# There is No Market for Middle Grade Fiction and I Can Prove It



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

I plan to write more extensively on this later, but I have unconditionally surrendered with regard to any plans of selling books for young readers.  

There are no middle grade readers. Middle grade children are interested in Fortnite and YouTube. Their parents park them on a couch with an iPad and do not encourage them to read. Even if these kids were handed a book they are too heavily medicated to understand it.  Parents will never encourage them to read. If parents want their kids to live a life of illiteracy, ignorance and mediocrity, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm also tired of paying a buck a click for ads.  

I promised proof, so here it is: Name three middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling I can mention to the average parent they will recognize.  You can't, because there aren't any.  

Scholastic has unlimited capital and a larger distribution network than Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Starbucks combined. Their ability to put books in customers' hands dwarfs Amazon's. It embarrasses Apple. It crushes Disney. They even have a theme park. Yet Scholastic hasn't cultivated even one author or even one moderately successful book or book series since Harry Potter. It explains why Amazon puts no effort into the middle grade book market. I don't blame them any more.  There is no middle grade book market.  

This of course leaves aside the fact it is illegal to market to children on the Internet in the first place, and even if it weren't, they don't have their own money and they very likely don't have their own reading device either. Oh, and for the record, the "kids want print books" thing is bunk. If they're willing to text each other 16 hours a day, they would have no problem reading a book on a screen.  

Scholastic has unlimited marketing cash and a captive taxpayer-subsidized monopoly protected by 50 state governments. They haven't accomplished a thing since Harry Potter. That is conclusive proof there is no MG book market.  Case closed.  

While we're at it, I think someone might want to take a closer look at Harry Potter, because given what I know now that I didn't know eight years ago, I'm not sure I'm buying the 400-million-book boy wizard thing any more.  

I don't know why military science fiction is so popular and frankly I don't care about that either. I'm sick of trying to figure out why people do things. I'm just going to run my ads and write my MilSF books, because this genre sells. MilSF outsells my MG series 2000 to one.  I will write my fantasy series with the expectation that it will not sell, and that's fine. It doesn't have to.  I have officially stopped caring one way or the other.  

P.S. Let this be a lesson to all you aspiring authors out there. The market does not care at all what you want to write. Either you write in a genre that sells, or you starve. It really is that simple.  

P.P.S. For those of you parents out there, you should know the average reading level in the U.S. is about fifth grade. If that's what you want for your kids, good luck. I'm sure if God wants your kids to have a successful career, He'll miracle them into it.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2019)

I agree and YA fiction is the same way, too. 
I think we have to make a market for MG and YA fiction.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> I think we have to make a market for MG and YA fiction.


Given the dull looks I get from most parents when discussing the apparently alien concept of the written word, I think you'd have an easier time taking apart a car engine with your teeth.


----------



## Northern pen (Mar 3, 2015)

It is a smaller market, but there is money there. The audience just isn't what you think it is.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2019)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Name three middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling I can mention to the average parent they will recognize. You can't, because there aren't any.


David Williams - who has sold millions of copies worldwide and kids queue up to see him when he does tours. 
Cressida Cowell - they How to Train Your Dragon series. Sold millions of copies and there's a couple of movies.
Jeff Kinney - Diary of a Whimpy Kid series, Again sold millions of copies and there is a movie.

And I can go on and on, rattling off bestselling MG authors. There is a huge market for MG and certainly my boys are voracious readers. If you are getting blank stares from parents when you talk about MG books then the issue is that the parents aren't big readers NOT the state of the MG market. It's also a market dominated by trad and Scholastic. Despite having kindles my boys prefer paperbacks. They find their next books to read by browsing book stores or from the Scholastic flyers. If you want to sell to the MG market then your titles need to be on shelves and in the Scholastic catalogue.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> rattling off bestselling MG authors.


If you have Scholastic pushing your books into libraries you too can be a "best-selling MG author." Does anyone actually read the books? No. Does anyone know the author? No. If all the books vanished tomorrow would anyone notice? No. Even How to Train Your Dragon only has 1000 reviews after three films and hiring Dreamworks to make the cover.



> It's also a market dominated by trad and Scholastic.


And even with their billions, this is the best they can do.

Scholastic has 67000 YouTube subscribers.

Emily Graslie has 503000 YouTube subscribers. She's popular with kids, apparently. Have you ever heard of Emily Graslie? Me neither. 'nuff said.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I promised proof, so here it is: Name three middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling I can mention to the average parent they will recognize. You can't, because there aren't any.


John Flanagan
Rick Riordan
Tamora Pierce
Eoin Colfer
Jonathan Stroud
Margaret Peterson Haddix
Brian Jacques
Louis Sachar
John Grisham


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2019)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Does anyone actually read the books? No. Does anyone know the author? No. If all the books vanished tomorrow would anyone notice? No.


I do wonder if you even know any MG readers, because yes actually, they do read the books. And not just read, but re-read. My kids have worn and dog eared paperbacks because of the number of times they re-read their favourite books and their friends are the same. Do they know the author? Yes, they do. My kids know when their favourite author has a new release coming out and they're asking to go to the store to look for it. We always end up on the wait list to see his favourite author when he does tours here, as tickets sell out so quickly. You obviously haven't been to any events with popular MG authors to see all the eager kids there to meet and listen to their favourite author.

I'm not sure why you were even bothering to write MG when you know so little about the market and those readers and your false/inaccurate statements make me wonder what research, if any, you did about the MG market?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> make me wonder what research, if any, you did about the MG market?


I was hired to be an interactive marketing consultant for a $2 billion animated television series. I even wrote a book about it.


----------



## AlexaGrave (Jun 11, 2015)

That's a rather broad, sweeping statement you make about parents not encouraging their kids to read.

Not only is my 5th grader reading far above her grade level, she spends most of her time reading because I gave her the groundwork and encouraged her to do so while young (as a matter of fact, she's reading right now - currently on the 7th or 8th book in the Wizard of Oz series - kid goes through books like crazy, which is why we are often at the library).

And I know I'm not the only parent who does this. Every summer the library runs a Summer Reading Program. It is always crazy busy with kids and parents signing them up, checking out books, and then checking in weekly with their progress.

It's not that kids aren't reading. Not at all. And you can't say most parents don't encourage reading - you have no grounds to make such a sweeping statement.

The thing with this age group, though, and this is purely my opinion/observation/own household habits... is that they don't buy a lot of books. At that age, it's all through the parents because they're the ones with the money, and a lot of parents have budgets to consider as well. Even though my eldest reads books like they're going out of style, I'm not buying most of those for her. We go to the library for most of them. She checks them out from her school library or even from her classroom library.

And I also think this age group still leans more toward a physical copy, not ebooks.

Honestly, it's likely libraries that should be the target audience to market to firstly, and then parents secondary.

The word of mouth thing is also huge with kids - if a friend raves about it, they want to read it too.

But the people helping and guiding kids on what to read are the ones that are buying or checking out from a library. And honestly, most of what my eldest has read is due to an adult recommending it to her (teachers, librarians, and me as a parent).

Anyway, just my thoughts. I know it's a fear that technology has taken over, but I don't think it's quite as insidious (yet) as you've made it sound.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> If we were discussing some super offbeat niche, I'd say maybe some of these assertions were possible, but MG and YA? I wouldn't bet on it.


Scholastic has had 20 years, unlimited cash and the largest distribution network on Earth. They have cultivated zero authors with even a fraction of Rowling's success.



> you have no grounds to make such a sweeping statement.


See above. MG books don't sell.



> Even though my eldest reads books like they're going out of style, I'm not buying most of those for her. We go to the library for most of them.


Makes perfect sense. This is why authors avoid writing for kids. Can't make a living selling books to the government. It's heartbreaking, because I wrote a really fun story. I'm over it.

Hopefully the next bright-eyed MG author will catch this thread before they waste a year and $15,000 worth of therapy on a book nobody will ever read.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I will write my fantasy series with the expectation that it will not sell, and that's fine. It doesn't have to. I have officially stopped caring one way or the other.


More and more I am seeing experienced self-pubbers who used to do well now adopting this attitude as armour against disappointment. I think it's better than giving up and dropping out, the way a lot of veteran self-pubbers seem to quietly be doing nowadays, but it's still sad.


----------



## Linn (Feb 2, 2016)

Why should parents trust us? Our books haven't been checked by anyone to see if they contain objectionable material. Just because we think our stories are appropriate for children doesn't mean parents will agree with us. There's a fairly successful book that sometimes shows up in my also boughts - with a young girl on the cover - that looks like it could be meant for younger readers. But comments in its reviews suggest otherwise. If I had MG kids, I certainly wouldn't encourage them to read it.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> P.S. Let this be a lesson to all you aspiring authors out there. The market does not care at all what you want to write. Either you write in a genre that sells, or you starve. It really is that simple.


I write general fiction and do okay. In fact, I need to lose some weight.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Why should parents trust us?


If I thought for a moment any parent were actually interested in the answer to that question, I'd be happy to explain. In fact, I planned ahead:

https://lochlann.black/ladystar-for-warrior-moms-and-warrior-dads/

But listening to my answer would require work and thinking, and we all know how that movie ends.



> Just because we think our stories are appropriate for children doesn't mean parents will agree with us.


You're absolutely right, and since I can't take on two international $100 billion monopolies and 150 million disagreeable parents at the same time, I'll step aside and leave it to Scholastic and Disney.

I will write my story as a work of pure art. It no longer matters to me if anyone buys it or reads it. If I want to sell books, I can flip the "on" switch for my MilSF ads.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Scholastic has had 20 years, unlimited cash and the largest distribution network on Earth. They have cultivated zero authors with even a fraction of Rowling's success.
> 
> See above. MG books don't sell.
> 
> ...


Harry Potter was one in a million, so there's really no point in comparing the Potter books to others. But there's a lot of room for an author to be very successful without getting close to Rowling's success.

I have a friend who would strongly disagree. He makes a good living writing MG books. I also named nine authors in a previous post who are very popular and sell quite well, even if not as well as the Potter books. Just because your books don't sell doesn't mean other writers can't make a living writing MG.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> But there's a lot of room for an author to be very successful without getting close to Rowling's success.


Which only makes Scholastic's complete failure to cultivate one that much more inexplicable. 400 million kids voraciously read Harry Potter from book one to book seven and never picked up another title forever and ever, amen. Sound a little strange? Yeah, it sounds a little strange.



> I have a friend who would strongly disagree. He makes a good living writing MG books.


Very good. Which of his books has as many reviews as How to Train Your Dragon?



> I also named nine authors in a previous post who are very popular and sell quite well


And who 99 out of 100 parents have never heard of. John Grisham is known for his legal thrillers. Tamora Pierce might be recognized by the odd schoolteacher here and there. Riordan had a movie adaptation. All three have been trad-pubbed for decades. Otherwise, nobody has ever heard of any of those other authors and they certainly haven't read their work.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2019)

Interesting discussion. 
I admit that kids today don't read - anything.
Until this post I'd never heard of Scholastic.
I still don't know what Middle Grade is, but I'm a Brit so it's probably irrelevant.
Harry Potter was the only books my son read as a kid, now he's a voracious reader of all sorts of fiction, but prefers Fantasy/Science Fantasy.
I agree that MilSF has a strong market. Other SF sits on the shelves despite being a great read.


----------



## AlecHutson (Sep 26, 2016)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Which only makes Scholastic's complete failure to cultivate one that much more inexplicable. 400 million kids voraciously read Harry Potter from book one to book seven and never picked up another title forever and ever, amen. Sound a little strange? Yeah, it sounds a little strange.


Well, the first Harry Potter book came out 20+ years ago. Those kids are now reading Game of Thrones or Brandon Sanderson or whatever genre they've transitioned into from YA/MG fantasy. Since Harry Potter came out there have been numerous extremely popular YA / MG series that became cultural phenomena, though not on the level of Harry Potter. Hunger Games, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Divergent, Percy Jackson, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Artemis Fowl.

I just checked, and The Hunger Games was published by Scholastic. That series was huge.

I know very little about the market for MG/YA self-published fantasy. But I'd be surprised if young teenagers are browsing Amazon looking for their next MG/YA read. Kids that age are, I think, more likely to latch on to whatever is popular with their peers, which will usually be large, big name franchises backed by nationwide advertising campaigns. Books published by traditional publishers, in other words. A bet a lot of the YA books bought on Amazon are actually being read by adults. Maybe MG is just too young, even for adults who like YA fiction.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

After doing some cursory research I now know what middle grade is: fiction books aimed at 8-12 year olds.

Obviously, not a category I'm interested in, but I wonder how much of the problem talked about here is that it's a category stuck in the middle between little kids' books and books aimed at younger teens? Maybe a lot of the kids are either a) not reading much, or the ones who do read are b) reading stuff aimed at over age 13?

When I was 11 and 12 I was reading either Winnie the Pooh or Wind In the Willows (not sure where they'd fit in), or Civil War and naval history -- generally high school or higher reading level stuff. I know it's just anecdotal, but just because a kid is age 10 it isn't necessarily going to follow that he or she will stick with a certain age-related category for reading.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Name three middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling I can mention to the average parent they will recognize. You can't, because there aren't any.


I'll take that challenge.

Rick Riordan. Shannon Hale. Jeff Kinney.

And if the parents don't recognize the author names, they're very likely to recognize the names of those authors' most popular series: Percy Jackson. Princess Academy. Diary of a Wimpy Kid.

