dick and Jane like everyone else. Except I was in a Catholic School so it was John and Mary.  And once I got glasses and could actually see the words on the page there was no stopping me. 

Over the last 50 years, the more I read, the more I learned to appreciate a good story, well written, and came to not care much whether it was a 'best seller' or 'big name author'.

And, of course, as I have matured, my reading tastes have changed. I'm not sure they're yet 'erudite' but I certainly do read a lot of different types of books. I'm good with that.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

One thing I rarely hear mentioned here is that some of the successful authors have a strong SEO background. Those people can usually sell anything.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

I'll never understand the need for some people to brag about how non-mainstream they are.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

Luck.

I have two pen names. One of them just didn't quite take off. Objectively the books aren't any worse than the books of my other pen name that makes 5 figures a month.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Ever seen the phrase "_best writers that you've never head of_"? That sort of thing runs around in memes. McNovels have usually sold better than Novels Wellington.

I've been studying the early history and evolution of the modern fantasy novel. (1970-1990). The stories begin (in 1970) being targeted to the adult fantasy market, grown ups reading exciting books. Trilogies and ad-hoc series quickly emerged because the market liked series. With teens reading these books, the publishers shifted the age range down. By 1990, I recall almost every single book being about some prince whose lost his throne/is an orphan, and wants to free his country from tyrants. You may think that I'm kidding, but I recall a day in Waldenbooks, reading back covers, vainly striving to find something that wasn't about a prince.

All markets naturally settle to the most profitable level absent disruption. In this case, disruption was a kiddie book (1997) about a boy wizard that no fantasy novel imprint wanted. It wasn't about a prince. Who wants to read that?

Not also coincidentally, these were the golden years for TSR Publishing, the mainstreaming of anime, and ever more engaging computer games. When audiences didn't find the stories that they wanted, they moved to other media, thus creating a selection bias in the book market.

The marketing lesson is clear in many respects: 1) There lots of money to be made in what's popular, no golden ticket needed. 2) If you can find/write the disruptor, that's a golden ticket. You'll soon be printing money and the market will chase you. 3) Golden tickets aren't so easy to find. 4) Silver and Bronze tickets are more available and can earn you a nice living if you can find that profitable niche.


----------



## Lisa5 (Oct 23, 2012)

Abalone said:


> Literary acclaim.


lol being famous and literary acclaim are two different things. By the way my first published book placed fourth in the Romance Writers' of America contest The Passionate Plume for best published, erotic paranormal, romance in 2013. So that's my literary acclaim.


----------



## Lisa5 (Oct 23, 2012)

MGD said:


> The more people the author knows. The more people who read the book and are willing to tell their friends. The more socially active their network is and so on.


EL James already had a huge fan base from writing _Twilight _Fan Fiction, and posting it on fan fiction sites before she was published by The Writer's Coffee Shop Press.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I wonder if people are so entranced with what's selling (the WTM books) because that's what they want, or because they're settling for what's being shoved in their faces.

Another thought: perhaps all this about WTM and write series is because the entire market is being driven by a small subset of readers, which to me seems to have started with the famously voracious romance readers.

Thought #3: perhaps it's possible to be successful, if we're willing to give it more time, and accept that being a "best seller" isn't necessarily the right goal.

Thought the fourth: There isn't just one seller of anything. McDonald's competes with Wendy's, fancy restaurants compete with each other, middling restaurants compete with each other. Some shop at Target, others at Wal Mart (both of which sell the same products at roughly the same prices, and neither is any better to their workers), some at Macy's some at Penny's some at that ritzy store in the big city.



> Because not a single written to market book I read or listened to the past two years was truly enjoyable.


I think we're not the market for these books. I know I'm not that into reading fifty-bazillion billionaire BDSM shapeshifting seal Navy Seal books. Especially if they're in series. I like the different stories, the ones big trad houses say there's no market for. And over the years I've bought lots and lots of books, it's not like I only read three or four books a year. I'm a voracious reader, and will read almost any genre you could name, if the story is good.

And I've had another thought (I know, it's getting dangerous in here): what if the market for writers like me hasn't quite caught onto ebooks? Or especially indie books? What if in six months or a year, things suddenly turn around and those writing to market can't sell their installments of hot guy body -- or whatever trope -- and we're the ones everyone is looking at for answers?

Ah, dreaming, I am. All I know is, if I have to write what are basically widgets just like the others, only different (!), then I might as well be working in a factory. At least I'd get paid vacations, holidays and health insurance.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Nic said:


> I do not disagree. My opinion of the mainstream audience is about as low as it can get. This is the same audience who watches daily soaps, eats fast food and is being led about by a nose-ring by the advertising industry. You can sell such an audience the worst kind of junk and they will gobble it up. No contention.


Dang...does this mean I have to get a nose ring? 

Betsy


----------



## Lisa5 (Oct 23, 2012)

ShadowcatEdits said:


> The ideal solution is to hire a marketing person, but since most independent authors are working on a shoestring budget that's a tough choice to make.


Does that actually work out for some people? I've only happened to read about authors feeling scammed by that kind of thing, but admittedly I don't know much about those services.


----------



## Lisa5 (Oct 23, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> But seriously, I bet you're as in thrall as the rest of us to advertising and consumer culture. Different identity to advertise --> different products being chosen, that's all. It's just about impossible to escape this stuff.


Idk I have ad-block online and I don't watch TV except for shows I find online when I'm using my adblock and then I do market surveys all the time to earn vouchers and they are always asking me have you seen this ad and this ad and this ad. And I've never seen any of them.  The only ads I see these days are billboards, and such, and junk mail in the snail mail box.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

darkline said:


> Luck.
> 
> I have two pen names. One of them just didn't quite take off. Objectively the books aren't any worse than the books of my other pen name that makes 5 figures a month.


Uh-oh, don't use the "L" word. Some people don't like the "L" word when it comes to selling books. (Even though it's _always_ a factor of any success in any type of business.  )


----------



## Athena Grayson (Apr 4, 2011)

she-la-ti-da said:


> I wonder if people are so entranced with what's selling (the WTM books) because that's what they want, or because they're settling for what's being shoved in their faces.
> 
> Another thought: perhaps all this about WTM and write series is because the entire market is being driven by a small subset of readers, which to me seems to have started with the famously voracious romance readers.


Well, considering that "readers" themselves are a small subset of "people" then I'd say all book markets are driven by small subsets. The trick is finding the right subset for your individual stuff. We've already seen (and Chris Fox, et al have written about) the "hot'n'hungry" subgenre, so I don't think people are reading what's selling because it's the only thing available. I think people are buying what they want, and large numbers of authors, many of whom happen to also want that same thing, are rushing to give them more of what they want. It's like feeding a teenager--at first, you stand at the kitchen door and throw anything edible at hand at them, until they stop snarling and you can start tossing them food until the murder leaves their eyes. Only then can you *serve* them a *meal.* Which is pretty much what happens in a hot'n'hungry genre--at first they hoover up anything remotely like it, then the authors toss them everything they can, and finally, when that genre's readers' hunger has had its edge taken off do they begin the process of discernment. That's why genres like PNR, UF, and Shifters get progressively tougher to make a dent in as time goes by--the readers' palates have developed more specific genre expectations. They're ready for meal service, not starvation response.



> Thought #3: perhaps it's possible to be successful, if we're willing to give it more time, and accept that being a "best seller" isn't necessarily the right goal.
> 
> Thought the fourth: There isn't just one seller of anything. McDonald's competes with Wendy's, fancy restaurants compete with each other, middling restaurants compete with each other. Some shop at Target, others at Wal Mart (both of which sell the same products at roughly the same prices, and neither is any better to their workers), some at Macy's some at Penny's some at that ritzy store in the big city.
> 
> ...


Writers aren't the same as readers, even though we are readers. We're like magicians watching other magicians. There's always half an eye (or more) on the craft.

I also think that "bestseller" as you said, isn't necessarily the right goal, but I'd put forth that "bestseller" has always had a number of different definitions and meanings, depending on who's asking. Just like "success" means different goalposts to everyone here.