Those are all middle grade.

As a bonus, because he writes adult fantasy, but he certainly writes middle grade too: Brandon Sanderson. (His middle grade fantasy book The Rithmatist is actually the one that gets THE MOST readers begging for a sequel.)

Also, Brandon Mull may not be a total household name, but his books regularly hit the New York Times Bestseller list, and he writes MG fantasy. Same goes for Jessica Day George.

Middle grade fantasy is an EXTREMELY well-selling genre. The problem is that it's tough to sell as an _indie._ It's doing very, very well in traditional publishing. There are tons of middle grade readers out there. They just don't own Kindles, generally.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Scholastic has unlimited capital and a larger distribution network than Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Starbucks combined. Their ability to put books in customers' hands dwarfs Amazon's. It embarrasses Apple. It crushes Disney. They even have a theme park. Yet Scholastic hasn't cultivated even one author or even one moderately successful book or book series since Harry Potter.


Um, are you sure? Last I checked, Scholastic has published The Maze Runner trilogy, a bunch of sequels to The Giver, and a whole ton of Rick Riordan series, all of which are EXTREMELY popular with middle grade readers and are post-Harry Potter.

Scholastic has also published The Hunger Games trilogy and the Divergent trilogy, both of which are insanely popular young adult series that are post-Harry Potter.

I agree that Scholastic knows what it's doing. That's why it's publishing cartloads of popular middle grade right now.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

My son is 7, he gets three new books every week from the school library. Yet I wouldn't call him a big reader, he'd far rather be outside with a ball (any kind of ball, rugby, football, tennis, etc, he loves sport much more than reading). But I think his age group read quite a lot. He's only allowed an hour a day on his Kindle for gaming, I think this is fairly normal.

I don't know the author but we have Beast Quest books all over the house, there are at least 15 of them floating about round here. Also at least five Diary of a Wimpy Kid books. And he used his pocket money to buy all the Shamini Flint books off Amazon (paperback obviously), one a week until he had the entire series.

I read to both kids every night, we've done all the Harry Potter books, all the Roald Dahl books, and have just started The Hobbit. 

Maybe this is unusual behavior in the US? But in the UK a seven year old will read quite a bit. (As TR said above, I am not sure if this counts as middle grade because we have a different grade system here).


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

That's not unusual at all in the US.  I live in the US, and that sounds like something most parents either do or are being actively encouraged to do by every teacher and doctor the kids have.


----------



## lea_owens (Dec 5, 2011)

I don't really market The Outback Riders series (Horses of the Sun, etc) all that much, but it's aimed at middle grade. I think the majority of readers are older people who like reading children's 'clean' adventures, though. I still think that writing for this genre is worthwhile - not for the money, but for the fact that we offer them a diverse range of books to choose from. Mine are clean (no sex or swearing) outback adventures with young teens and their horses, and there's a bit of outback magic in the form of the Min Min lights (which were active in the region where I lived), and pretty much everyone who buys the first book buys all three, and their mothers and grandmothers read them, too.

Knowing the subject well helps. I breed horses, I've won over 30 national titles with them and scores of state titles (led and ridden), I've owned lots of breeds of horses, I judge at horse shows around Australia, I lived in the outback for a lot of years on stations just like my Outback Riders, I've seen the Miin Min lights, and I teach both primary school and high school so I know pre-teens and teens.  I would think if you didn't know your subject well, the kids would not read through. I imagine other adventure stories involving children with motorbikes or surfboards or dogs or some other specific area could do much better than mine, since I'm not marketing (mine are usually between 50,000 and 200,000 ranking on the .com site, and get jumps in other countries, sometimes getting into the top 10,000 but that doesn't represent many sales). It's only 30 - 40 sales for the entire series each month, and 15,000 - 20,000 KU page reads for the month. I've almost finished a fourth one to add to the series and then I'll re-edit the first three, get them all in paperback, and do some marketing. 

So, sure, it's small, you wouldn't do it if you just wanted to make money - but it's important. I've had children in Canada, the U.S., and England do book reports on the books, and they email me photos of their work, and tell me they love the books - that is worth more than money when you never expected to make money, anyway. Perhaps, if you only wanted to make money, that wouldn't seem important, but to me, those emails are treasures. I have a Dream Catcher in my bedroom made by a First Nations lady in Canada - she's in her 40s and has read the books several times, and reads them to young children; she wrote to me, we became friends, and she sent me the Dream Catcher to thank me for writing the books. I treasure that far more than money. So, I totally support writing for Middle School age children - just make it about something that is your specialty, don't try and copy 'just another' wizard book.

(And, please, don't even LOOK at the books on Amazon - they are desperately in need of re-editing and you'll shake your head at the writing... I've become much better, but, luckily, it hasn't seemed to matter to most readers. The point of this post is that I believe there IS a market, but the writing does have to be from the heart, not, "What can I write that will make money? Oh, I know, Harry Potter made money, I'll write one like that.")


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Oh, I should add, that I agree with the premise though! Despite the fact that my son reads a lot, I don't think there is a market for Middle Grade in the Indie space. I'd love to write kids books but they would be passion projects and not because I believed I would make any money at all.

The children at his school are given library time once a week and encouraged to choose three books each time. I suspect that reading those three books a week is more than enough for a lot of kids. Why would they buy more?


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

I went through an animal phase as a kid, including everything horses. I probably would have loved The Outback Riders, but like others have mentioned, I got all my books from the school library and then the public library. Or I perused my mom's collection of classics. Rarely, I got a book as a gift. I even worked hard to win classroom spelling bees in third grade so I could win a prize from the teacher's cabinet - I always chose a book.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I think if the OP wasn't so aggressive this would be an interesting conversation. Since all he does is attack people no matter the statement, though, I shall beat my head against a brick wall instead because it's more productive.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Parents recognizing authors' names doesn't mean all that much. When my son was young, HE knew what he wanted to read (series names, author names, etc). I knew of the series and knew they were OK for him to read. I didn't need to recognize the author names.

Also, Scholastic operates like a shrewd, savvy literary agent: find a series that sells well and get the author under contract. So in the majority of cases, the author is already successful _before_ Scholastic swoops in and creates the phenomenon.


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I promised proof, so here it is: Name three middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling I can mention to the average parent they will recognize. You can't, because there aren't any.


Yeah, that's not proof. But I think you already know that.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I think if the OP wasn't so aggressive this would be an interesting conversation. Since all he does is attack people no matter the statement, though, I shall beat my head against a brick wall instead because it's more productive.


right there next to you


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Even How to Train Your Dragon only has 1000 reviews after three films and hiring Dreamworks to make the cover.


1022 amazon.com + 654 amazon.co.uk + the others
And how many of the readers will write a review?
They probably didn't buy themselves, they probably don't buy anything on Amazon so they'll be below the Amazon limit for reviews.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I was hired to be an interactive marketing consultant for a $2 billion animated television series. I even wrote a book about it.


Not convinced that would tell you much about the MG market for books.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Hopefully the next bright-eyed MG author will catch this thread before they waste a year and $15,000 worth of therapy on a book nobody will ever read.


I feel your pain, but you needed $15,000 of therapy just to write one book?


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

ShayneRutherford said:


> He makes a good living writing MG books.


I know a number of writers who do the same. One still making a good living when his last book must have been published over a decade ago. All of them trad though.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

UnicornEmily said:


> Middle grade fantasy is an EXTREMELY well-selling genre. The problem is that it's tough to sell as an _indie._ It's doing very, very well in traditional publishing. There are tons of middle grade readers out there. They just don't own Kindles, generally.


I think this hits the nail on the head.
It's about print books, bookshops, libraries, word of mouth.
And when kids like a series or an author, they really, REALLY like them and always want the next. And they like owning their favourites as physical books on their own shelves so they can revisit as often as they want.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2019)

When my son was in Middle school, I took him mainly to the library to check out books. We never bought on Amazon.
When my daughter was in Middle school, I took her to the Half Price Bookstores. I purchased on Amazon only when class required.
My daughter is in HS and she reads from Wattpad(Free) stuff.
I'm the only one that buys on Amazon.

I feel that libraries and bookstores are the way to go to reach MG readers.


----------



## Llano (May 27, 2012)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Scholastic has unlimited capital and a larger distribution network than Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Starbucks combined.


You lost me right there.


----------



## jable (May 17, 2017)

UnicornEmily said:


> Middle grade fantasy is an EXTREMELY well-selling genre. The problem is that it's tough to sell as an _indie._ It's doing very, very well in traditional publishing. There are tons of middle grade readers out there. They just don't own Kindles, generally.


100% this. The neighborhood kids I interact with are in the MG age range. Every time I hang out with their parents their house is filled with MG books. At this moment it's mostly Minecraft related stuff with some more traditional MG books. But, they're all available from the local library or the scholastic book fair. They go through 3-5 books per week.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

As a reader and parent .... though my 'kid' is 35 ... I think there's absolutely a market for middle grade reading material. BUT, it's probably NOT going to be an eBook market. Obviously there was nothing such as ebooks when my kid _was_ a kid, but he read a lot .... he always wanted to buy several things from the scholastic book flyers that came home every month or so. I know I did as well as a kid. We also always got him books for any gift-giving occasion.

Even now that there are eBooks, I'm thinking kids probably are better suited to paper books. I don't think I would be likely to get a young-ish kid an eReader; I certainly wouldn't let them carry it to school, etc. And I feel like kids really like browsing physically for books -- whether at a store or a library. I certainly did as a kid, as did my son. And, again, I'm thinking I wouldn't be comfortable leaving them to browse unsupervised on line, so there's that.

Bottom line: lots of middle schoolers like to read. Certainly many are not particularly interested, but of kids that age I've known, most DO like to read, even if they also like to do other things. That said, because the only payment method they can control is CASH, they are probably much more likely to be reading from the library or buying paper -- maybe used -- books. Based on that, it does follow that middle grade books via Amazon/Kindle are probably not as lucrative a market.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

I think the problem is with selling books on Amazon. I write in several genres and recently had a BookBub on a novel in early April. I was fortunate that it generated sales and page reads for all my other books, including non-fiction, EXCEPT for my children's and MG books. I'm sure some of the readers who downloaded my books must have had children or grandchildren, but not one sale or borrow.  

ETA. I finally had 20 page reads on a Leon Chameleon book today


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Ann in Arlington said:


> As a reader and parent .... though my 'kid' is 35 ... I think there's absolutely a market for middle grade reading material. BUT, it's probably NOT going to be an eBook market. Obviously there was nothing such as ebooks when my kid _was_ a kid, but he read a lot .... he always wanted to buy several things from the scholastic book flyers that came home every month or so. I know I did as well as a kid. We also always got him books for any gift-giving occasion.
> 
> Even now that there are eBooks, I'm thinking kids probably are better suited to paper books. I don't think I would be likely to get a young-ish kid an eReader; I certainly wouldn't let them carry it to school, etc. And I feel like kids really like browsing physically for books -- whether at a store or a library. I certainly did as a kid, as did my son. And, again, I'm thinking I wouldn't be comfortable leaving them to browse unsupervised on line, so there's that.
> 
> Bottom line: lots of middle schoolers like to read. Certainly many are not particularly interested, but of kids that age I've known, most DO like to read, even if they also like to do other things. That said, because the only payment method they can control is CASH, they are probably much more likely to be reading from the library or buying paper -- maybe used -- books. Based on that, it does follow that middle grade books via Amazon/Kindle are probably not as lucrative a market.


My oldest kid is 5, and we already buy a ton from the scholastic flyers through his Pre-K. Except, we now but from the flyers available online. He's already adept at looking at the online listing with me, asking questions, and figuring out which ones he wants. We do buy him paper books from scholastic, but he's also got ebooks on his Kindle.

Books for younger readers are a hard sell for indies. The scholastic flyers work for me as a parent because they offer a wide selection, they're organized by reader level, they're affordable, and they're reliable: I keep going back there because I know next month will have something different. Also, I got a ton of books from those flyers when I was a child, so I'm a primed consumer for book flyers.

Realizing that there are fewer indie authors targeting the young reader market, it would be interesting to see how an indie organized effort to mimic the scholastic flyer would do. Trust was mentioned as a barrier upthread, but I don't think that's any more a hindrance for indie authors than trad. I've ordered trad books that I found objectionable or not age appropriate after the fact. It happens, and rabid book buyers know it.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

I enjoy Shane's aggressive delivery and find it refreshing. Lately, his posts are humorous and satisfying reads. At first, I feel on the defensive, perhaps at first contemplating rebuttal, but then he not-so-subtly provides logical back-up for his biting posts.

I hope he doesn't change.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

PermaStudent said:


> My oldest kid is 5, and we already buy a ton from the scholastic flyers through his Pre-K. Except, we now but from the flyers available online. He's already adept at looking at the online listing with me, asking questions, and figuring out which ones he wants. We do buy him paper books from scholastic, but he's also got ebooks on his Kindle.
> 
> Books for younger readers are a hard sell for indies. The scholastic flyers work for me as a parent because they offer a wide selection, they're organized by reader level, they're affordable, and they're reliable: I keep going back there because I know next month will have something different. Also, I got a ton of books from those flyers when I was a child, so I'm a primed consumer for book flyers.
> 
> Realizing that there are fewer indie authors targeting the young reader market, it would be interesting to see how an indie organized effort to mimic the scholastic flyer would do. Trust was mentioned as a barrier upthread, but I don't think that's any more a hindrance for indie authors than trad. I've ordered trad books that I found objectionable or not age appropriate after the fact. It happens, and rabid book buyers know it.


Looks like the answer is to get published by Scholastic


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Given the dull looks I get from most parents when discussing the apparently alien concept of the written word, I think you'd have an easier time taking apart a car engine with your teeth.


I think you really need to consider having this thread deleted.

A lot of people here are parents, and we buy books from fellow Kboarders for our kids. Insulting parents is not the way to get them to buy your books.


----------



## Wunder (Sep 2, 2017)

You have to write what sells if you want to make money. That's just all there is to it. I beat myself to hell in a genre that was killing me for two years before I decided to write in a genre with actual readers. Within three months of that decision, I could quit my day job. That being said, the OP is definitely being a little aggressive with his thoughts and phrasing. I mean, I get it. This is a hard gig, and there are no guarantees in it. It can be frustrating and demoralizing. I think, to that end, it's helpful though. I know exactly how the OP feels and how hard this has been for him. He's made it very clear, and that's an experience that I think a new writer could learn something from. 

To the main issue, though, I kind of agree. I've always thought MG fiction was a tough row to hoe.


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Looks like the answer is to get published by Scholastic


Very likely. 

I'm not a buyer in the MG market, but I will be in a few short years, and guess where I'll be spending a lot of those dollars? Not because there aren't other options, but because of a huge marketing effort to grab my attention *before* my kids aged into that market. And they've got offerings for when my kids age out of it, too.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

You come across as someone desperate to avoid facing reality when faced with a failed endeavour. _"I'm not a failure because I am not good at what I am attempting, I'm not successful because parenting, schools, and kids have failed._" Your wild claims are almost comical, are not valid, and your "proof" non-existent. There is a huge market for books focused on children of that age. The thing is, as others have mentioned, although tablets are popular with kids, eReaders are not. Kids like books, not eBooks. I am a great-grandfather who has a lot of contact with kids, and almost all of them are avid readers. Any kid's room that I have checked has lots of books. All the kids I know have favourite authors. Perhaps you need more contact with kids, and fewer theories with no basis.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2019)

Different strokes for different folks. This is a stimulating thread.  


As for my personal experience (as a parent) one of mine reads, the other doesn't. Of the one that reads, all his friends are non-readers. When I say non-readers - they won't EVER pick up a book. No time, no enthusiasm, no interest. So, based on my knowledge of them and their friends I would say 1 in 10 lads are readers. I can't say if that's different for girls. If that replicates across the country (we're mid-range) then you have your problem.


Bearing in mind that most of the posters on this thread are writers, it follows that their families are also likely to be well-read. It doesn't follow that this is a national or international average. I'd say we on here, are actually exceptional, and not of an average standard. Personally, I couldn't live without reading books. I've transferred that to my wife and one son. I wish I could get the other one to do so - it would change his life.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2019)

Kids like to use tablets or even a phone for playing games or watching youtube, they haven't caught on with eBooks ... yet. I remember when I was a kid I liked books with pictures in them. Also, a lot of kids get their reading material for free from school or the library. They're not really reading blurbs or browsing back covers, they read what's given to them. Sometimes they like what they're given and ask for more of it but the way they're exposed to books is obviously a lot different than adults. 

If you really want to write middle grade it's one of those genre's where you need to go trade.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> I'm not successful because parenting, schools, and kids have failed.


I'm not successful because there's nobody there. This thread is a list of reasons posted by other authors why MG doesn't sell on the Kindle: Parents don't trust the Kindle. Kids get books at the library and not the bookstore. Scholastic has a taxpayer-subsidized monopoly. Dreamworks didn't make my cover. I didn't make a $150 million film as a marketing tool.

Earlier in the thread someone suggested that being a marketing consultant for one of the most popular animated characters on Earth didn't teach me anything about the MG book market. It did, but I wasn't paying attention. Sailor Moon sold so many comics in Japan that it kicked off a worldwide collectibles craze that bankrupted Marvel. The comics did just fine here as well. When they tried to pivot into prose fiction, they cratered. I know because I was there. Same distribution. Same shelf at the bookstore. Same publisher. Same character. Same fan base. One sold, the other didn't. I should have known better.

Meanwhile, if I want to sell MilSF or LitRPG, I write a book, I put a cover on it and feed five bucks into the ad machine. Sales pour out like a Pechanga slot on Labor Day. Why? Because there are markets for MilSF and LitRPG on the Kindle.



> There is a huge market for books focused on children of that age.


At the library.



> Bearing in mind that most of the posters on this thread are writers, it follows that their families are also likely to be well-read.


That's understandable. It also explains why they have such trouble imagining parents who are aggressively disinterested in reading and encourage illiteracy in their kids. It seems to me the Kindle would be thrilling for parents. Or a teacher. Or a librarian. $10 a month for practically unlimited reading material, and a whole new market for MG authors. Alas, I'm probably five years early.

Someday I will have exquisite hardbound volumes of my MG series printed, and I'll just give them away. If I can't sell the thing, at least perhaps I can encourage the kids to read more.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

All I see here is someone boxed in by self-catering convictions.

MG is smallish but decent segment but you need to think outside the box. Since when is Kindle the only medium for self-publishing?
The opportunity to publish print books has never been as good as it is now and it's getting better by the day. Add to that the simple fact of medium to low competition (the giants don't count, I mean the mass of self-pubbers) a harder market to reach... but substantially less competition than in many other genres.

Depending on what you are writing, you may need to reconsider what MG readers are consuming today. This is not the 70s, not the 90s and not even 2010. Kids aged 8-12 today consume almost-adult media by the bucketfull. Themes, the level of adventure and the level of dialogue between characters need to reflect this to break in.

If MG is what you want to write and are good at, I suggest take a step back and rethink your market approach strategy because there is a market, and it's full of gaps.


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

atree said:


> This is not the 70s, not the 90s and not even 2010. Kids today consume almost-adult media by the bucketfull. Themes, the level of adventure and the level of dialogue between characters need to reflect this to break in.


Let's remember that MG, like YA, is a pretty new genre. I'm only in my thirties, and there wasn't a vast amount of either of those genres when I was the age to read them. Granted, I was always well ahead in reading ability as a child (as I suspect many of us here were), but I remember reading chapter books like "My Teacher is an Alien" and then moving directly into reading child-appropriate adult books (meaning no on-screen sex or swearing, fairly limited violence). When I was MG age, I was reading SF/F novels aimed at adults. There was no Harry Potter, no HTTYD, etc. Sex and overt violence aside, it wasn't at all a challenge to move into reading stories with "adult-level" themes, adventure, and complex dialogue. Maybe the real problem is that the artificial segmentation of the market (into MG and YA) has caused writers/publishers to forget what it was like to be a kid and subsequently underestimate what kids in those age groups are actually capable of reading and understanding.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

I agree. I am pretty sure most parents would have no problem allowing their 8 year olds to watch a replay of Indiana Jones by themselves while mom makes dinner. IN the 80s when it came out, the PG-2 rating was hotly debated as being too lenient.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/21/movies/indiana-jones-stirs-ratings-debate.html

Obviously, one wants language, relationships, violence to not be graphic and without innuendo. Clean adventure, that's where the market is heading, fueled by the huge push on superhero media.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Which only makes Scholastic's complete failure to cultivate one that much more inexplicable. 400 million kids voraciously read Harry Potter from book one to book seven and never picked up another title forever and ever, amen. Sound a little strange? Yeah, it sounds a little strange.
> 
> Very good. Which of his books has as many reviews as How to Train Your Dragon?
> 
> And who 99 out of 100 parents have never heard of. John Grisham is known for his legal thrillers. Tamora Pierce might be recognized by the odd schoolteacher here and there. Riordan had a movie adaptation. All three have been trad-pubbed for decades. Otherwise, nobody has ever heard of any of those other authors and they certainly haven't read their work.


What sounds a little strange is your insistence that MG books don't sell, when I know for a fact that they do. I used to work at a book store, in the receiving department, and I know that lots of series sold well, because I kept having to receive tons of them and put them on carts.

Who cares? Who cares how many reviews his books have in relation to HTTYD? (For the record, his first novel has 455 reviews, and he has a load of rabid fans.) Your statement was that there's no market for MG fiction, and I'm telling you there is obviously some market for it, because he was able to quit his job and now makes a living writing MG books as an indie.

Just because you say a thing, doesn't make it so. Books by all of those authors used to fly off the shelf when a new release would come in. I know, again, because I used to have to handle them all.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't see why you would use number of Amazon reviews as the end all, be all of what sells. HTTYD has had three movie adaptations that did insanely well. Even if the books had "only" sold well enough to generate 1,000 Amazon reviews, that's probably a few hundred thousand copies. And there are big movies on top of it.

If that isn't enough for you, I don't know what would be.


----------



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

Doctor Proctor's Fart Powder is almost as popular in our daughter's school as Diary of a Wimpy Kid. But sorry, kids are reading. I don't know of any surveys of "Gen Z," but I remember hearing year after year that the Millennials didn't read, but surveys showed they were the most well read generation in almost 100 years. 

Middle grade and young-young-adult (rather than YA written for adults) is just a bad market for indies. There's a variety of reasons for this, but the big one is that most indies get successful selling far fewer books than trad publishing, but making a massively larger royalty per unit sold--mainly because the majority of our sales are in ebooks. This is not a formula for success with middle grade. The market wants print and it wants product that's been recommended and vetted by librarians and teachers and reviewers.


----------



## farmersteve (Mar 2, 2019)

GeneDoucette said:


> right there next to you


Maybe he needs an attitude adjustment to sell books in that space!

I have 14 and 16 year old boys. They both went through a reading phase in the 8-12 year old range. They read a lot of books and they were paperbacks. But the OP is right, there is no market of indie writers there. It's dominated by big publishers because kids that age usually don't pick their own books and don't have a device to read them on. So parents end up picking the books and that means a trip to the bookstore or on Amazon but in paper because they don't want them reading on a Kindle or phone yet. Sure it can be done, but the money is elsewhere and he probably should steer clear of MG writing with that attitude.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

From https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrowe1/2018/07/22/estimated-u-s-book-publisher-revenue-was-north-of-26-billion-in-2017/#5154625b3196

"Children and young adult fiction books continue seeing slow but steady growth: Currently at $3.67 billion, this category is up 1.1% year-over-year in 2017, and has grown revenues by 11.3% over the past five-year period."


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> The market wants print and it wants product that's been recommended and vetted by librarians and teachers and reviewers.


In other words, the market is walled off. Here's hoping the next future MG superstar stops by this thread first. Sure will save them a lot of grief.

Mr. Sulu, set a course for the paying customers. Ahead warp factor two.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Here's hoping the next future MG superstar stops by this thread first. Sure will save them a lot of grief.


Won't that create a paradox?


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2019)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I'm not successful because there's nobody there.


The issue is not the market, it's the product you are offering.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

The OP has stated a negative. "There is no market..."

A negative is by definition unprovable (without total knowledge of the bounded set, anyway--in this case, the total world market--I can prove there is no water in my glass, but I cannot prove there is no water in anyone's glass unless I can examine everyone's glass all at once).

As the OP does not have total knowledge of the current world digital market, his assertion is unprovable. (not disproven--just not proven).

As there are examples to counter his assertion (assuming they are credible--a different question) such as "I know several authors who are doing well in the market," we can view the OP's original statement as disproven.

The fact that he doesn't want to believe it is irrelevant to its fallacy. The statement is fallacious on its face.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

I used to shoplift from the Scholastic book fairs in elementary. I figured out that if I wore shorts under a fluffy dress then I could hide stuff in the waist band of the shorts and the dress would cover it. I did it multiple times, and I don't know how I never got caught. Mostly I took the fun stuff like stickers, stamps, etc., because my parents usually sent me money for a book or two, but I did get some paperbacks too if I didn't have enough money for all the ones I wanted.


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> I used to shoplift from the Scholastic book fairs in elementary. I figured out that if I wore shorts under a fluffy dress then I could hide stuff in the waist band of the shorts and the dress would cover it. I did it multiple times, and I don't know how I never got caught. Mostly I took the fun stuff like stickers, stamps, etc., because my parents usually sent me money for a book or two, but I did get some paperbacks too if I didn't have enough money for all the ones I wanted.


Old school piracy. I can't say that's awesome, but I give you props for fessing up in a room full of authors.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> I used to shoplift from the Scholastic book fairs in elementary. I figured out that if I wore shorts under a fluffy dress then I could hide stuff in the waist band of the shorts and the dress would cover it. I did it multiple times, and I don't know how I never got caught. Mostly I took the fun stuff like stickers, stamps, etc., because my parents usually sent me money for a book or two, but I did get some paperbacks too if I didn't have enough money for all the ones I wanted.


Just research for a future career as a crime writer?


----------



## 鬼 (Sep 30, 2012)

What a silly useless thread. Of course there's a market. Of course they sell. Go work in a bookstore for a few months and you'll see. So what if it's mostly print that sells? Go and market the print then? What does it matter if the parents don't know the names of the authors? Some adults don't know the titles of their favourite authors so what's the difference?

Ridiculous. 

Persistence is key. If you can't hack it or make it work then maybe move onto something else? Making bold generalizations isn't going to get you anywhere.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Laran Mithras said:


> I enjoy Shane's aggressive delivery and find it refreshing. Lately, his posts are humorous and satisfying reads. At first, I feel on the defensive, perhaps at first contemplating rebuttal, but then he not-so-subtly provides logical back-up for his biting posts.
> 
> I hope he doesn't change.