I'm also fond of the "different" stories. But like pr0n, I can only know 'em when I see 'em. Readers who like the "different" will ALWAYS have a tougher time of it finding what they like to read, because of the way marketing works. Nic, et al, I don't think that there are any fewer "unique" books out there than there have ever been. But a portion of those "unique" books' authors will have made marketing decisions about how they present their product, and the unique will often camouflage itself as the "to-market." More than likely, it'll share many commonalities with the "to-market" because a book can be unique and possess tropes at the same time.

It goes back to the ol' discoverability issue--how does an author find the readers most likely to enjoy her books, and how does a reader find the books she most wants to read?


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

katrina46 said:


> One thing I rarely hear mentioned here is that some of the successful authors have a strong SEO background. Those people can usually sell anything.


I have a background in search marketing, both paid and organic. Neither help me to sell. Rather, they help me to connect with my target audience - specifically, folks who signal commercial intent - and pull them toward my sites.

It's my copy that sells. And kickass products.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I am so like you. My tastes are kind of weird, but for years, I was pretty well satisfied by the Sci Fi market (not fantasy) with the occasional Gothic thrown in. Most of my books were bought as old paperbacks from used book stores. Then I kind of moved on to mysteries with the occasional horror. And a sprinkling of old romantic suspense from the 70's.

Then I found indie authors and Whoo-Hoo! All kinds of different things to read at usually very reasonable prices. I was in heaven. Then I noticed trends toward a sort of "sameness."

But for me, I'm still pretty happy because some small publishers have realized that there is a vast backlog of older books from late 19th century through the 20th century, that they can publish at relatively low prices and reap the benefits. I'm finding this to be a real saving grace, particularly for finding really interesting older mysteries from a time when writers were still experimenting with the mystery genre and trying different things (before it got so regularized into Cozy vs Procedural, vs etc).

And Amazon, bless their little hearts, have figured out that I like books on the fringes and they've suggested a lot of interesting books that are new to me, even if they were written a hundred years ago.

This isn't very helpful for new writers, except to say that if you want to try something a little different, do so. You may not make money for 100 years or so, but I can guarantee that you will find readers who will be grateful to you for writing something that is a little different. Even if it isn't/never becomes great literature.

Remember: Good writing isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always good writing. 
There are no guarantees. 
It's just a toss of the dice.


Nic said:


> As a reader first and foremostly, because that is as what I started right in my childhood, I agree with you, and I guess this is your tangent as well.
> 
> On average I manage to read five or six books a month, and I listen to maybe double as many audiobooks while working my 9-to-5 job. That means I read upwards of 18-20 books per month. I prefer engaging, interesting, sophisticated and original books, and I try choosing such books when I buy. My spread, for the past few years was 1/3 established (Big 6) authors and 2/3 indies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

I'm still having a tough time reconciling "the greatest literature ever" and Jaws!

To be fair, PJ, I think some items on that list are more derivative than hindsight suggests. Harry Potter and The Road began in solid niches.


----------



## kellymcclymer (Apr 22, 2010)

P.J. Post said:


> Just to clarify, these are some of the "different and obscure niche" stories I'm talking about (in more or less chronological order):
> 
> The Time Machine
> War of the Worlds
> ...


Here is a very hard truth for you: those books became bestsellers for three reasons: 1) they were championed by an influential literati; 2) they were purchased -- in hardback -- by libraries; 3) they were put on reading lists for high school and college students.

There are some exceptions (mostly in science fiction and fantasy, where the readers vote with dollars and specialized bookstores feed the voracious readers).

To be clear, I understand what you're saying, and have read almost all of these books and agree that the authors did something very different with the storytelling. But the traditional model accounts for these types of books by doing deliberate work ahead of publication to let critics and booksellers know "this story is different!"

It is much harder for an author to do the same for her books. For one, many of the above authors weren't trying to do something different, they were just writing the story they wanted to tell  For another, most readers don't realize they're looking for something different until someone else tells them it is good (I know, I know, they miss such great stuff that way, but...)

And most readers want: "the same, only different" which is why the truly unique is so rare in traditional publishing (not all of the above books are as unique as Hitchhikers Guide or Neverwhere, but all of them rise a cut above the rest of the books published around them). Naturally, authors who want to pay the bills with their writing will gravitate toward writing for the market. There is something seductive about the idea of eating every day.

The answer you're looking for may be for authors who want to write unique fiction to gather their readers together and create a rabid fan base to spread the word to other like-minded readers. Even with publisher and influencer support, many unique books don't make a lot of money.

Finding those unique-minded readers is the knotty problem. I used to find a *ton* of new-to-me authors when I went to SF/F conferences as a reader. But I don't do that any longer...I need to start doing that again.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

There are a few problems with pointing to different/obscure books that were successful and saying, "LOOK! PROOF!"

1. Some of these are the exception as opposed to the rule.
2. Some have been pushed by other figures (as Kelly said).
3. Some were published in a time when the publishing landscape was drastically different.
4. Some are different mediums (Watchmen is a comic book and though there are some similarities, the comic book industry and the prose book industry are very, very different with different methods of distribution and advertising, especially at the time of Watchmen's release). 
5. Some are not as different/obscure niche books as you seem to think. A Princess of Mars, for example, may have broken new ground in terms of science fiction. But it's basically a classic hero myth with a lot of the same archetypes and story beats found throughout mythology. On the surface, A Princess of Mars seems pretty different from anything else at the time. But if you look beyond the surface elements, it actually has a lot of similarities with countless other stories people have been telling over the span of centuries.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Are all of those books that quirky or different? Sure, A Clockwork Orange and Lolita are one thing. But Silence of the Lambs, Mystic River, Gone Girl, The Notebook... perhaps they weren't written taking the exact trends of the time or written specifically to market (other than a general crime/thriller/romance market), but it's not like they are far out quirky unmarketable books. I would have thought they occupy a sweet spot. They're of their genre enough to not alienate readers, but the take is something new and not exactly on trend.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

P.J. Post said:


> The list just goes on and on. These are books that went sideways, had something to say, were new - and not only did they challenge the market, they invented completely new genres and changed the expected tropes forever - changed literature forever. We're not talking about sub-sub-sub genre niche books, we're talking about the greatest literature - ever. I think that is a path worth aspiring to walk upon, regardless of sales. I want to be a writer, not a widget retailer (I sell widgets during the day, nothing wrong with widget sales). And I think there are others who share this mindset, so it's important to present this other side to achieving success as well - they're not doing anything "wrong", because another thing all of these books have in common, for the most part anyway - they made a ton of money.


Once I spent an entire afternoon making big lists (like this one) of "breakout" books that defined a new subgenre or genre and tried to figure out how to write one. What I got was that you should write something sort of like what had come before but a little bit different in some way or other...

Which is what I did for my whole career up until I started trying this "write to market" thing (which is working out pretty sweet for me, I gotta say....) And what someone said to me was that basically, yeah, you can write something a little offbeat and it *might* be that big hot new thing that takes off. But the odds are that it won't. Because there are tons of offbeat books that fail to find an audience. Most books that change things up do not actually take off. The lists we both made were of the exceptions to the rule.

That's not saying it's a bad idea to write that way, unless your goals are to write full time and make comfortable money. When I was childless and fancy free, it was no big deal to live on teensy bits of money and write depressing, vaguely literary genre fiction. But now my goals have changed. This writing-to-market thing works, though, people. Find a genre you like, hit the tropes, make the cash.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2016)

darkline said:


> Luck.
> 
> I have two pen names. One of them just didn't quite take off. Objectively the books aren't any worse than the books of my other pen name that makes 5 figures a month.


Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. - Seneca


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> *snip*
> Some are not as different/obscure niche books as you seem to think. A Princess of Mars, for example, may have broken new ground in terms of science fiction. *But it's basically a classic hero myth with a lot of the same archetypes and story beats found throughout mythology.* On the surface, A Princess of Mars seems pretty different from anything else at the time. But if you look beyond the surface elements, it actually has a lot of similarities with countless other stories people have been telling over the span of centuries.*snip*


Yup. I'd actually argue the vast majority of examples on the list given, follow the Hero's Journey (Mythic Structure) to a T.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

This_Way_Down said:


> Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. - Seneca


Yes, but not everyone meets the same opportunities. Sometimes it's just plain... luck.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Something I've noticed is that most of the indie authors who have had success year after year work together on projects and utilize each others strengths. They're pretty much straight shooters, play by the rules, worry about writing books they love not about what KU3 will be, care about their customers, and are really dependable. They don't tear each other or other authors down and won't say a bad word about someone unless they are afraid that a person will take advantage of another author. 

So, yes, be nice, be humble, be helpful, and work hard ... that is my advice. There is luck involved in being a big hit, but I think those are the keys to making a living at this business.


----------



## Scotty Weeks (Sep 26, 2013)

Most people buy books based on what is recommended to them. Reviews are one way to get this effect, but the book itself continuing to sell is going to be based on its virality (k-factor if you want to go with early 2010s startup-speak). The more people that your average reader shares your book with the more likely it is to take off. So yeah, you can get good exposure with a solid marketing campaign/blurb/cover, you probably boost the k-factor by a little by making it easier to recommend your book, but at the end of the day the book has to be good enough to recommend.

As with any entertainment product, success or failure is going to be based on word of mouth. There is no conspiracy of literati that can push a book on "the masses" and make them like it. Studio execs are reminded of that out every time a blockbuster with a bazillion dollar marketing budget dies in the ass. 

I'm not a successful author, I'm only speaking from experience in startup land. That said, until I see any real data that isn't survivor bias or post-hoc justification I'll continue to think that the product is the most important part of the puzzle and if everything else is perfect but the product isn't selling, well, that means people just don't like the product. Occam's razor and all.

(I say that full well understanding the implications for my own book. That's what practice is for, eh?)


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> Something I've noticed is that most of the indie authors who have had success year after year work together on projects and utilize each others strengths. They're pretty much straight shooters, play by the rules, worry about writing books they love not about what KU3 will be, care about their customers, and are really dependable. They don't tear each other or other authors down and won't say a bad word about someone unless they are afraid that a person will take advantage of another author.
> 
> So, yes, be nice, be humble, be helpful, and work hard ... that is my advice. There is luck involved in being a big hit, but I think those are the keys to making a living at this business.


Amen to that, C.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2016)

Jena H said:


> Yes, but not everyone meets the same opportunities. Sometimes it's just plain... luck.


It could be said I've been lucky. And perhaps to some degree I have. But not a single positive step I've made would have happened without the work behind it. I put myself in the position to take advantage of luck when it arrived. We're all lucky at one time or another. But only some of us are ready for it.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

This_Way_Down said:


> It could be said I've been lucky. And perhaps to some degree I have. But not a single positive step I've made would have happened without the work behind it. I put myself in the position to take advantage of luck when it arrived. We're all lucky at one time or another. But only some of us are ready for it.


I agree about 'work' being behind the luck; as has been said, one must be in the proper position, i.e., have done the work, to advance. But in all areas of life (very visible in the arts), there are zillions of people who _do_ the work, but can't seem to advance. The only variable separating them from those who manage to break out of the pack seems to be some factor or occurrence that can only be described as.... luck. (Which, by it's nature, is arbitrary and random.)


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

Luck had nothing to do with my success. What did contribute to my success was hard work, carefully studying the market, planning, perseverance, years of writing and learning my craft, diligent preparation, a willingness to take risks, and listening to the advice of others.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Jena H said:


> I agree about 'work' being behind the luck; as has been said, one must be in the proper position, i.e., have done the work, to advance. But in all areas of life (very visible in the arts), there are zillions of people who _do_ the work, but can't seem to advance. The only variable separating them from those who manage to break out of the pack seems to be some factor or occurrence that can only be described as.... luck. (Which, by it's nature, is arbitrary and random.)


I agree with all this.

That's not to dispute how important hard work is. You've still gotta work your butt off in this business. But there are never any guarantees and because of that, there is a certain amount of luck.

How much is up for debate. I can write a great book, I can find an awesome cover, I can have it edited to pristine condition, I can write or hire someone to write a killer blurb, I can line up ads on Facebook and Amazon and Google and Twitter and everywhere else.

But I can't guarantee everyone who sees that ad will click the link. I can't guarantee that everyone who clicks that link will click the buy button. I can't guarantee that the people who read the book will read to the end. I can't guarantee that they'll review it when they finish or sign up for my mailing list or go on to buy the next book.

I can do everything in my power to increase the chances for those things to happen. But I can't guarantee them. So yeah, there's a certain amount of luck that plays into it.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Kristen Painter said:


> Luck had nothing to do with my success. What did contribute to my success was hard work, carefully studying the market, planning, perseverance, years of writing and learning my craft, diligent preparation, a willingness to take risks, and listening to the advice of others.


This is a perfect summary of my experience, both with indie publishing and building other businesses.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

The problem with luck is that you can't tell if you've been the recipient of it. There is no luck detector. Hard work can maximize your opportunity, but it can't guarantee your success. Nothing can guarantee your success. And if success can't be guaranteed, then there must be people who do everything right and are not presently successful.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Douglas Milewski said:


> The problem with luck is that you can't tell if you've been the recipient of it. There is no luck detector. Hard work can maximize your opportunity, but it can't guarantee your success. Nothing can guarantee your success. And if success can't be guaranteed, then there must be people who do everything right and are not presently successful.


Douglas, I couldn't figure out what I wanted to say until I saw that you already said it. But when I say that luck is an element of many successes I'm not trying to discount the hard work, experience, dedication, perseverance, etc. that those successes have had to do before luck added to their fortune.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Douglas Milewski said:


> The problem with luck is that you can't tell if you've been the recipient of it. There is no luck detector. Hard work can maximize your opportunity, but it can't guarantee your success. Nothing can guarantee your success. And if success can't be guaranteed, then there must be people who do everything right and are not presently successful.


Jeez, stop making so much sense!


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Jena H said:


> I agree about 'work' being behind the luck; as has been said, one must be in the proper position, i.e., have done the work, to advance. But in all areas of life (very visible in the arts), there are zillions of people who _do_ the work, but can't seem to advance. The only variable separating them from those who manage to break out of the pack seems to be some factor or occurrence that can only be described as.... luck. (Which, by it's nature, is arbitrary and random.)


A lot of times people can't see the other factors behind success, so they call it luck. There is luck in any business. Luck can make one book a breakout hit. Luck can push you to the top. But luck will not keep you at the top. Luck will not keep you selling, year after year. Most people who are successful at writing as a career, are successful because of strategy, hard work, and good business sense. This is a business. A bad book that is packaged and marketed well will sell a lot more than a good book that is packaged poorly and not marketed at all.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Kristen Painter said:


> Luck had nothing to do with my success. What did contribute to my success was hard work, carefully studying the market, planning, perseverance, years of writing and learning my craft, diligent preparation, a willingness to take risks, and listening to the advice of others.


That's the whole point of this thread and the OP-- people who DO "hard work, study the market, planning, perseverance, diligence" etc., and yet their books may not sell as well as they'd like. So possibly there is some... _thing_, some intangible element--not easily identified--that brings you success and not the writer next door. It can be as simple as scoring a Bookbub ad, a review by the right person, or a FB ad placed on just the right day.

From the opposite perspective. If it was true that "only" hard work, studying the market, perseverance, taking risks, studying craft, preparing diligently, etc., was truly THE recipe for success, then we'd have a lot more folks on this board earning high-five or six figures a year.


----------



## George Donnelly (Mar 5, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> Most people who are successful at writing as a career, are successful because of strategy, hard work, and good business sense. This is a business.





Crystal_ said:


> A bad book that is packaged and marketed well will sell a lot more than a good book that is packaged poorly and not marketed at all.


If a well-packaged bad book will sell better than a poorly-packaged good book, then surely that contradicts your claim (in the immediately previous sentence) that those who succeed mostly do so based on hard work.

I can spend top dollar on a cover, a blurb and advertisements but you can't buy a quality novel. Even if you hire a ghostwriter, I doubt that you're getting their very best work.

IOW, you can spend your way to a well-packaged bad book - no hard work involved. By your own admission, that book will sell more than the book that suffers from a lack of capital for marketing but had a lot of hard work put into it in order to make it a good book.

So I think you've contradicted yourself.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2016)

Jena H said:


> I agree about 'work' being behind the luck; as has been said, one must be in the proper position, i.e., have done the work, to advance. But in all areas of life (very visible in the arts), there are zillions of people who _do_ the work, but can't seem to advance. The only variable separating them from those who manage to break out of the pack seems to be some factor or occurrence that can only be described as.... luck. (Which, by it's nature, is arbitrary and random.)