I agree. I think he brings something to the table.


----------



## Vidya (Feb 14, 2012)

Shane does tend to make categorical statements, but the resulting discussion turns out to be interesting and informative, so I’m good with it. This place got much slower after the exodus to Writer Sanctum, and it’s good to sometimes have someone shake things up and start a lively debate.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2019)

Vidya said:


> Shane does tend to make categorical statements, but the resulting discussion turns out to be interesting and informative, so I'm good with it. This place got much slower after the exodus to Writer Sanctum, and it's good to sometimes have someone shake things up and start a lively debate.


----------



## jslewis (May 14, 2019)

Maybe if we focus our efforts instead on writing YA or middle grade fiction worthy of reading, then perhaps you wouldn't have started this thread.

JK Rowling is releasing 4 e-books this summer (announced earlier today) and I am willing to bet cash that all those little kids who refuse to give you their parents' hard-earned money will be dropping their iPads _cold_ to read what JK Rowling has conjured up in her mind this past week.

Apologies for my harsh tone. But I firmly stand behind my conviction that the bar for fiction is extremely high _these days_. Especially when you're up against a generation designed and built to thrive on instant gratification.


----------



## The Self-Publishing Club (Oct 12, 2018)

If all of the Indie MG authors could come together to create a catalogue of A
”kboard approved” books, maybe we can take on Scholastic together!  

Who is with me?!


FWIW, sales of the MG book I've been promoting are about 75%ebook, 20%paperback, 5% KU.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Mattdameon said:


> If all of the Indie MG authors could come together to create a catalogue of A
> "aboard approved" books, maybe we can take on Scholastic together!
> 
> Who is with me?!?
> ...


Do you mean 'school board approved'. One of my books was trad published by Penguin. The others have been bought by schools, or workshopped in schools and had good reviews by teachers, but still have not sold well in either ebook or print. I don't have the money for paid advertising, so anything that doesn't cost money would help.


----------



## smikeo (Dec 1, 2014)

First of all, someone should let Sever Bronny know that his audience either doesn't exist, or reads only trad books, because that can only mean that the hundreds of thousands of books he's sold, and is still selling are apparently a mistake. Sever Bronny is indie, write MG fantasy, and has a few fantastic threads right here on the board.

Also, I suppose I'll have to inform my 11-year-old son that the fact that he plays fortnite and watches Youtube (both of which he does) means that all those books he reads ALL THE TIME are a... mistake?

I say that as someone who started out by trying to write MG fiction, and failed miserably - just the fact that someone can't sell his MG books doesn't mean that the market isn't there. I want to flatter myself and say that it doesn't even mean that the books aren't good. It means just that - they didn't sell. 

It's a tough market for sure, and there are definitely easier genres to find customers in as an indie, but it's there.


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Mattdameon said:


> If all of the Indie MG authors could come together to create a catalogue of A
> "kboard approved" books, maybe we can take on Scholastic together!
> 
> Who is with me?!
> ...


People will call this a pipe dream, but people used to say indies would never compete on the same level as "real authors". Young readers are just one more market Indies haven't dominated *yet*.

I say go for it. Study those scholastic flyers for a while and you'll find 90% of the books offered are recycled content shown over and over in different ways. Kids are always aging into a certain level, and it's new to them.


----------



## TheLass (Mar 13, 2016)

jslewis said:


> JK Rowling is releasing 4 e-books this summer (announced earlier today) and I am willing to bet cash that all those little kids who refuse to give you their parents' hard-earned money will be dropping their iPads _cold_ to read what JK Rowling has conjured up in her mind this past week.


That will be interesting. Yes, I imagine we'll find kids don't have a problem at all with ebooks (nor parents with buying ebooks for them). Hopefully it might shift the culture a bit and help improve the numbers for the rest of us.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Persistence is key.


Celebrated the eight year anniversary of my first book in February.



> If you can't hack it or make it work then maybe move onto something else?


I write in five genres: https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B016L8CDDG



> Making bold generalizations isn't going to get you anywhere.


Perhaps. But at least the next middle-grade hopeful will have the facts and will be able to make an informed decision. As authors, we don't do anywhere near enough discussion of the basic logistics of selling books on e-readers. Books for kids? Sure, as long as mom buys them, and since mom would rather save her money, she goes to the library. Boom, you're out of business before you type "Chapter One." Nobody will ever see your expensive cover. Nobody will ever read that blurb you beat yourself unconscious over. Nobody will read the words that expensive editor hammered into shape for you. And you'll beat yourself up over it for months or years until you finally admit the truth and write something for readers who actually exist.

You see, we all bought in to the myth that there are millions of kids in the world who exist in some kind of Christmas zone between Disney parades and Steven Spielberg movie endings who would be thrilled to read stories about magic and adventure and heroic kids just like them. The reality is a little different.

Those kids are actually heavily medicated, constantly on edge because their parents are prescription-pill broke and obsessed with whatever is on that 4x3 screen growing out of their hand. There's no room for magic and adventure in that world, just like there are fewer and fewer people with enough mental fortitude to watch a baseball game start to finish. The only way you're going to get a kid to sit still long enough to read a novel is to tranquilize them. Or you could park them in front of a screen that is constantly flashing explosions of color at them. Then you've hypnotized them instead. And the whole time they are reading your novel, Netflix, Fortnite and YouTube are one tap away. You'd get better results buying a sponsorship for the NHL Playoffs in Hell.

Why is romance so popular on the Kindle? It's because Miss Chick-Lit can read about worlds full of shirtless men wearing cowboy hats without revealing the cover to the other people waiting to board the plane. Same for urban fantasy starring the 20-something supermodel in her vacuum-applied leather pants. All of the most popular genres descend from "shirtless wearing a cowboy hat" for this one reason.

For guys, it's the Duke Nukem formula: Chicks in provocative outfits, violence and one-liners. Doesn't matter if it's a caveman-era setting or the 35th century. Guys want to read about violent men blowing everything up, delivering the one-liner and carrying the chick off. If you need proof, just take a look at every film popular with men since 1972. The reason Starships at War sells is because my violent main character has all the best lines and a five-million-ton weapon to blow things up with. He hasn't carried off any chicks yet, but I'm only on book four.



> Maybe if we focus our efforts instead on writing YA or middle grade fiction worthy of reading, then perhaps you wouldn't have started this thread.


I could have a Hugo candidate novel and hire Pixar to design the cover. If it's invisible, it doesn't matter. Remember Shane's laws of bookselling: If your book is invisible, it will not sell. If your book does not sell, it is invisible.

At some point I'll add law #3: If your book is middle grade, and you don't have direct access to the classroom in 75,000 schools and the ability to draft every teacher, parent and principal in those schools as your personal retail staff like Scholastic, it will not sell.



> JK Rowling is releasing 4 e-books this summer (announced earlier today) and I am willing to bet cash that all those little kids who refuse to give you their parents' hard-earned money will be dropping their iPads cold to read what JK Rowling has conjured up in her mind this past week.


JK Rowling had a *ten billion dollar film franchise* to help establish her readership. The reason she's doing e-books is because half her audience is now in their 20s and 30s and print is a pain in the (&@%)(*@$.



> just the fact that someone can't sell his MG books doesn't mean that the market isn't there.


The fact Scholastic has only 67000 subscribers on YouTube means the market isn't there. Can't argue with the scoreboard.



> someone should let Sever Bronny know that his audience either doesn't exist


They don't have to. He pivoted to YA all by himself. He doesn't describe his books as middle grade any more for reasons which should be obvious by now.



> It's a tough market for sure, and there are definitely easier genres to find customers in as an indie, but it's there.


Good. I'll let someone else look for it.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

You're obviously not up with the times, because chicklit has been dead for five or ten years now.

If you really believe middle grade doesn't sell, go write something else. Most of us make some degree of compromise when writing to market.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> You're obviously not up with the times, because chicklit has been dead for five or ten years now.


I think it's just the term that's dated. I'm guessing but isn't "chick lit" now just "women's fiction" or "new adult" romance?


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> JK Rowling had a *ten billion dollar film franchise* to help establish her readership.


You clearly don't know the sales trajectory of her books.
The estimated advance for the film rights was £1m. - ie she was already massively popular and only going to get bigger.

This is the problem. Most of the stuff you say is demonstrably wrong and yet you say that you have had contracts for market research.


----------



## ImaWriter (Aug 12, 2015)

Dpock said:


> I think it's just the term that's dated. I'm guessing but isn't "chick lit" now just "women's fiction" or "new adult" romance?


No. There were very specific genre guidelines for chick lit that are not mandated in women's fiction. Or new adult.

You *might * get away with saying chick lit was a sub genre of WF, but it was not the same thing.

Harlequin used to have a very successful chick lit imprint. IIRC it was called Red Dress or something. It was discontinued years ago, because, as the saying goes "chick lit is dead."


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> You see, we all bought in to the myth that there are millions of kids in the world who exist in some kind of Christmas zone between Disney parades and Steven Spielberg movie endings who would be thrilled to read stories about magic and adventure and heroic kids just like them. The reality is a little different.
> 
> I could have a Hugo candidate novel and hire Pixar to design the cover. If it's invisible, it doesn't matter. Remember Shane's laws of bookselling: If your book is invisible, it will not sell. If your book does not sell, it is invisible.
> 
> ...


JK Rowling got a film franchise because her books were already very popular. I know this because I remember receiving carts full of hardcover Goblet of Fire, along with more carts full of the previous three in paperback. I'm talking thousands of copies of all four titles combined, and they all flew off the shelf, because I don't remember returning any of them. And that was over a year before the first movie came out, so the books were definitely a success before the movies.

I don't know what you think Scholastic's amount of YouTube subscribers has to do with anything. If you want a number that reflects something more useful, look at the ranks of book 1 and book 100 on the Children's Top 100 list.

Sever's newer books are indeed YA, because he continued to write about the same characters from the first series. They got older, so the books had to get more mature. But he didn't do that because MG wasn't successful for him. He did it because 16 year old protagonists just don't fall into the MG category.


----------



## Dallas Jessica Owen (Oct 8, 2018)

Quite honestly, throughout this thread, you're coming off as a member of the "sad puppies" brigade.

I get the frustration, I get the heartbreak of sitting down and spending hours writing, editing, slaving away at a keyboard to the detriment of all else only to see it fail.  I don't get the whiny attitude from someone who is supposedly doing so well. Someone like that should know the market changes, goes through phases and you either adapt or die. To claim your failing in something because the market isn't there when (as other people have shown) it clearly is, is bad. Coming from a professional, it's worse. 

No one conquers all genres. Just be happy you sell in some and accept you are not that enticing in others. You will have an easier life of it.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> You're obviously not up with the times, because chicklit has been dead for five or ten years now.
> 
> If you really believe middle grade doesn't sell, go write something else. *Most of us make some degree of compromise when writing to market*.


This, bolding mine.

Commodity markets are tough because the products have no inherent value, this includes most books published today, regardless of genre. They're all pretty fungible. On the other hand, for those that reject the market and want to get out of the commodity pool - you're going to have to do it without Amazon.

MG has shifted to YA, just look to the string of movies and TV shows, not to mention the non-stop success of the CW. The _After School Special_ kid, no matter how well written, just isn't dark enough anymore, especially when compared to comic books and their genre adjacent spin-offs.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> You clearly don't know the sales trajectory of her books.


On the contrary. I have educated myself to the point of redundancy with regard to these characters. JK Rowling was not "massively popular" prior to the films. The paltry $105k paid for the book rights is proof. The first film was announced scarcely a few months after the first book debuted, which opened up Warner Bros. checkbook and the rest is history. It's not hard to sell millions of books when they are optioned for a film series and there is zero competition.



> The estimated advance for the film rights was £1m


Further proof they were hedging. Remember A Knight's Tale? Yeah, neither does anyone else. Those rights sold for twice what was paid for Harry Potter even without a book series. Harry Potter was a risk, because Hollywood knows there's no market for middle grade fiction, and certainly not one that can drive a nine-figure production budget.



> Most of the stuff you say is demonstrably wrong and yet you say that you have had contracts for market research.


Well, I know the Harry Potter rights were for four films, not one, which means Warner Bros. was quadruple-hedging their bets. They know the truth about middle grade, which is why they spent reckless amounts in marketing both the books and the films.

By the way, in case you need more evidence of the absent middle-grade market, Marvel Entertainment was bankrupt while all this was going on. 



> JK Rowling got a film franchise because her books were already very popular.


If that were true, Warner Bros. wouldn't have insisted on a 75% discount.



> I know this because I remember receiving carts full of hardcover Goblet of Fire, along with more carts full of the previous three in paperback. I'm talking thousands of copies of all four titles combined, and they all flew off the shelf, because


Warner Bros. and Scholastic were able to leverage a distribution network of more than 75,000 schools, not to mention all the Hollywood trades, the Today Show and anyone else willing to cash a check.



> I don't know what you think Scholastic's amount of YouTube subscribers has to do with anything.


Oh? YouTube is where all of their "readers" are.



> If you want a number that reflects something more useful, look at the ranks of book 1 and book 100 on the Children's Top 100 list.


Children's Top 100. Number One is Harry Potter at #16. Number Fifty is Legend of the Blue Mermaid by Nickelodeon. Oh look, another huge company with a television network. Rank #908. Number One Hundred is at rank #1852. Sounds encouraging, doesn't it?