Work is only one factor. There is ability to consider. If I wanted to be an NFL quarterback, no amount of work or luck would make that happen. I simply lack the ability. It is the same with writing. Finishing a novel doesn't mean it's any good. And enjoying writing doesn't mean you have talent. Sure, it's nice to hear words of encouragement, but it won't give a person what they need to move forward. 
No one wants to hear, "The reason you're not doing well is because you're not a good writer." But it's often true.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> If a well-packaged bad book will sell better than a poorly-packaged good book, then surely that contradicts your claim (in the immediately previous sentence) that those who succeed mostly do so based on hard work.
> 
> I can spend top dollar on a cover, a blurb and advertisements but you can't buy a quality novel. Even if you hire a ghostwriter, I doubt that you're getting their very best work.
> 
> ...


Packaging and marketing a book is hard work. Writing isn't the only work successful author-publishers do. You can also use money to hire people to do certain things-- covers, editing, ads, etc. Delegating is a normal part of business.

But you are right. Working smart is more important than working hard. You're better off writing one very marketable book than two books that go against genre. There's also ability and skill. You get better at everything involved in publishing over time assuming you are trying to learn from your mistakes.

I worked very hard on my first series. Those books are good in certain ways but they are not good in the way that matters-- they don't give readers the genre experience they desire. Despite devoting a year of writing time, I did not work smart on that series, mostly because of lack of experience. It took me a while to understand writing to market and marketing in general.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> If a well-packaged bad book will sell better than a poorly-packaged good book, then surely that contradicts your claim (in the immediately previous sentence) that those who succeed mostly do so based on hard work.
> 
> I can spend top dollar on a cover, a blurb and advertisements but you can't buy a quality novel. Even if you hire a ghostwriter, I doubt that you're getting their very best work.
> 
> ...


I don't see a contradiction at all. You'll note that Crystal said nothing about the quality of the writing, she only spoke about the work that goes into the book. It's possible to work hard at writing the book and marketing it, have it edited, find a good cover, develop a strategy for release, etc. and still have a book that people think is low-quality due to the story, characters, descriptions, dialogue, what have you.

On the flip-side, you can also have a high-quality book but then completely slack off on all the other stuff, like cover, release strategy, marketing.

In self-publishing, the hard work isn't only limited to the writing. There's plenty of hard work that follows after the book is finished, possibly even more than writing.


----------



## George Donnelly (Mar 5, 2012)

Perry Constantine said:


> In self-publishing, the hard work isn't only limited to the writing. There's plenty of hard work that follows after the book is finished, possibly even more than writing.


As I mentioned, however, you can spend money to get the best of the rest. But you can't just drop money to get a quality text. Therein lies the important difference I was attempting to communicate.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> As I mentioned, however, you can spend money to get the best of the rest. But you can't just drop money to get a quality text. Therein lies the important difference I was attempting to communicate.


Which wasn't even something she was talking about. So again, I don't see where this contradiction is.


----------



## George Donnelly (Mar 5, 2012)

She said those who succeed mostly do so through hard work while also claiming that well-packaged bad books will sell better than their opposite.

It is possible to produce a well-packaged bad book through big spending and little work. Therefore, by her own words, and she agreed I was correct, it is possible to succeed by spending a lot of money and not doing a lot of work.

In fact, I know (many) examples of this but obviously I won't be mentioning any names since that would invite controversy.

So, once again: big spending on good packaging means success, acc to her original statement, and this does not require hard work. I hope that was clear because I'm not going to explain it again.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

By "bad," I generally mean what authors would consider as bad. We have different standards than readers. We tend to be more critical and look more at the craft, wheras readers are more in it for the characters or the story (depending on the reader). I think lots of popular books in my genre are bad, by the standards of my taste, but I know why they do well.

Talking about quality is a dead end. We all have different ideas of what makes a book great. I have certain pet peeves that make a book an instant DNF. Some of my pet peeves are popular tropes. Some of my favorite tropes are other people's pet peeves.

You might be willing to forgive weak characters if a book has a great plot. I'm willing to forgive a contrived premise if the characters draw me in. We can go on about this forever. It's more productive to focus on reading popular books you enjoy and figuring out what readers liked about those books.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

I've read a few articles on folks who studied the question. When all things are equal, some folks succeed wildly while others don't. Essentially, we live in a chaotic system.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

If you think a well-packaged book isn't hard work, you've been a lot luckier than I've been. It's not writing work but it's still work. It's not just throwing money at it. I could write a decent book and spend a fortune on covers, editing, promo etc but if you have no clue what you're doing, you're throwing that money down the drain. 

Getting the right cover is hard work. You need to know what the market wants -- and that can be the market for the hottest trope of the moment or the market for your totally original, literary masterpiece. That doesn't come about just from handing over a wad of cash. A gorgeous cover that doesn't sell the book is nothing. And getting the right cover is time consuming whether it's time spent on going through premade sites until you luck upon the right cover or time spent in going back and forth with a cover designer (not to mention finding the designers in the first place). 

Same with editing. You can pay top dollar for an editor, doesn't mean they are going to be good. You have to invest time into making sure you find someone who can deliver and is a good fit.

Then promotion, you can spend another huge wad of cash but if you're promoting at the wrong places, you are just wasting your money.


----------



## MJSauthor (Jul 7, 2016)

There's a lot of chance in the game we play, but that's just how it is. And with so much content out there, it's only going to get more unpredictable. All we can do is write what we love, craft it in a professional manner, and repeat.

I write for myself first. Others second. And even if I wasn't published, I'd still write. That's never going to change. So _anyone_ buying and reading my work is just icing on the cake as they get to peak into my private mind and witness what I truly love to do. And what I _have_ to do (yep, that ol' cliched hyperbole)


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> As I mentioned, however, you can spend money to get the best of the rest. But you can't just drop money to get a quality text. Therein lies the important difference I was attempting to communicate.


You absolutely can.

James Patterson works with a number of writers who are (admittedly arguably) better writers than he is. Ghostwriting is a thing that exists.


----------



## Lisa5 (Oct 23, 2012)

she-la-ti-da said:


> I wonder if people are so entranced with what's selling (the WTM books) because that's what they want, or because they're settling for what's being shoved in their faces.


But no one is shoving indie books of any kind in people's faces? People are searching for what the want?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

MJSauthor said:


> I write for myself first. Others second. And even if I wasn't published, I'd still write. That's never going to change.


I used to think more like this, that I would write what I wanted and that it would sell because the writing was good. You are unlikely to ever sell well if you keep thinking of your books as mostly self-expression. Don't get me wrong. I express a lot of my ideas in my books. I put a lot of myself in them. I love my charcters. But, first, I come up with a marketable premise in a subgenre or niche where people want books.

Selling books is marketing as much as it's writing. I don't write something unless I know what it is that will hook readers. That hook if usually the same thing that excites me. It can be as simple as a popular trope in a popular niche.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

This_Way_Down said:


> Work is only one factor. There is ability to consider. If I wanted to be an NFL quarterback, no amount of work or luck would make that happen. I simply lack the ability. It is the same with writing. Finishing a novel doesn't mean it's any good. And enjoying writing doesn't mean you have talent. Sure, it's nice to hear words of encouragement, but it won't give a person what they need to move forward.
> No one wants to hear, "The reason you're not doing well is because you're not a good writer." But it's often true.


Sometimes it has nothing to do with ability. Sometimes luck _is _the only factor. As I mentioned, I have two pen names in the same genre. The books are written by the same writer (me), have similar covers, editing, etc. One of them consistently makes 5 figures a month while the other is lucky to sell a few copies a week. I didn't suddenly become a bad writer. The pen name just didn't take off. It happens.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

kathrynoh said:


> Getting the right cover is hard work.


I'll second that. I've "fixed" my covers multiple times. They're better than what they've replaced, but none of them is "right". My skill in understanding the covers of my genre has developed significantly, but that skill still isn't "there". I can replace any cover that I want today, but if I pay for the wrong beautiful cover, I'll have wasted my money.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

This_Way_Down said:


> Work is only one factor. There is ability to consider. If I wanted to be an NFL quarterback, no amount of work or luck would make that happen. I simply lack the ability. It is the same with writing. Finishing a novel doesn't mean it's any good. And enjoying writing doesn't mean you have talent. Sure, it's nice to hear words of encouragement, but it won't give a person what they need to move forward.
> No one wants to hear, "The reason you're not doing well is because you're not a good writer." But it's often true.


Where this analogy falls apart is that athletic ability is not as subjective as writing ability.

If I can't run fast, can't aim, don't have much strength, and don't have much stamina, then I objectively can't be very good at football. But stories don't work that way. A story that one person thinks is awful, another person can find amazing. I can't tell you how many times I've seen completely contradictory reviews on the same book. One person says, "the characters in this book are all flat," while another says, "the characters in this book are so well-developed." I've seen this firsthand in the literature classes I teach. I just finished a semester on Ryunosuke Akutagawa and one of the stories we read (Hell Screen) drew very polarized reactions. Half the class loved it, the other half despised it, with one student calling it the worst thing she'd ever read.

And those reactions? It's not like they were focusing on different aspects. Many of the things that some students loved, the other students hated.

Writing ability is not the same as athletic ability. Yes, there are the mechanics of writing to consider but beyond that, it becomes very subjective. Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst books I've ever read, but it's not without people who think it's the greatest thing ever written.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> I used to think more like this, that I would write what I wanted and that it would sell because the writing was good. You are unlikely to ever sell well if you keep thinking of your books as mostly self-expression. Don't get me wrong. I express a lot of my ideas in my books. I put a lot of myself in them. I love my charcters. But, first, I come up with a marketable premise in a subgenre or niche where people want books.




_Image kinda NFSW so we've shrunk it--click on it to see larger image. --Betsy_


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2016)

darkline said:


> Sometimes it has nothing to do with ability. Sometimes luck _is _the only factor. As I mentioned, I have two pen names in the same genre. The books are written by the same writer (me), have similar covers, editing, etc. One of them consistently makes 5 figures a month while the other is lucky to sell a few copies a week. I didn't suddenly become a bad writer. The pen name just didn't take off. It happens.


Luck is never the only factor. I rarely deal in absolutes, but in this case I'll say never. The reasons are often incomprehensible from the outside looking in. But there is always...ALWAYS...reasons behind it. The book gods are not playing favorites. I've had luke-warm launches where I could not understand why it didn't do as well as previous books. At a glance, and even with careful thought, I could not see what I had done wrong. But after a while as I kept looking, I noticed that there were differences. Small ones to be sure. But in this business, it's the smalls thing that matter.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2016)

Perry Constantine said:


> Where this analogy falls apart is that athletic ability is not as subjective as writing ability.
> 
> If I can't run fast, can't aim, don't have much strength, and don't have much stamina, then I objectively can't be very good at football. But stories don't work that way. A story that one person thinks is awful, another person can find amazing. I can't tell you how many times I've seen completely contradictory reviews on the same book. One person says, "the characters in this book are all flat," while another says, "the characters in this book are so well-developed." I've seen this firsthand in the literature classes I teach. I just finished a semester on Ryunosuke Akutagawa and one of the stories we read (Hell Screen) drew very polarized reactions. Half the class loved it, the other half despised it, with one student calling it the worst thing she'd ever read.
> 
> ...


If you lack writing ability, it is no different than lacking athletic ability. I'll never write like Tolkien. He had gifts I simply do not possess. So does Drew Brees. It's just harder to admit when you don't have an intellectual ability. We can accept that we are not elite athletes. Creative shortcomings cut more deeply. It exposes us in uncomfortable ways. I've had to come to terms with my own limits as a writer. Fortunately, though I may not be in the elite class, I'm good enough to make a fine living. 
And as I originally said, it doesn't mean you don't enjoy it. Only that you may not be very good at it. I enjoy many activities where I have marginal skill. All I am saying is that it can be a key reason a writer doesn't succeed. And that it may be impossible to recognize in one's self. This is a discussion about why someone fails to break through, after all, isn't it?


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

This_Way_Down said:


> *If you lack writing ability, it is no different than lacking athletic ability.* I'll never write like Tolkien. He had gifts I simply do not possess. So does Drew Brees. It's just harder to admit when you don't have an intellectual ability. We can accept that we are not elite athletes. Creative shortcomings cut more deeply. It exposes us in uncomfortable ways. I've had to come to terms with my own limits as a writer. Fortunately, though I may not be in the elite class, I'm good enough to make a fine living.
> And as I originally said, it doesn't mean you don't enjoy it. Only that you may not be very good at it. I enjoy many activities where I have marginal skill. All I am saying is that it can be a key reason a writer doesn't succeed. And that it may be impossible to recognize in one's self. This is a discussion about why someone fails to break through, after all, isn't it?


Perry's point isn't about _ability,_ it's about the reader's reaction to a book. He's right, the football analogy is inapt because football has measurable, objective criteria of proficiency--passes thrown, passes caught, yardage gained, points scored. A quarterback can either get points on the board (and dance in the end zone) or he can't. But a writer... writing is a very subjective thing, and what ten people hate or quit reading, another ten people love. If a person looks at Drew Brees' statistics, his talent is displayed in measurable, objective numbers, in black and white. No one can argue that a 70% completion rate and 350 yards a game is not a sign of talent for a QB. But a writer's talent isn't subjective. As we've all seen from experience (and Perry noted here), the same book that 20 people love is the one that another 20 people hate. Talent in writing is NOT subjective, as it is in sports, hence the quarterback analogy isn't quite accurate.


----------



## JaclynDolamore (Nov 5, 2015)

Some of the indie books I sample are NOT written very well, objectively. Grammatical and spelling errors for starters, lots of tell-not-show and info dumps...things that you COULD measure fairly well. Readers might not always agree on what makes a character flat, but you can point out why a sentence would make Strunk and White cry. And yet some of these writers sell their pants off...even when a lot of their reviews aren't good. In some cases it's the storytelling that is brilliant, beyond the style issues. In other cases, I don't think it's even that. Sometimes readers will pick up a mediocre book if they love the cover and premise. I think this is where it feels like luck is involved. Some writers just happen to stumble on a cover + blurb combo that REALLY resonates with people. Obviously this doesn't happen to most mediocre writers, but it does happen to a few and it can make those of us who study craft for years feel very perplexed, but objectively it makes sense. I've read blah books if the premise really pushes my buttons.


----------



## new_writer (Feb 2, 2016)

The whole point of Chris Fox's whole Write to Market meme is that you don't need to be a great writer, just the right formula.

There are a dozen other writers here whose books I've read. They're all decent writers who have found a lot of success, but you'll never mistaken them for being great writers. They all found a niche and they went for it full-speed ahead, and they found success.

The right niche + a little luck + some decent writing ability + releasing regularly = success.

That's your formula right there. You're welcome.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2016)

JaclynDolamore said:


> Some of the indie books I sample are NOT written very well, objectively. Grammatical and spelling errors for starters, lots of tell-not-show and info dumps...things that you COULD measure fairly well. Readers might not always agree on what makes a character flat, but you can point out why a sentence would make Strunk and White cry. And yet some of these writers sell their pants off...even when a lot of their reviews aren't good. In some cases it's the storytelling that is brilliant, beyond the style issues. In other cases, I don't think it's even that. Sometimes readers will pick up a mediocre book if they love the cover and premise. I think this is where it feels like luck is involved. Some writers just happen to stumble on a cover + blurb combo that REALLY resonates with people. Obviously this doesn't happen to most mediocre writers, but it does happen to a few and it can make those of us who study craft for years feel very perplexed, but objectively it makes sense. I've read blah books if the premise really pushes my buttons.


Blurbs and cover designs are a huge part of an indie writer's success. But it is a skill. This is why the most of the top tier indies hire a cover designer. The blurb...well that's another matter. A large number of indies I've seen attempt to cram a synopsis into a blurb. It's just an ad meant to entice a reader to buy. Like movie trailers, telling the plot in detail is neither necessary or advisable. Ot took me a while to learn to hit the high points in less than 150 words. 
You're right about the story telling - v - prose. But those who continue to do well year after year are able to pull off both - at least to a reasonable degree. This is where a good editor comes into play.