Except all three are traditionally published. Harry Potter is middle grade, not a children's book. Murder and betrayal and evil snake people aren't generally good ideas for children's stories, you see. Legend of the Blue Mermaid looks more appropriate, but then again I can sell a lot of books too if I have a TV network. The #100 book is a "Teen and Young Adult Stepfamily" category book which again, is not a children's book, nor is it middle grade. Further, this isn't even a middle grade list. It's a list of children's books which inexplicably includes Hunger Games, which is a story about teenagers violently murdering each other for cash and prizes: neither a children's nor a middle grade book.

I presume your point is to prove me wrong about the non-existent MG market because even the #100 book on the "children's" list is selling 50 copies a day. The only problem is the only middle grade book on the list is Harry Potter, which I think we've covered at this point.



> Sever's newer books are indeed YA, because he continued to write about the same characters from the first series.


Since he allegedly had so much success with middle grade, why not continue writing for that market instead? Why change markets if you're already successful? Is it possible his books were selling to readers other than middle grade, he discovered this and pulled both eject handles?



> He did it because 16 year old protagonists just don't fall into the MG category.


Since there is no MG category, I agree.



> I don't get the whiny attitude from someone who is supposedly doing so well.


Spare me the second-rate Reddit material. There's more to this than how many books I sold. Do you want to live in a world where kids aren't reading? Me neither. Let's grow up and start taking something seriously for a change. I have all the spreadsheets I need to tell me how to bank six figures a year writing. I think the technology we have can be used for something more constructive than me and a cold adult beverage pounding out a novel a month starring an explosion as the main character.



> To claim your failing in something because the market isn't there


Is perfectly reasonable when I have hard data to back it up. All you need to do is look at the replies in this very thread: Kids don't buy books. Their parents don't buy books. They don't want to read on a screen. They want print. They don't own Kindles. I don't have a film series to market with. If mom wants books for her kids, she gets them from the library, or the Scholastic book fair, because Scholastic is able to use her kids' teachers as retail sales staff, and they send home a catalog right alongside the child's math homework at taxpayer expense. I don't have a retail sales staff in 75,000 schools, nor can I leverage the budgets of 50 state governments, so there you have it.

Traditionally published books get all the sales because Scholastic *OWNS THE LAND UPON WHICH ALL THOSE BOOKS ARE SOLD*, and whatever they don't hoover up Disney gets. I don't care if you shoved Roald Dahl, Carolyn Keene, C.S. Lewis and Pamela Travers into a Brundlefly machine and chained the resulting six-armed monstrosity to a laptop at gunpoint, there are no words nor any combination of words that thing could get on paper that would move the needle an atom's width in either direction with regard to middle grade fiction. The market does not exist.

And that is a tragedy, because after fighting our way through millennia of wars, disease and tyranny, we've invented a way to put a book in anyone's hands anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds, and we did it just in time for our children to lose all interest in reading. I think I'll sing.

_Oh beautiful for spacious skies..._

Some writers: not many but some, will understand what it is like to have lived with characters for some 20 years and then realize you have to say goodbye because despite all the technology at my disposal and the talent God was gracious enough to let me borrow for a time, I simply cannot find a way to get them into the sunlight. Thankfully, many of the children who will never meet my characters have a father or a grandfather who will buy a book about the adventures of an explosion.

Like I said, I'm over it. Doesn't make it any less heartbreaking.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> On the contrary. I have educated myself to the point of redundancy with regard to these characters. JK Rowling was not "massively popular" prior to the films.


I talked about the sales _trajectory_. Easy enough to Google.
Film came out in 2001.
Philosopher's Stone published 1997; 1st print run 500. Small traditional publisher. US version (199 50k
increased substantially each year.
1st print run of Goblet of Fire (2000) 1.5 million UK + 3.8 million US.
That is massive popularity before the film came out. And that popularity is one of the reasons that the film was such a big hit.
I'm afraid that I see very little evidence of your education.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> That is massive popularity before the film came out.


Then let's do the math. 4 million books in three years. Leaving aside the gargantuan amount of money Scholastic and Warner Bros. spent during that time on film marketing, and the huge money Electronic Arts spent on video game marketing, and all the other attendant merchandising (dolls, apparel, etc.) that means Scholastic only needed to sell 17 books in each school each year to cover the print run.

17 books sold each year per school.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Then let's do the math. 4 million books in three years. 17 books sold each year per school.


Um, no. 
This is just the first print run for books 1 and 4 (I'm sure you did know there were others in between). Just the first run, not total sales. Book 1 continued to sell well every year as did 2 & 3.
Marketing only got behind it when the popularity was observed and later when the film came out. Early sales were heavily generated by word of mouth. It was a phenomenon before the films.

Personally, I'm not sure that the series should be seen as MG. The concept is based around UK secondary schools, so only just into US MG in Book 1.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Um, no.


A total of six million Harry Potter books were printed prior to the release of the first film. This is documented fact direct from Bloomsbury and Scholastic. Even if every book printed sold before the film was released, it's 20 books per school.


----------



## Diamond Eyes (Feb 11, 2017)

There might not be a huge indie ebook MG market for reasons already given (younger kids preferring paper books to ebooks, kids more interested in popular mainstream series, parents not trusting indie book content, library borrowing, etc.), but that doesn't mean there's no MG market. Of course there is. Not all kids read, but some still do. Just like they always have and will.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> On the contrary. I have educated myself to the point of redundancy with regard to these characters. JK Rowling was not "massively popular" prior to the films. The paltry $105k paid for the book rights is proof.


LOL, $105k wasn't a paltry ticket at that time, and it's only a partial piece of the cake. It's not paltry today either. This is my last comment in this thread, you seem to be on a mission and I suspect it won't matter what anyone says, you've made your your mind.

Good luck trying to get less paltry advances from the big 5 or Hollywood


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> $105k wasn't a paltry ticket at that time


You really don't want to know what the Sailor Moon rights went for two years earlier. Let's just say it would have embarrassed Scholastic, Warner Bros. and the British. Then there's Pokemon, which would have embarrassed everyone else.



> you seem to be on a mission and I suspect it won't matter what anyone says, you've made your your mind.


I'm defending my thesis so the next author who comes up with the bright idea to write a middle grade book on the Kindle doesn't end up in a hostage standoff on CNN.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2019)

Diamond Eyes said:


> but that doesn't mean there's no MG market. Of course there is.


The way I'm reading the thread is that - yes, there's a huge following for MG. However, it's all boxed off by Scholastic and other Big Guns - ergo - there's no easy way to market for Indies in MG. It would be hard indeed to penetrate that market if it's controlled by 75,000 teachers/parents and libraries who are weaned onto a specific market vendor.

I think someone above mentioned putting together some kind of Indie response, which is probably what you people should concentrate on rather than trying to shoot down the messenger. How could Indies break into that mass-captive-marketplace?


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> JK Rowling was not "massively popular" prior to the films. The paltry $105k paid for the book rights is proof.


This was for one book, and it was bought after a bookfair auction before any of the books had been published (and was a lot more than the most they had paid before) and before Warner Brothers bought the film rights.

First day sales of Goblet of Fire sales in the UK were over 370k, more than 250k through bookshops - it was the first launch with the famous midnight queues of children out the door and down the street. US sales were nearly 3 million in the first weekend. All hardbacks.

Just look at the trajectory.

It was a phenomenon before the films.


----------



## Anna Rose (Jan 13, 2019)

Shirtless men in cowboy hats?  

I must not be reading the same romance books that you are, Shane.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Sigh.

The OP is talking about, very specifically, the MG market for indie ebooks published on Kindle. Had he not decided that this sub-market was the ENTIRE market of MG books--which is what the title of this thread says--this might have been an engaging discussion. 

I agree that the target audience of MG readers aren't consuming books on Kindles, which makes it very difficult to do well if you're an indie author with no access to wide print distribution into bookstores and so on. Extending that point to an argument that kids-these-days-with-their-video-games-just-don't-read is ridiculous, and extremely easy to disprove.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Further proof they were hedging. Remember A Knight's Tale? Yeah, neither does anyone else. Those rights sold for twice what was paid for Harry Potter even without a book series. Harry Potter was a risk, because Hollywood knows there's no market for middle grade fiction, and certainly not one that can drive a nine-figure production budget.
> 
> Well, I know the Harry Potter rights were for four films, not one, which means Warner Bros. was quadruple-hedging their bets. They know the truth about middle grade, which is why they spent reckless amounts in marketing both the books and the films.
> 
> ...


I do remember A Knight's Tale. Loved that movie. Heath Ledger, Rufus Sewell, Paul Bettany, and young Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy). Not the greatest movie ever, but it was fun.

If movies based on middle grade books are such a risk, why on earth would Warner buy the rights to four books at once? If they didn't honestly think there was a market for it, if they thought they were just throwing money away, they wouldn't have chucked a nine-figure production budget at the movies in the first place. Movie makers want sure things, not huge risks.

The thing I think you're missing in all of this is that Rowling wrote books that people wanted to read. She created a world that people wanted to spend time in. No matter how much money got chucked at marketing, it wouldn't have mattered one iota if the story was crap and no one wanted to spend time in that world.

Oh really? YouTube is where the readers are? Now I know you're just making stuff up.

Middle grade is children's books. Specifically, it's geared to *children* between the ages of 8 and 12.

I did prove you wrong. Despite the fact that there's no specific list for MG, children's books - which include MG - are a hot and hungry genre if the 100th book on the list is sitting at #1852 in the whole store.

Well I can't say for sure, because I'm not inside his head, but I assume he kept writing the characters he'd started with because they were popular with his large number of fans, and he was having fun writing them. I mean, isn't that what all authors want? To have fun writing the characters they enjoy spending time with?


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> On the contrary. I have educated myself to the point of redundancy with regard to these characters. *JK Rowling was not "massively popular" prior to the films.* The paltry $105k paid for the book rights is proof. The first film was announced scarcely a few months after the first book debuted, which opened up Warner Bros. checkbook and the rest is history. It's not hard to sell millions of books when they are optioned for a film series and there is zero competition.
> 
> Further proof they were hedging. *Remember A Knight's Tale? Yeah, neither does anyone else.* Those rights sold for twice what was paid for Harry Potter even without a book series. Harry Potter was a risk, because Hollywood knows there's no market for middle grade fiction, and certainly not one that can drive a nine-figure production budget.
> 
> Like I said, I'm over it. Doesn't make it any less heartbreaking.


I know others have answered better than I can, but just want to repeat: HP was a phenomenon before the first movie ever started filming. Same with other series like Hunger Games and Twilight.

And yes, I--along with millions of others--remember A Knight's Tale. Heath Ledger's breakout role. It airs on TV probably once a month on some channel or other.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Oh really? YouTube is where the readers are? Now I know you're just making stuff up.
> 
> Middle grade is children's books. Specifically, it's geared to *children* between the ages of 8 and 12.


YouTube is where that age group is. They watch it more than TV these days.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/why-children-spend-time-online


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

Ava Glass said:


> YouTube is where that age group is. They watch it more than TV these days.
> 
> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/why-children-spend-time-online


I feel like the point about YouTube isn't that people (of any age) aren't on it; it's that people don't go there to read or to find out about books. People can and usually do engage in multiple types of entertainment. That doesn't mean they need to (or should) cross over.

"Readers" go to the toilet, too, but that doesn't mean publishers should start printing ads on toilet paper. (Though as soon as someone figures out how to print ads on toilet paper without making the paper too thick to properly dissolve, I bet we will start seeing ads on toilet paper.)


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> P.S. Let this be a lesson to all you aspiring authors out there. The market does not care at all what you want to write. Either you write in a genre that sells, or you starve. It really is that simple.


Or you keep your day job.

That can be writing marketable books to pay the bills (while also writing less lucrative stuff), or it can be working in an office, or at a Trader Joe's (like that Cosby Show actor), or as a barista.

Lots of writers do that.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Wanderer said:


> I feel like the point about YouTube isn't that people (of any age) aren't on it; it's that people don't go there to read or to find out about books. People can and usually do engage in multiple types of entertainment. That doesn't mean they need to (or should) cross over.
> 
> "Readers" go to the toilet, too, but that doesn't mean publishers should start printing ads on toilet paper. (Though as soon as someone figures out how to print ads on toilet paper without making the paper too thick to properly dissolve, I bet we will start seeing ads on toilet paper.)


I think the person I replied to really believes kids don't widely watch YouTube. See the part I quoted.


----------



## bossk (Dec 3, 2018)

Gosh, why are so many so dour, as if this is a deadly serious topic? It's just a conversation, no one's getting hurt.

I, for one, like Shane's hyperbolic approach. Even if he's dead wrong with what he's saying in any given thread (no idea if he is or not on this subject) he has an entertaining way with words. We can debate a subject without treating it like a personal attack... we have the technology.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

bossk said:


> Gosh, why are so many so dour, as if this is a deadly serious topic? It's just a conversation, no one's getting hurt.
> 
> I, for one, like Shane's hyperbolic approach. Even if he's dead wrong with what he's saying in any given thread (no idea if he is or not on this subject) he has an entertaining way with words. We can debate a subject without treating it like a personal attack... we have the technology.


No one's 'getting hurt' overtly, but a new writer thinking about starting an MG story might be scared off by the exaggerated hyperbole.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Ava Glass said:


> I think the person I replied to really believes kids don't widely watch YouTube. See the part I quoted.


No. I just don't think that the amount of subscribers to Scholastic's YouTube channel is really enough to hang this argument on.