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

Can someone write an algorithm to analyze this? I'd like to know exactly where I fall on the Great Writing scale, in percentile terms, and whether or I deviate significantly from the mean in one way or another. These things are totally objective and quantifiable so it's not at all a nonsense idea.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

This_Way_Down said:


> If you lack writing ability, it is no different than lacking athletic ability. I'll never write like Tolkien. He had gifts I simply do not possess. So does Drew Brees. It's just harder to admit when you don't have an intellectual ability. We can accept that we are not elite athletes. Creative shortcomings cut more deeply. It exposes us in uncomfortable ways. I've had to come to terms with my own limits as a writer. Fortunately, though I may not be in the elite class, I'm good enough to make a fine living.
> And as I originally said, it doesn't mean you don't enjoy it. Only that you may not be very good at it. I enjoy many activities where I have marginal skill. All I am saying is that it can be a key reason a writer doesn't succeed. And that it may be impossible to recognize in one's self. This is a discussion about why someone fails to break through, after all, isn't it?


Here's the thing, though--I could never get through Lord of the Rings. I barely finished Fellowship and I gave up on Two Towers about twenty pages in. I found Tolkien far too verbose and flat-out boring.

Oh, and as for the "elite class?" I couldn't give a flying fig about what writers are considered part of the elite, and I care even less whether or not I'm in that class. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is considered part of that class, and reading Love in the Time of Cholera was slightly less enjoyable for me than the time I got a wisdom tooth removed (at least the dentist gave me medication to cope with the pain).

And both these examples prove my point--writing is subjective. It's got nothing to do with intellectual ability. I've met homeless people who dropped out of high school that are capable of telling far more interesting and compelling stories than people with PhDs in literary studies. There's no quantifiable skill or intellect for storytelling. If there were, everyone who graduates with an MFA in creative writing would be a best-selling author. But the reality is far, far different.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2016)

Perry Constantine said:


> Here's the thing, though--I could never get through Lord of the Rings. I barely finished Fellowship and I gave up on Two Towers about twenty pages in. I found Tolkien far too verbose and flat-out boring.
> 
> Oh, and as for the "elite class?" I couldn't give a flying fig about what writers are considered part of the elite, and I care even less whether or not I'm in that class. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is considered part of that class, and reading Love in the Time of Cholera was slightly less enjoyable for me than the time I got a wisdom tooth removed (at least the dentist gave me medication to cope with the pain).
> 
> And both these examples prove my point--writing is subjective. It's got nothing to do with intellectual ability. I've met homeless people who dropped out of high school that are capable of telling far more interesting and compelling stories than people with PhDs in literary studies. There's no quantifiable skill or intellect for storytelling. If there were, everyone who graduates with an MFA in creative writing would be a best-selling author. But the reality is far, far different.


You're confusing style with ability. Style is subjective. And from a very broad perspective I suppose so is talent and ability. But it's funny how those who have it are the ones with a fan base and recognition. Those who don't...well... Sure, there are always people who will say a writer most readers enjoy is a hack. But they are a minority and largely ignored.
Stephen King, for example. I'm not a fan. But objectively, he's a good writer. Only a few pages will tell you that. Objectively, he understand story structure. Objectively, he understand how to build suspense, and so forth. But subjectively, I have never enjoyed his style. I can see why others do. My own experience allows me that. But, like a dill pickle, I don't like it. 
Look, I have not and would not say who is or is not a bad writer. At least not publicly. But you can't tell me you don't the difference between good and bad writing. Like porn - I may not be able to define it. But I know it when I see it.


----------



## Chris Fox (Oct 3, 2014)

new_writer said:


> The whole point of Chris Fox's whole Write to Market meme is that you don't need to be a great writer, just the right formula.
> 
> There are a dozen other writers here whose books I've read. They're all decent writers who have found a lot of success, but you'll never mistaken them for being great writers. They all found a niche and they went for it full-speed ahead, and they found success.
> 
> ...


My goal is to be a great writer one day. I practice craft daily, and I'm a much better writer today than I was a year ago (though still mediocre, I'll admit).

I also said very, very specifically in the book that you need great characters, a great plot, and great pacing to succeed. It isn't about a magic formula, otherwise everyone would do it. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of hard work. Also note that my first series was extremely successful before I ever learned to write to market. I sold over a thousand books my very first month for a book that was a labor of love.

I'm unsurprised that you're anonymous. That way you can look down your nose at people without having to risk anyone looking at your own work. You're the worst form of literary life. A critic with no manners. I bust my ass trying to help this community, and as I said above I work hard to improve every single day.

People like you are why I give less and less to the writing community. You are why we can't have nice things.

Edit: Betsy edited out the quote that touched off my response =p

_Well, not all of it--but I thought your response was still on point. PM me if you want to discuss, Chris. --Betsy_


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

CadyVance said:


> That's not the whole point of his book, and that's a pretty rude thing to say about one of the most giving writers in the indie world.


Agreed.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I usually avoid this debate entirely, because who knows exactly? 

I think it's hard to isolate why a book/writer sells. I've been lucky enough lately to have some editors tell me why it is that I sell, because before, I really couldn't account for how on EARTH my very first fiction could possibly sell. At first, I attributed it entirely to luck, and I'm sure there was some, in terms of timing. (I published RIGHT before--a couple weeks before--"free" stopped boosting your visibility. So when my first book blew up right on publication and setting it free, that gave me a huge boost of visibility. That was luck.)

However, the other so-called "lucky" thing was writing books with a hook that really resonated, and putting up the first three at once. Those things weren't luck, they were deliberate. I KNEW "New Zealand rugby" and "Escape to New Zealand" were incredibly hooky. I have a fair marketing nose, and that's why I wrote that first book--because I thought it was a perfect idea for a romance, and the All Blacks were perfect romance heroes in all sorts of ways. I was right. So that--and a story and a heroine that resonated with some people--that wasn't luck, it was me. 

I was still thinking it was luck, but then I wrote a very different series, and THAT sold really well, too. I've written four series now, all quite different from one another, and they've all done well and been well reviewed. 

I don't conclude from that that "I'm awesome! I'm a wonderful writer!" I conclude that I'm pretty good at writing books that a not-tiny group of readers enjoys reading, I do a few things better than many other writers (and some things worse--my plots aren't anything to write home about), I have a strong voice, and I'm good at giving readers the feelings they want from a romance novel--better than I'd suspected I could be. Doesn't mean I haven't had luck, or that other people aren't ALSO good at doing that, but it's not all an accident, either. 

It can be hard to isolate a book/author's success factors, and some "gifts" an author has aren't necessarily things the author has striven for. I'm good at feelings because I went through some pretty horrific stuff and had to delve deep within myself and acknowledge my feelings to come out the other side. That's made me a more empathetic, kinder, and more sensitive person, and much better able to feel with my characters. Before, I went through life climbing on top of my feelings and powering through, because acknowledging them was too scary. Now, I can face them and write them, and that resonates with some readers. It's a gift I'd be happy to give back in some ways, especially considering how it was acquired, but it IS a gift. 

Anyway--lots of reasons, many of them hard to pinpoint, but if an author is selling, and selling consistently over years, there's a reason. The reasons may be as numerous as there are authors, however.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Chris Fox said:


> My goal is to be a great writer one day. I practice craft daily, and I'm a much better writer today than I was a year ago (though still mediocre, I'll admit).
> 
> I also said very, very specifically in the book that you need great characters, a great plot, and great pacing to succeed. It isn't about a magic formula, otherwise everyone would do it. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of hard work. Also note that my first series was extremely successful before I ever learned to write to market. I sold over a thousand books my very first month for a book that was a labor of love.
> 
> ...


Good for you, Chris.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> I usually avoid this debate entirely, because who knows exactly?
> 
> I think it's hard to isolate why a book/writer sells. I've been lucky enough lately to have some editors tell me why it is that I sell, because before, I really couldn't account for it. At first, I attributed it entirely to luck, and I'm sure there was some, in terms of timing. (I published RIGHT before--a couple weeks before--"free" stopped boosting your visibility. So when my first book blew up right on publication and setting it free, that gave me a huge boost of visibility. That was luck.)
> 
> ...


Always love your posts.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

This_Way_Down said:


> You're confusing style with ability. Style is subjective. And from a very broad perspective I suppose so is talent and ability. But it's funny how those who have it are the ones with a fan base and recognition. Those who don't...well... Sure, there are always people who will say a writer most readers enjoy is a hack. But they are a minority and largely ignored.
> Stephen King, for example. I'm not a fan. But objectively, he's a good writer. Only a few pages will tell you that. Objectively, he understand story structure. Objectively, he understand how to build suspense, and so forth. But subjectively, I have never enjoyed his style. I can see why others do. My own experience allows me that. But, like a dill pickle, I don't like it.
> Look, I have not and would not say who is or is not a bad writer. At least not publicly. But you can't tell me you don't the difference between good and bad writing. Like porn - I may not be able to define it. But I know it when I see it.