----------



## spellscribe (Nov 5, 2015)

You keep changing your argument. 

There is a market for MG fiction. I think we’ve established that. Yes, it’s pretty walled off and most parents (me) like it that way. 

I would say 4/10 of my boys friends (age 8-10) are at least casual readers—a handful of books a year. A few are avid—20+ per year. 

Every kid in his school knows the treehouse books, bad guys, captain underpants, and so many more. They’re almost all literate with computers and games; doesn’t mean they’re idiots who don’t read. You just don’t understand the market. 

For these kids, books are presented by: parents; bookstore shelves; friends; scholastic flyers. Parents are the main supplier of paid-for books and we shop in stores so we can flip through and evaluate the book’s  appropriateness and appeal. We don’t leave reviews (we don’t read them), we don’t shop from amazon (because it’s not hands on), so judging sales by reviews and Zon rank is completely useless (like Trad saying ebooks are dead and MilSF is tiny, when they’re looking at ISBN and not counting ASIN). 

No, I won’t generally buy ebooks for him. He has devices but that time is monitored and confined to home—I want books to be freely accessed and able to be taken anywhere. I won’t buy indie except in rare circumstances (Justin Sloan has a great minecraft series but I vetted it thoroughly first, not something I have the time or inclination to do frequently). 

The problem isn’t the market, it’s that you’re not targeting it correctly or through the right avenues. And Sailor Moon? As a consumer of books AND a fan of the franchise way back in the 90’s, I can totally see why prose didn’t work. It’s not a comprehensive  fit. That doesn’t give you any kind of legitimate insight into what’s selling or who’s reading now, in 2019, amongst the MG age group.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Yes, it�s pretty walled off and most parents (me) like it that way.


Then I'm sure you won't object when authors like myself and others abandon writing for kids and tell others to do the same. I think it should be made clear to as many authors as possible how dangerous it is for them to believe middle grade is a viable option. Not all of those authors will be as fortunate as I to have a fallback series that actually sells. The ones that bet it all on their belief that parents and teachers will give them a fair chance are headed for ruin, and they should be warned in advance, preferably before they waste 100,000 words.

You see, a lot of us think (or thought) it is important for children to read. We valued literacy, and we offered our talents and time towards that end. I'd like to believe that wasn't also a mistake, but now I'm not so sure.



> For these kids, books are presented by: parents; bookstore shelves; friends; scholastic flyers.


Walled off, monopolized and inaccessible. I learned this the hard way, so perhaps I understand the market better than you think.



> we don't shop from amazon


That much is obvious. Perhaps you should explain this to the guy who thinks the Children's Top 100 is teeming with money-waving parents.



> I won't buy indie except in rare circumstances


You're shining a 1000-watt spotlight on how catastrophic a mistake it is for anyone to waste a moment's effort writing books for kids.



> The problem isn't the market


With all due respect you just said you "won't buy indie except in rare circumstances," so I'll ask again: what market?



> And Sailor Moon? As a consumer of books AND a fan of the franchise way back in the 90's, I can totally see why prose didn't work.


So can I. There's no market for middle grade fiction. You said so yourself.



> That doesn't give you any kind of legitimate insight into what's selling or who's reading now, in 2019, amongst the MG age group.


On the contrary. What didn't sell then doesn't sell now. It's no wonder Scholastic took over the school system. It's the only way they could have survived. If they were just some book publisher they would have suffocated just like everyone else who makes the career-threatening mistake of writing a book for kids. Thank goodness I have that insight. I could very easily have wasted another three novels without it.

I originally started this thread as a warning to other authors who made the same mistake I did. If you've read this far, now you know the truth about why your books don't sell.

If only it were as simple as your cover and blurb. If only, if only.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

ShayneRutherford said:


> No. I just don't think that the amount of subscribers to Scholastic's YouTube channel is really enough to hang this argument on.


Which argument?

And why reiterate the age range of Middle Grade books, emphasizing the word "children," if you weren't trying to argue that the age group isn't using YouTube?

Just trying to understand your point.

ETA: 


> Middle grade is children's books. Specifically, it's geared to *children* between the ages of 8 and 12.


This is in response to a different point perhaps, and not about YouTube?


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

And Shane rolls right through the baited competition. I need popcorn for this...  

So far, I cannot fail to see his point - very directly. Glad I never picked MG writing.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> That much is obvious. Perhaps you should explain this to the guy who thinks the Children's Top 100 is teeming with money-waving parents.
> 
> You're shining a 1000-watt spotlight on how catastrophic a mistake it is for anyone to waste a moment's effort writing books for kids.


If you're referring to me, first of all, I'm not a dude. And second, I don't think it's teeming with money-waving parents. I recognize that it's a difficult market to crack. But it's not impossible, and I would hate for someone to come here and read this, and then not even bother to make a try for their dream because someone else couldn't keep an open mind.

I guess I'll just tell my friend to stop wasting his time then.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Laran Mithras said:


> And Shane rolls right through the baited competition.


Hmm


> So far, I cannot fail to see his point.


Well, what is it? I'd really like to know.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

Dpock said:


> Hmm
> Well, what is it? I'd really like to know.


He failed, so obviously no one else can succeed. Is that his point?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Ava Glass said:


> Which argument?
> 
> And why reiterate the age range of Middle Grade books, emphasizing the word "children," if you weren't trying to argue that the age group isn't using YouTube?
> 
> ...


Which argument? That there's no market for middle grade fiction.

I was reiterating the age of middle grade books because the OP seems hung up arguing semantics: that there is no market for middle grade, when the children's book category is a hungry category according to Amazon rankings, and being for 8-12 year olds, middle grade clearly makes up a big chunk of the children's book category.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Which argument? That there's no market for middle grade fiction.
> 
> I was reiterating the age of middle grade books because the OP seems hung up arguing semantics: that there is no market for middle grade, when the children's book category is a hungry category according to Amazon rankings, and being for 8-12 year olds, middle grade clearly makes up a big chunk of the children's book category.


Okay, so you mean the main argument, and not a specific one about YouTube.

But for reals, kids LOVE YouTube--for better or worse.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> No one's 'getting hurt' overtly, but a new writer thinking about starting an MG story might be scared off by the exaggerated hyperbole.


Or -- a new writer thinking they can sell an MG eBook on Amazon and get their investment back might have been given a reality check. The clearest takeaway from all of the posts on this thread is that MG eBook publishing is a gamble. If one wants to do it -- then do it, but keep your expectations realistic.

Of course, _any _eBook publishing can be a gamble. But I would think that there are other genres that are more indie, eBook friendly than MG.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

jb1111 said:


> Or -- a new writer thinking they can sell an MG eBook on Amazon and get their investment back might have been given a reality check


Insert any genre in that statement and it remains true.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2019)

GeneDoucette said:


> Sigh.
> 
> The OP is talking about, very specifically, the MG market for indie ebooks published on Kindle. Had he not decided that this sub-market was the ENTIRE market of MG books--which is what the title of this thread says--this might have been an engaging discussion.
> 
> I agree that the target audience of MG readers aren't consuming books on Kindles, which makes it very difficult to do well if you're an indie author with no access to wide print distribution into bookstores and so on. Extending that point to an argument that kids-these-days-with-their-video-games-just-don't-read is ridiculous, and extremely easy to disprove.


This could have been an interesting discussion but it's obvious that people here would rather bicker and argue. It's clear that the OP was mostly venting but instead of steering the conversation into a useful direction everyone automatically wants to get antagonistic and fight. At this point, people are just being baited and they don't even realize that they're embarrassing themselves by arguing with the OP.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

Marston said:


> This could have been an interesting discussion but it's obvious that people here would rather bicker and argue. It's clear that the OP was mostly venting but instead of steering the conversation into a useful direction everyone automatically wants to get antagonistic and fight. At this point, people are just being baited and they don't even realize that they're embarrassing themselves by arguing with the OP.


Disagreeing with a series of wild and unsupported claims is embarrassing? I don't think so. Think about it a little bit.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Marston said:


> This could have been an interesting discussion but it's obvious that people here would rather bicker and argue. It's clear that the OP was mostly venting but instead of steering the conversation into a useful direction everyone automatically wants to get antagonistic and fight. At this point, people are just being baited and they don't even realize that they're embarrassing themselves by arguing with the OP.


You make a good point that the thread hasn't been as... instructive... as it could have been. However, with the OP repeatedly doubling and tripling down on his perceived point, the thread doesn't have much chance of going in a useful direction.

Many of these posts have advised that the OP bow out of the MG genre if he's not seeing as much success as he'd like, and others have warned that YES, the MG market is difficult (but not impossible) to get into.

The OP is the one "steering" this conversation. (Right into a ditch, apparently.  )


----------



## wittyblather (Feb 29, 2016)

I'm....you know that 'there isn't a market for MG in indie spaces' and 'there isn't a market for MG books at all' are two different statements, right?

Harry Potter was a once in a generation phenomenon. There is no process that can replicate it. If there was, Scholastic would have done it a dozen times over already. It is astonishingly bitter and insulting toward children to claim that because nothing has been as successful since then, no children are reading, Scholastic wants children to play Fortnite and watch YouTube rather than read their books, and no writer should ever write books for children ever ever ever.

There is no market for MG in indie spaces for a variety of reasons. This is true. Therefore, if writing for children is your passion, you should pursue a traditional contract with a publishing house, and independently publish in another genre if you wish to do so. That's literally all this thread needed to say.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

Jena H said:


> The OP is the one "steering" this conversation. (Right into a ditch, apparently.  )


So I _wasn't_ imagining the constantly shifting goalposts.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Harry Potter was a once in a generation phenomenon. There is no process that can replicate it.


Nobody is asking to replicate Harry Potter.



> If there was, Scholastic would have done it a dozen times over already. It is astonishingly bitter and insulting toward children to claim that because nothing has been as successful since then, no children are reading


You can argue with me all you like, but you can't argue with the math. As of today, there is one Scholastic book on the NY Times Middle Grade Bestseller List. If children were reading in any commercially significant numbers, Scholastic would dominate the bestseller lists and Amazon would be right behind them, because one has their retail operations inside a million classrooms and the other has 200 million unique visitors a month with credit cards on file and one-click purchasing. Further, Scholastic and Amazon don't suffer from being labeled *UNSAFE* the way indie authors apparently do.

If children were reading in any commercially significant numbers, the number two book on the MG bestseller list wouldn't be a Knopf title and it certainly wouldn't have been on the list for four years. When your bestseller list has titles that are fossilized, the word you use to describe that market is "stagnant." The readers are absent and so are the authors.

My purpose here is to warn future authors against the mistaken belief that writing for middle grade or children is equivalent to writing in genres that actually sell, especially on Kindle. If Scholastic, Disney and Amazon can't sell books (and they don't), neither can you, and that's okay. You can't fix it either, and that's okay. Children's literacy is no longer my problem, because I'm sure if I tried to help I would face exactly the same obstacles I faced when I was unwise enough to author middle grade fiction.

Making the wrong choice can destroy a career, and this business is unfair enough without punishing authors for their lack of experience.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Dpock said:


> Hmm
> Well, what is it? I'd really like to know.


That if you're an indie author and you want to sell your MG books in eBook form it's a tough slog because that particular market isn't eBook friendly and you may spend a lot of time and money on something that probably won't give you a worthwhile ROI?

I think that's his point, and I think most of the other comments here, even by his argument's detractors, back that up.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Dpock said:


> Insert any genre in that statement and it remains true.


I would think that it's an easier gamble with other genres that are more eBook friendly.

Try selling an indie authored children's book in eBook form. Then try selling an indie authored sci-fi, action, crime novel, dystopian novel, romance or even erotica in eBook form. Which genre group do you think -- relative quality of eBook being equal -- has a higher chance of selling?


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

spellscribe said:


> The problem isn't the market, it's that you're not targeting it correctly or through the right avenues.


I'd love to know how to target the market for children's/MG books. Not being a Mum, I can't really join those Facebook groups. How does an Indie author find an audience?


----------



## wittyblather (Feb 29, 2016)

Does it not strike you that if there is an NYT Middle Grade Bestseller List, there has to be a market to back it up?

Middle grade sells. Every single trad professional I know of actively seeks out middle grade to represent and publish. This would not be the case if it didn't sell. Take New Adult by comparison. It doesn't sell outside of indie spaces, and therefore, agents and publishers don't seek it out for major deals. Middle grade series absolutely secure these major deals, and that's not counting the series such as Warriors and Beast Quest that support literally dozens of new books -- because _children keep reading them_.

You keep claiming that Scholastic has this unparalleled power in the book publishing world (when it's not even in the Big Five), but you directly contradict that point when you say they can't sell books. They're a publishing company. If they weren't selling books to the markets they target, they'd be out of business.

I agree with you that there is no indie market for MG, but I have no idea what you gain from condemning the literacy of all children the way you are. Plenty of parents on this thread have told you that their children and their friends read. I don't know why you're so set on rebuffing them.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Does it not strike you that if there is an NYT Middle Grade Bestseller List, there has to be a market to back it up?


Not if there are titles on it for four years, no.


----------



## wittyblather (Feb 29, 2016)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Not if there are titles on it for four years, no.


Sounds like those titles are being consistently bought and read.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Sounds like those titles are being consistently bought and read.


It also sounds like there's nothing new. See if you can guess why?