Well, now we've moved into the condescension phase...

No, I'm not confusing style with ability. And you'll find plenty of people who WILL say that King is a bad writer. You'll find people who say his books are far from suspenseful, who say he has no sense of structure, etc. Don't believe me? Go to Amazon right now, search for any Stephen King book, then read the 1-star reviews.

Pick any popular writer you want and look up the 1- and 5-star reviews. You'll find very little agreement. You'll see 1-star reviews claiming that the writer doesn't know structure from a hole in the ground and writes unrealistic dialogue sitting alongside 5-star reviews that praise the writer's clear sense of plot and structure and an ear for dialogue so real, it must have been transcribed from actual recordings.

Once you move beyond the mechanics of writing--spelling, grammar, etc.--it's largely subjective. I don't care how you try to dress it up, whether or not a writer is good or bad is all in the eyes of the reader. And your last sentence proves that--you can't even define what makes writing good or bad. There's no way to measure it. Which means it's not objective.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

Chris Fox said:


> My goal is to be a great writer one day. I practice craft daily, and I'm a much better writer today than I was a year ago (though still mediocre, I'll admit).
> 
> I also said very, very specifically in the book that you need great characters, a great plot, and great pacing to succeed. It isn't about a magic formula, otherwise everyone would do it. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of hard work. Also note that my first series was extremely successful before I ever learned to write to market. I sold over a thousand books my very first month for a book that was a labor of love.
> 
> ...


Chris, please don't stop giving to the writing community. People like that do NOT speak for the rest of us.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

new_writer said:


> The whole point of Chris Fox's whole Write to Market meme is that you don't need to be a great writer, just the right formula.
> 
> There are a dozen other writers here whose books I've read. They're all decent writers who have found a lot of success, but you'll never mistaken them for being great writers. They all found a niche and they went for it full-speed ahead, and they found success.
> 
> ...


1) Why are you on a board dedicated to self-publishing if you have such an obvious disdain for self-published writers?

2) For someone who claims to be such a great judge of writing, you've completely missed the point of WTM. All the more amusing given that Chris made it a very obvious point.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Chris Fox said:


> My goal is to be a great writer one day. I practice craft daily, and I'm a much better writer today than I was a year ago (though still mediocre, I'll admit).
> 
> I also said very, very specifically in the book that you need great characters, a great plot, and great pacing to succeed. It isn't about a magic formula, otherwise everyone would do it. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of hard work. Also note that my first series was extremely successful before I ever learned to write to market. I sold over a thousand books my very first month for a book that was a labor of love.
> 
> ...


I think his chosen identity "new_writer" says it all.

He/she admitting to be a new writer, hasn't picked up yet that writing is a work of the author taking constant chances. Every genre has its own preferred voices, and that even Hemingway and Shakespeare were considered "hacks" by some of their peers and critics. Some of their stuff is brilliant and some, maybe just good.

Paychecks count, and so do traits such as sustainability, and building a reader base. He/she new_writer simply doesn't know what he/she doesn't know.

I like KKRs approach where she doesn't even acknowledge opinions of those without some skin in the game.

Chris, keep doing what you're doing, and thanks on behalf of those of us who do appreciate what you write and publish.


----------



## passerby (Oct 18, 2015)

LadyG said:


> Chris, please don't stop giving to the writing community. People like that do NOT speak for the rest of us.


^This. 
Chris, I just bought _Launch to Market_ as a way of saying "thank you" for all that you do for writers in general and this community in particular.


----------



## Chris Fox (Oct 3, 2014)

LadyG said:


> Chris, please don't stop giving to the writing community. People like that do NOT speak for the rest of us.


I will never stop helping writers, I just scaled it back a bit. Fewer books on writing, no course, and fewer videos. I'd rather be Russell Blake than Mark Dawson or Nick Stephenson 

To get the thread back on track, I really liked Rosalind's post. Different writers succeed for different reasons. Do you know what they all have in common? Deliberate practice and lifelong learning. I started writing seriously in 1992. I've turned out over three million words. I've studied the market, and more importantly learned about reader psychology. Why do your readers read books? Why do _you_ read books?

Once you can answer that question you need to:

1- Write a book that will resonate with readers
2- Get a cover and blurb that convey exactly what sort of story they're about to read
3- Tell them the book exists

If you do those three steps well, you've got a good chance at success. You could still miss the mark, but if you do then execute the following steps:

1- Examine why you failed. Can you identify problems? If not, ask more experienced authors for honest feedback. You're in the perfect place for that.
2- Work your tail off to implement the changes you identified. Start with your weakest area.
3- Repeat.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I've edited and removed some posts that crossed the line for civil discussion that we required. Additional editing or pruning may be done as we continue our review.

A reminder that, per Forum Decorum, we require civility. Members have been and may be placed on post approval or be banned for violating Forum Decorum.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

CN_Crawford said:


> Can someone write an algorithm to analyze this? I'd like to know exactly where I fall on the Great Writing scale, in percentile terms, and whether or I deviate significantly from the mean in one way or another. These things are totally objective and quantifiable so it's not at all a nonsense idea.


Well, I hate to break up a great writing partnership, but you two are gonna have to get a divorce so I can marry whichever one of you wrote this response. LOL


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

I'm not a good writer. Hell, I'm not even a writer. Three of my editors are on this board and they can attest to that fact. Feel free to chime in Eliza, Tammi, or Donna. I'm no kind of writer whatsoever. But it doesn't take good writing ability to be a successful author. Another term I don't consider myself worthy of.

I'm a storyteller.

I'll probably never be a good writer, but if I can get a little better at it, maybe my editors won't have to work as hard, and maybe they'll lower their rates.  

So, what's it take to be a successful author? The ability to not just tell a story, but tell it in a way that keeps the reader wanting to read just one more paragraph, one more page, one more chapter. The storytelling ability to keep them interested to the end, when they close the book, look at the alarm clock by the bed, and realize they only have three hours before they have to be at work.

Combine that level of storytelling ability with really good editors, add liberal amounts of hard work, a solid plan, and a dash of luck, and you'll have success. By liberal amounts of hard work, I mean putting aside those things that get in the way. It's only for a little while. Social life? Weekends at the beach? Dinner and a movie with your spouse? Hanging out with your buds at the watering hole? Put it all aside temporarily and throw every moment possible into creating readable, interesting stories. And by a solid plan, I mean a logical, well-thought-out plan for success.

The sacrifice is only temporary. Give up time on the front side, to gain more on the back side.

I took my wife and daughter out on the boat this morning. Tide was low at the mouth of Port Royal Sound, so we anchored up, waded ashore, and walked on the sandbar at Bay Point. Not only were we the only ones there, but there weren't even any footprints.

Sacrificing all that time with my buds at the watering hole watching football, has given me more time to do the things I love, with the people I love.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

SimonePond said:


> As for the anonymous commenters throwing barbs at other writers who have been an intricate part of this forum for YEARS and have helped thousands of authors for YEARS, there's no room for that kind of negativity or talk. It does nothing to foster creativity or camaraderie. Chris Fox is a brilliant business person AND a gifted creative writer with a vast imagination and ability to produce. His discipline is something to be admired. He has given so much to this group and for you to specifically call him out in such a harsh manner is shameful.


Bravo.


----------



## SA_Soule (Sep 8, 2011)

When was the book published? 

If it was published a year or two ago, then obviously, it would have a lower rank. 

I would check out the author's Amazon profile. Newer books would most likely have a higher ranking than the backlist. Sales slow down after a few months for almost every book.

Also, how many reviews do they have? If they have over 50, I'd say the book did great on launch. If it has less than 20, then it might be a marketing issue.

Do they have any loss-leaders? eBooks for free or only $0.99? 

Whenever I study what other authors are doing in my genre, I check out their FB page, website, Amazon profile, then browse each book's page on Amazon to check the publishing dates, how many reviews (and read the 3 star ones to gain even more insight), ranking, and blurb. I even scroll down to see what keywords they used. (Keywords is usually a red flag to me that the author did everything right, except that!) It is a great way to discover ways to market your own work.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Jane_Dough said:


> Chris, you've gone above and beyond to offer advice and provide a service to other writers. I know I'm not the only one who is grateful for what you do. And I agree, even as an anonymous poster, about the sniping from anonymous accounts. If you go, I wouldn't blame you. The tail end of this thread has been... I'm on my way out the door, too.
> 
> I'm sorry that a lot of you think it's bad writing that keep people from success. Really? Have you read some of the best sellers? Not all of them are there because of their literary merit. They offer something and I wouldn't knock whatever it is or whomever reads it. If there is one frustrating thing I get from this community and others it's the assumption that great sales = great writing. I've been at this business for a long time and have seen countless great writers get passed over by agents because their books are quiet or quirky or can't fit comfortably into this or this category. Bad writers get published all the time. A lot of good writers get left behind. It's a reality.


People who succeed have written something people like to read, that's all. It's not just the structure and style of the writing, it's whether or not that book meets a typical reader's needs in that genre. Women who read romance don't want to read about a skinny guy or a guy with a pot belly who has trouble asserting himself, for example. That doesn't mean they necessarily want a jerk, but they want a strong, confident man. He doesn't have to be great-looking in the face, but he shouldn't have a weak chin, and he SHOULD have a great body.

That's just one example. The real things you have to hit are pretty basic, but absent a fluke, you do have to hit those basic things in order to sell. And then you have to write the book in such a way that it's enjoyable and fun to read, and you have to present the book well and get it out in front of people.

There's an x factor for sure, but I think people who really know can probably zero in and tell you what the x factor is for various writers, how their books met those readers' needs and provided a satisfying reading experience that got the author the word of mouth necessary for success.

I don't consciously write to market, and I certainly don't study trends, but I'm pretty sure that I write to reader expectations about the most basic romance things, just because I enjoy the genre, I think I understand it, and I truly love writing in it. That doesn't mean I love ALL romance. Lots and lots of it, in fact, I don't like at all. But I love the basic IDEAS of it. That it's about relationships of all kinds, that you can go deep into what makes people tick (which has always been the thing I've been most interested in, and why I was in marketing), that you can have humor and warmth and write about family and have as mushy a happy ending as you like. That you can focus on what's best in people. Romance offers a ton of latitude, because it's such a huge genre with a diverse readership. You don't have to write it "one way." But you do have to write it SOME way that meets those basic needs, what somebody is going to the genre for, and you have to execute that skillfully enough that you provide an enjoyable reading experience. Characterization, pacing, emotional arc, dialogue, all that stuff.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> That it's about relationships of all kinds, that you can go deep into what makes people tick (which has always been the thing I've been most interested in, and why I was in marketing), that you can have humor and warmth and write about family and have as mushy a happy ending as you like. That you can focus on what's best in people.


I ... I don't even read romance, but now I'm going to buy one of your books. I want some feels.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

C. Rysalis said:


> I ... I don't even read romance, but now I'm going to buy one of your books. I want some feels.


Ha well I hope I haven't raised false expectations! If you don't read romance, read one of the suspense ones (Carry Me Home or Hold Me Close). They've got lots of action and stuff too.  Also, Carry Me Home is funny.

Or Welcome to Paradise. That one is lots of fun. Friends who don't like romance like that one.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't want to get into the what is art conversation. I have a BFA. I've done enough of that for a lifetime. But I do not think that art vs design or "real" art vs commercial art are as different as people claim (though I do love a good sex analogy).

Art is about communicating ideas and feelings. Part of that is knowing how to draw the audience, making it accessible. This is true across artistic mediums. I took a burlesque class earlier this year where each student designed and polished a solo act. Though it sounds fancy, burlesque is about as far from money making as you can get (unless you're Dita Von Teese). The instructor made a big deal about how you need to invite the audience to join you. People are paying for a show. You are there to entertain them. You can express a number of ideas or concepts, but you need to do it in a way that draws the audience in. You don't want to do therapy on stage.

Drawing the audience in is a skill. It's a more difficult skill to understand with writing because we don't have a direct line to our audience the way performers do. But you really can write about anything if you know how to draw in the audience. Think of stand up comedians. They will do different jokes at a college vs a corporate event vs a club in the south vs a club in liberal city. If you want to write and sell, you need to know what your audience wants and you need to know how to draw them in both via the prose itself and via marketing (I.e. half naked couple says sexy romance. If your book is a thriller, you're drawing the wrong audience.)


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> I'm sorry. Only one response is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This made wading through this thread worthwhile. Laughing till I could not breathe. 
But seriously. Willingness to sacrifice a goat is the answer to the question.


----------



## R. M. Webb (Jul 24, 2014)

Chris Fox said:


> Edit: Betsy edited out the quote that touched off my response =p
> 
> _Well, not all of it--but I thought your response was still on point. PM me if you want to discuss, Chris. --Betsy_


I haven't read much of this thread but I did read the bit that has been removed and I just want to say that you have my respect, Chris Fox. You are one heck of a good human being and very good at what you do. You deserve all the success you have.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

As a lover of both a lot of literary greats and a big swathe of genre fiction I've never understood the antagonism between the two camps- or why there should be camps at all! It seems to me both are designed to yank people out of their everyday world and suck them into an entirely different one- they just tend to do it in different ways. In both of them you can do a lot of things 'wrong' if you can do at least one thing superbly well. In genre fiction whatever that is has to include story. Wayne Stinnet described it perfectly- when the story sucks you in so completely that you lose track of time and can't sleep until you've read through to the end. At the very least the story has to make you reluctant to put the book aside, and make you want to pick it up again.

With literature, I think that special thing has to include the use of language. Instead of making you want to read through, breathlessly to the end, it often makes you stop every few paragraphs to jump up and pace, new ideas and strange thoughts flooding through your mind, new connections clicking through the synapses. It makes you need to go back and reread whole pages and chapters, trying to figure out where that illusive impression just at the edges of your consciousness comes from and where it's leading you. At the very least the use of language has to be good or unusual enough to make you pause appreciatively every so often to think, "Wow! That was really well put!"

In both cases it seems to me writers who are particularly good at both story and language eventually get recognized by readers in both camps. Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens were all wildly popular in their own times. More recently, I think writers like Dorothy Sayers and Ursula LeGuin or Samuel R. Delaney are becoming recognized as literary classics as well as great writers in their genres.

And, as many people here have said, different things get weighted differently according to your tastes. I particularly love well-drawn and interesting characters in either literary or genre fiction and will forgive a lot if that's well done. On the other hand, books that are strong on action but weak on characterization often leave me cold. For lots of other people, the reverse is true. Why should anyone imagine this is a bad thing or be put off by anyone else's preferences?

On a side note- Chris Fox, I loved _Launch to Market_! It's now on the required reading list for our E-publishing Mastermind group when it resumes in the fall.


----------



## catcantrill (Jul 14, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> I took a burlesque class earlier this year where each student designed and polished a solo act. Though it sounds fancy, burlesque is about as far from money making as you can get (unless you're Dita Von Teese). The instructor made a big deal about how you need to invite the audience to join you. People are paying for a show. You are there to entertain them. You can express a number of ideas or concepts, but you need to do it in a way that draws the audience in. You don't want to do therapy on stage.
> 
> Drawing the audience in is a skill. It's a more difficult skill to understand with writing because we don't have a direct line to our audience the way performers do. But you really can write about anything if you know how to draw in the audience. Think of stand up comedians. They will do different jokes at a college vs a corporate event vs a club in the south vs a club in liberal city. If you want to write and sell, you need to know what your audience wants and you need to know how to draw them in both via the prose itself and via marketing (I.e. half naked couple says sexy romance. If your book is a thriller, you're drawing the wrong audience.)


Oh, I love this! I own a burlesque studio in Iowa and your analogy really speaks to me. There is something to the audience feeling a little naughty (in books and at burlesque performances!). It brings in a certain type of niche crowd. Just like with anything, you have to learn to adjust your message to who you are speaking to!


----------



## JustCaelan (Jul 20, 2016)

Chris Fox said:


> People like you are why I give less and less to the writing community. You are why we can't have nice things.


Noooooo!!!! I am reading your book right now!!! You can't stop giving to the writer community!!!!!


----------