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

jb1111 said:


> I would think that it's an easier gamble with other genres that are more eBook friendly.
> 
> Try selling an indie authored children's book in eBook form. Then try selling an indie authored sci-fi, action, crime novel, dystopian novel, romance or even erotica in eBook form. Which genre group do you think -- relative quality of eBook being equal -- has a higher chance of selling?


I take your point, but the relative difficulty of the MG markets doesn't suggest other genres are "easier" to conquer. They're all difficult, even if you have loads of talent.

What's the easiest genre to make a living in? I don't think there's a useful answer to the question.


----------



## wittyblather (Feb 29, 2016)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> It also sounds like there's nothing new. See if you can guess why?


Because parents control what their children read, and will prefer to pick something tried and true over something newer unless bolstered by word of mouth?

You're choosing to live in a world of bitterness, ignoring and refusing to respond to all points that contradict you, and if that's your choice, I'm not going to engage with you anymore.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Because parents control what their children read, and will prefer to pick something tried and true over something newer unless bolstered by word of mouth?


Fair enough.



> You're choosing to live in a world of bitterness


I am choosing to live in a world of reality, where parents are not interested in books for their kids. You just said so yourself. They will not buy, as they have stated outright. Even in the "rare" circumstance they do buy, they won't unless a book is recommended, and there will be no recommendations since nobody is buying. They will not buy. Even under a sunny sky. They do not like green eggs and ham. They do not like them Sam I am. Therefore writing a middle grade book as a commercial venture is a *total* waste of time.

Thus the stagnant best-seller list. Thus the vindication of everything I've posted so far, especially as related to children's literacy. And it's even worse on the Kindle, as previously demonstrated. The parents have spoken, and they prefer Fortnite and YouTube, probably because they don't require any work or thinking. Just a screen and a blank stare.

By the way, the parents who react to what I've written with "how dare you!" are the likeliest to raise illiterate, ambitionless, mediocre kids. They should be looking for challenging reading material for their kids at all times. Reading is the bedrock of all education. Given the technology available now they should be thrilled and investing hours every week taking full advantage of it. But instead, they shove an iPad in front of their child and let them drain the battery with thoughtless nonsense by the hour and by the day. I have accepted this fact of life, and I will not invest another moment's effort in trying to persuade parents otherwise.

Not another *moment*.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2019)

Isn't Joseph Daniel, a kboarder, a MG author? 
Are you, Jospeh Daniel, having a similar experience with the MG market? I have no aspiration to write in that genre, just curious.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

I do not write in the MG genre but my son is in that age category. Although we encourage him to read he does it because he has to, not because he necessarily enjoys it, which breaks my author heart. He prefers his video games and beyblades to books. But that's just him. There are, I'm certain, many children his age out there who love to read and do so hungrily. The problem is that those children don't necessarily have a lot of money. Their parents are likely buying their books even through allowance. I just want to say that I understand where the OP is coming from. A lot of folks here can disagree vehemently with him and that's fine but it doesn't mean that his experience isn't valid. We all have different experiences in Indie publishing, some of us struggle more than others. It doesn't help when you're already feeling down to have your peers kick you also.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I plan to write more extensively on this later, but I have unconditionally surrendered with regard to any plans of selling books for young readers.
> 
> There are no middle grade readers. Middle grade children are interested in Fortnite and YouTube. Their parents park them on a couch with an iPad and do not encourage them to read. Even if these kids were handed a book they are too heavily medicated to understand it. Parents will never encourage them to read. If parents want their kids to live a life of illiteracy, ignorance and mediocrity, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm also tired of paying a buck a click for ads.
> 
> ...


I've said this for a long time. Same with teen market. UNLESS you go traditional route. Those who buy in those markets aren't doing it online they go to stores for the most part.

Online its mostly thrillers, mystery and romance. ( yes you can have teen in those but mostly the teen market and kids purchases are offline) after they've been hyped by a trad publishing house or made into a movie.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Rose Andrews said:


> I do not write in the MG genre but my son is in that age category. *Although we encourage him to read he does it because he has to, not because he necessarily enjoys it, which breaks my author heart.* He prefers his video games and beyblades to books. But that's just him. There are, I'm certain, many children his age out there who love to read and do so hungrily. The problem is that those children don't necessarily have a lot of money. Their parents are likely buying their books even through allowance. I just want to say that I understand where the OP is coming from. A lot of folks here can disagree vehemently with him and that's fine but it doesn't mean that his experience isn't valid. We all have different experiences in Indie publishing, some of us struggle more than others. It doesn't help when you're already feeling down to have your peers kick you also.


To some degree, it's a boy thing. From what I've heard over the years, boys are considerably less likely to read than girls. I was lucky, and my son liked to read (Redwall was his first love), but even so, at a certain age he all but quit reading and increased his video-game playing.

Getting back on track, the middle-grade years can lead to a lot of "reluctant readers." This is all conjecture, but I think that about the age of 10 or 11, many kids feel 'turned off' to reading... possibly because they _have_ to do it for school?? Just a thought.

Anyway, there definitely ARE middle-grade kids who read. But since few of them (apparently) read ebooks, the trick woul be to find a way to get paperbacks in front of them. That's what I'm working on.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Rose Andrews said:


> I just want to say that I understand where the OP is coming from. A lot of folks here can disagree vehemently with him and that's fine but it doesn't mean that his experience isn't valid. We all have different experiences in Indie publishing, some of us struggle more than others. It doesn't help when you're already feeling down to have your peers kick you also.


No one here is saying that *his experience* isn't valid. All we're saying is that not everyone's experience is the same as his, despite his assertions that they are.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

ShayneRutherford said:


> No one here is saying that *his experience* isn't valid. All we're saying is that not everyone's experience is the same as his, despite his assertions that they are.


I believe the whole point of the thread was to drive traffic to his blog.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

While there may be a handful of self-publishers that are doing okay, I'm not sure the MG demographic has ever been terribly rewarding for Indies. Has it? A quick perusal shows that most of the top 100 (in multiple genres) are older books, current releases in older series and mega-corp marketed tie-ins - or all three. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Disney uses the same AMS dashboard that Indies use.


----------



## Jeanie Gold (Mar 8, 2019)

Dpock said:


> I believe the whole point of the thread was to drive traffic to his blog.


Well, maybe he'll find the market of frustrated authors that want their negative experiences validated more fruitful than the MG one. Shrewd, if true.

But, I'll hard pass. There's enough to feel discouraged about without actively seeking out more of that POV.

What I don't understand is how one sided all of this "discussion" is. As if money is the only reason we write.

I know we all hope for financial success, but is that the _only_ reason to write the story in your head? If it is, maybe _that's_ why it's not selling enough for you to justify your time.

I'm not saying people don't make money by evaluating a market and making careful calculations, they do. I've read many traditionally published bestsellers that were hollow copycats piggybacking on the last book that blew the roof off the publishing industry, or got a movie/tv deal, but those aren't the authors that have decades-long careers or hordes of loyal readers. Those aren't the authors that I read every time they publish. Those aren't the authors that set trends or strike new ground. They aren't as memorable.

Not that there's anything wrong with intentionally aiming to be the scratch for the itch in a niche or genre trope established or done better by others... been there, done that, and spoiler alert, it didn't work as well as I calculated it would. It was an experiment, one I learned from, and I wasn't bitter about the result. Even before the lackluster returns, I already knew I didn't enjoy how I was spending my time, and that's an invaluable commodity when compared to money. Now I spend my time writing things I care about, stories and characters that live in my head and have a will of their own, and without the expectation that they will all capture reader interest. My calculated edits mold what I've written into something more commercial, but that can't be my mindset at the offset.

Someone with a passion/genuine love of MG stories and a fabulous book or series that stands out, will break ground on (or explode) the MG indie ebook market one day. My guess is that they won't even realize they're doing it until it's done, like so many others who have broken or grown new indie ebook markets before them.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Jeanie Gold said:


> Well, maybe he'll find the market of frustrated authors that want their negative experiences validated more fruitful than the MG one. Shrewd, if true.
> 
> But, I'll hard pass. There's enough to feel discouraged about without actively seeking out more of that POV.
> 
> ...


That's a good place to leave it. As soon as I began ignoring most of the advice offered by the WTM crowd, I started doing well. Consequently, I'm earning more than I ever imagined making in indie publishing.


----------



## Linn (Feb 2, 2016)

Jeanie Gold said:


> What I don't understand is how one sided all of this "discussion" is. As if money is the only reason we write.


I'm working on a MG story right now, and am not the least bit dissuaded by this discussion. If it sells, great. If it doesn't, that's fine. Either way I'll move on to the next story on my list.


----------



## HeyImAnAuthor (Apr 27, 2019)

There are 65 million users on Wattpad, and most of them are high schoolers.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jeanie Gold said:


> What I don't understand is how one sided all of this "discussion" is. As if money is the only reason we write.
> 
> I know we all hope for financial success, but is that the _only_ reason to write the story in your head? If it is, maybe _that's_ why it's not selling enough for you to justify your time.


Maybe it's because he put his heart and soul into an MG book that didn't sell. That's a lot of time, a lot of hours. That's why those of us who write and put out books want them to sell. To get a return for all the work you put in.

I spent probably a month working on a children's eBook several years ago, under a different pen name. Years later, it has sold two copies. I learned quickly that children's books are a very skewed market -- you need to concentrate on paper books, awesome full color illustrations, and it helps if one is trad pubbed.

I don't see bitterness coming from the OP as much as realism. When you write a book, you invest yourself into it -- your time, your energy, and your marketing abilities -- whatever that may be.

I myself don't write books and place them on the Zon to hopefully watch them dive into the abyss. I want sales -- at least enough of them to merit my continuance in the art form. To feel that the time and energy I expended at least has some return other than "Look Mom, I wrote a book!"


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

jb1111 said:


> Maybe it's because he put his heart and soul into an MG book that didn't sell. That's a lot of time, a lot of hours. That's why those of us who write and put out books want them to sell.


We all put our heart and soul into books we've written. Many of us aren't huge sellers, so we have to necessarily develop a thick skin.



jb1111 said:


> I spent probably a month working on a children's eBook several years ago, under a different pen name. Years later, it has sold two copies. I learned quickly that children's books are a very skewed market -- you need to concentrate on paper books, awesome full color illustrations, and it helps if one is trad pubbed.


Many people who write books spend more than a month doing so. MUCH more. Which makes a lack of sales even more painful. Also, there's a difference between children's books (picture books, with illustrations) and MG books.



jb1111 said:


> I don't see bitterness coming from the OP as much as realism. When you write a book, you invest yourself into it -- your time, your energy, and your marketing abilities -- whatever that may be.


Really? Have you been reading the same comments as the rest of us??


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

_*The parents have spoken, and they prefer Fortnite and YouTube, probably because they don't require any work or thinking. Just a screen and a blank stare.*_ 
Wrong. Codswallop! The "parents" have not spoken. Your delusion is the only thing making a noise.

_*By the way, the parents who react to what I've written with "how dare you!" are the likeliest to raise illiterate, ambitionless, mediocre kids.*_

I'm a great Grand-Parent who emphatically disagrees with almost every claim you have made - yet I have children, grand-children and great-grandchildren who are all erudite, literate, most have tertiary qualifications, and are successful in either career or study. 
You seem to have no experience of children or families with children. Nor do you appear to be capable of research. Why did you invest time in an area where you clearly have no expertise or understanding? How can you presume to write for a target audience that you do not know? One of my favourite pastimes is shopping with Great-GrandKids. On every such outing we head home with books. They all have their favourites, some new, some classics. They play games on computers and devices, but all love to read. A clue. eReaders are not popular, except for the Kindle Fire. Kids like colour. They fight over the Kindle Fire with its colour illustrations for the novels they read.

If you were less confrontational and more open minded I could probably provide you with advice that would assist you with regard to the REALITIES of children. As it is I have no desire to start banging my head on the wall you have surrounded yourself with.


----------



## LD (Aug 29, 2018)

If there was no market for it, JK Rowling wouldn't even have had the success she had, let alone the other authors who've made millions.  If no one wants it, no one wants it, period.  MG is traditionally a traditional publisher's market, for all the reasons you and others have already mentioned.  There is a market for it, just one you aren't able to penetrate.  I recall you making another thread before griping about another dead market, or something similar, because books you wrote weren't doing well then either.  Back then it didn't seem like you understood the market you were targeting either.  And as a result you made some pretty sweeping, erroneous statements then too.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> We all put our heart and soul into books we've written. Many of us aren't huge sellers, so we have to necessarily develop a thick skin.
> 
> Many people who write books spend more than a month doing so. MUCH more. Which makes a lack of sales even more painful. Also, there's a difference between children's books (picture books, with illustrations) and MG books.
> 
> Really? Have you been reading the same comments as the rest of us??


As for your first point, you're preaching to the choir. I'm well aware one needs a thick skin in indie authoring. I have numerous books out on the Zon and when you get a one star review from someone who completely misrepresents the plot to the buying public, and you can't do anything about it, one learns to develop a thick skin.

And your second point matches the OP's. Frustration. I'm well aware many children's books authors dump large amounts of money into their books, be it illustration costs and covers, and they sometimes see little return. I was expressing the fact that I can relate to that frustration.

Yeah, MG is different from children's books. That's obvious. But the frustration is the same if you've produced a book for that audience and see crickets.

And yes, I don't see bitterness in the OP's posts. I see frustration and realism being expressed. Laded with a bit of sarcasm here and there.

Certainly, we others here can handle some honest reflections with a bit of sarcasm, can't we?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H, we posted at the same time.

I get your points. Agree on most of them.

EDIT: it was Jeanie Gold who posted at the same time I did. My bad. Sorry for the confusion!


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

LD said:


> If there was no market for it, JK Rowling wouldn't even have had the success she had, let alone the other authors who've made millions. If no one wants it, no one wants it, period. MG is traditionally a traditional publisher's market, for all the reasons you and others have already mentioned. There is a market for it, just one you aren't able to penetrate. I recall you making another thread before griping about another dead market, or something similar, because books you wrote weren't doing well then either. Back then it didn't seem like you understood the market you were targeting either. And as a result you made some pretty sweeping, erroneous statements then too.


How much of the market was actually wider than MG, though? I think a lot of Harry Potter readers were younger than MG, and older than MG, including a significant number of high school and even adult readers. I even read it a couple years ago, wanting to know what the buzz was.

I think one of the things that made HP a phenomenon was that it had a mass appeal, that was wider than the core market. I suppose I could be wrong.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jeanie Gold said:


> You don't have to cosign statements made by someone who thinks they're omniscient to relate to failing to make money from writing.
> 
> Literally anyone who has written anything and tried to sell it knows how that feels.


True, but I think Shane makes a lot of valid points and that's all I'm trying to say about it.

I think any market under age 18 is probably more difficult to crack for most indie authors. The YA people seem to have the better experience with it.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Jena H said:


> We all put our heart and soul into books we've written.


I think that's far too generous. There are plenty who've studied Jamie Gold's beat sheets (or other), filled in the blanks and expected vast rewards only to fail. That's not heart and soul stuff. That's warrior forum stuff (how to make a bundle online) and, frankly, they deserve to fail.

We have in these forums writers and marketers. We should acknowledge there's a difference.


----------



## LD (Aug 29, 2018)

jb1111 said:


> And yes, I don't see bitterness in the OP's posts. I see frustration and realism being expressed. Laded with a bit of sarcasm here and there.
> 
> Certainly, we others here can handle some honest reflections with a bit of sarcasm, can't we?


I actually see him as being highly unrealistic. Yes, he can certainly feel frustration, but he makes a bunch of leaping conclusions based on his personal experience, then is using that as representation of the entire market. He did that with his other topic rant too.


----------



## LD (Aug 29, 2018)

jb1111 said:


> How much of the market was actually wider than MG, though? I think a lot of Harry Potter readers were younger than MG, and older than MG, including a significant number of high school and even adult readers. I even read it a couple years ago, wanting to know what the buzz was.
> 
> I think one of the things that made HP a phenomenon was that it had a mass appeal, that was wider than the core market. I suppose I could be wrong.


Yes, her success had a large part to do with it being popular across all age groups. But MG was still a large part of that. So there is still a market for it, despite OP's claims. And then there's also the other MG authors who are also doing well.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> Yeah, MG is different from children's books. That's obvious.


MG is children's books. Unless 8 to 12 year olds aren't children.


----------



## Vidya (Feb 14, 2012)

Yes, the huge success of Harry Potter was due to the fact it appealed to all ages. It was a one in a million phenomenon that has never been replicated.

This may be the “trick” to selling MG as an indie. Write something so irresistible that people of all ages will read it. If you have an MG story you love and are dying to tell, make sure it isn’t so “basic” and “childish” a story that it can appeal only to kids. Make the plot intricate and appealing enough to make adults eager to know what happens next.

So basically, if you’re an indie author and you long to write MG, write an MG series that adults will get hooked on and will give to their kids and grandkids to read. Far easier said than done, I know.

But I think that’s the trick. Appeal to adults first and then let it percolate down to the kids. Adults are anyway the ones buying the books and guiding what the kids read. They’re anyway the gatekeepers to some extent.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

FWIW, my 4th grade daughter goes to middle school, reads on a regular basis, has a cell phone, watches YouTube to distraction, and is a happy girl. And,

The public school she goes to has  reading days where the kids bring sleeping bags or beanbag chairs and spend half the day just reading books they love. They do this several times each year, all grades. HMMM, this would seem to say they are reading. And,

Harry Potter isn't a favorite. Not by a longshot. There are plenty of "chapter books" that appear in the stacks of books I see. And,

Yes, Scholastic is a monster, with either two or three book fairs each year. So maybe they aren't getting books on Amazon, but they are getting books, and reading.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Jena H said:


> Getting back on track, the middle-grade years can lead to a lot of "reluctant readers." This is all conjecture, but I think that about the age of 10 or 11, many kids feel 'turned off' to reading... possibly because they _have_ to do it for school?? Just a thought.


I used to belong to the local Children's Book Forum, which consisted of teachers, librarians, publishers and authors. We were asked to write books for reluctant teen readers (mainly boys) to try to get them interested in reading. I wrote an action adventure in the Hardy Boys style. A publisher turned it down because it was 'too like the Hardy Boys stories' 
This was pre-Harry Potter and ebooks.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

ShayneRutherford said:


> MG is children's books. Unless 8 to 12 year olds aren't children.


No. 
The book categorization "Children's books" is for babies and pre-school kids. 
MG is 8-12 and while I agree they are humanly children, if you _categorize_ your MG books as "children's books" you're targeting the wrong audience.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

ShayneRutherford said:


> MG is children's books. Unless 8 to 12 year olds aren't children.





atree said:


> No.
> The book categorization "Children's books" is for babies and pre-school kids.
> MG is 8-12 and while I agree they are humanly children, if you _categorize_ your MG books as "children's books" you're targeting the wrong audience.


Yeah, I think MG is aimed more at tweens-- I consider the group from ages 11-14. At least, that's how I target my books.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

atree said:


> No.
> The book categorization "Children's books" is for babies and pre-school kids.
> MG is 8-12 and while I agree they are humanly children, if you _categorize_ your MG books as "children's books" you're targeting the wrong audience.


If this is what readers are searching then I think I should change my Leon books to MG. But upthread someone said there is no longer a category market for MG books.


----------



## deceangli (Sep 1, 2012)

I'm not sure why you keep referencing Scholastic, as if they're the Vatican or something. I'm British, so I had to google them - I'd honestly never heard of them before this thread.

Yes, there's a market. If you're not thriving in that market then maybe your marketing isn't hitting the spot, or your books, or maybe it's just the damn 'long tail' at work - most of us working hard for little recognition while a handful of authors win the glittering prizes. Ah well


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Jena H said:


> Yeah, I think MG is aimed more at tweens-- I consider the group from ages 11-14. At least, that's how I target my books.


MG is for ages 8 - 12. There's lower middle grade, for ages 8 - 10, with protagonists who are usually 10 - 12. And there's upper middle grade for ages 10 - 12, with protagonists who are usually 12 - 14. That's because kids like to 'read up', meaning they like to read about kids who are older than themselves. I worked in a big book store for six years, and that's how the books were categorized.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

Anyone who *expects* to earn a living (or anything close to one) from writing and publishing is delusional. Yes, with a [crap]-ton of work and investment, we can do well, very well, but it should never be expected because the overwhelming majority of writers, probably over 95%, fail outright by every measure - and always have. And the reason is because they are attempting to monetize Art. We see the same failure rates for musicians and painters. Art does not follow business theory. Rowling was persistent, so good on her, but she was also lucky as hell. At the time, the MG market had cratered and no one was interested in Harry because the data showed a demonstrable lack of demand.

And yet...the data was clearly misinterpreted. The crater in demand was due to a lack of original IPs, not disinterest.

There's nothing wrong with writing to market, any more than there's anything wrong in challenging the market with something more. They're different paths and have different marketing requirements, but they share the same probable outcome - failure.

But, like the old saying goes:_ if you're not failing, you're not trying._

If the OP is passionate enough about his writing goals, (and I realize that's a subjective determination), then the response should be: given the [crap]show that is self-publishing these days, given the extremely tilted playing field and the pay for play scams running rampant through the industry...

_*How can I make this work anyway?*_


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

atree said:


> No.
> The book categorization "Children's books" is for babies and pre-school kids.
> MG is 8-12 and while I agree they are humanly children, if you _categorize_ your MG books as "children's books" you're targeting the wrong audience.


I disagree. Board books and picture books are for pre-schoolers and kindergartners. Chapter books are for kids 6 - 8 years old. Middle grade is for 8 - 12 year olds. All of those categories make up children's books.


----------



## Anna Rose (Jan 13, 2019)

I don't write MG or YA, so looked it up. This seems to be a good explanation.

https://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/the-key-differences-between-middle-grade-vs-young-adult


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

D. A. J. F. said:


> Can someone tell me the difference between chick-lit and women's fiction?


Try putting the book in the wrong genre and reading the reviews


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

There's a range of opinion. Your best bet is to Google "Women's Fiction versus Chick Lit" or similar.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

D. A. J. F. said:


> Does anyone have a serious answer, or is snarky attitude that comes out of nowhere all I get?


Didn't mean it to come across as snarky. I was just relating my own experience. 

I always thought women's fiction meant stories that appealed to women, but apparently there is more to it than that. From what I can recall, women's fiction has a woman MC and is about her and her life-changing experiences. Chick-lit is more Bridget Jones.


----------



## D. A. J. F. (Mar 29, 2019)

deleted


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Search for "Chick Lit" on Amazon--you'll see which authors have keyworded their books to appear for it. On the left side, you'll see all the categories they fall under.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

ShayneRutherford said:


> John Flanagan
> Rick Riordan
> Tamora Pierce
> Eoin Colfer
> ...


Yeah and nearly all of them are traditional printed. Not indie authors.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

lifeasweknowit said:


> Yeah and nearly all of them are traditional printed. Not indie authors.


So? The OP's thesis is that there's no market for middle grade fiction. At all. He never said indie.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

ShayneRutherford said:


> So? The OP's thesis is that there's no market for middle grade fiction. At all. He never said indie.


His statements may have implied that there is no MG market, period, but his experience is indie related, as his own MG book is indie published.

And my takeaway from most of his statements is that MG is dominated by Scholastic books and a few trad pubbers. Indies need not bother, unless they hope to get lucky. He's said that much at least two or three times -- to other indie authors.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jeanie Gold said:


> I wonder what thread you've been reading.
> 
> He didn't imply anything, he out and out said it as if it were fact.
> 
> Sure, he says MG is dominated by Scholastic, but he also said no one reads anything they publish or knows any of the authors by name... basically that their business model is a joke and abject failure because they've never duplicated the super success of J. K. Rowling.


OK, write some indie MG and prove him wrong then.


----------



## klerner (Feb 4, 2018)

I wonder if the OP is fretting more about the notion that there's no market for middle-grade fiction, or that there just might be no market for his own low-selling 2018 book about how there's no market for middle-grade fiction.

One way to assist sales of the latter might be to make a controversial pronouncement on a well-populated and -trafficked message board all about this very topic, and insisting that aspiring middle-grade authors should listen to his POV and his alone, because he's an expert and knows more about the (lack of) market. Indeed, he even hopes that aspiring authors look to his thread, his _advice_, as their guide. How many of 'em will click on his name, as I did, and discover the book for sale? And then buy it? I dunno, but it's free publicity so it's worth a shot.

The idea that there are no middle-grade readers--and that _is_ what he said, *jb1111*, multiple times; his theory is that kids are just ignoramuses suckling on the teat of a Playstation or Xbox (sorry for the visual there), and that parents are lazy morons who turned out a generation of illiterates--is farcical. Hell, _I_ love middle-grade fiction and I'm about forty years beyond that demo. (Just got through the _Mysterious Benedict Society_ series by Trenton Lee Stuart, and am now reading the _Penderwicks_ books. Trade published, but the point is I, an adult, read the genre and introduce it to my young relatives' kids. So there are cross-generational successes.)

Furthermore, the idea that Scholastic is simultaneously a failure at selling books because no one reads, but also a monopoly that owns these nonexistent readers, is something Lewis Carroll might have dreamed up.

Kids love screens but they prefer books they can hold. They love funny covers and large illustrations, and the tactile experience of turning pages. (TBH, the teen YA market is similar. They _love_ print books and gorgeous covers. The indie YA ebook market is, I believe, actually majority women 25 and up.)

So suck up the fact that if you create ebooks for MGers you are in a rough market indeed, or find another niche that _does_ sell (as the OP has) while you shop around the MG book to trade publishers who can do it justice.

No one is _owed_ book sales. An indie author needs to go to where her/his audience is, _or_ accept that s/he's gonna have to spend a boatload of funds on marketing and personal appearances and libraries and local bookstores etc., and even that may not be enough to sell a lot, much less earn a living (as mentioned above). Once you're talking about pre-K/picture books all the way up to upper-MG and YA (the kind actually aimed at teens, not the adult fans), the road is narrow indeed.

And this may sound heretical, but I think that's kind of cool. Print books are _lovely_, and the fact that these young folks prefer the physical version is charming and encouraging. They spend enough time staring at screens. (So do adults! I'd be better off reading print books, myself. But ebooks are so convenient, less expensive and take up no space on my cluttered bookshelves that I can't give 'em up.)


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Wanderer said:


> I've read one or two women's fiction (mostly by accident). I would definitely say it's far narrower than "fiction that appeals to women". There are many genres designed primarily to appeal to women (like romance and YA). For me, women's fiction is utterly uninteresting, even though I'm a woman. Since I don't read it, I don't know for sure what it is, but from my perspective it seems mostly to be about a woman overcoming some struggle in her life, usually some boring (to me) drama stuff, with often no romance and no happy ending (or a neutral or bittersweet ending). I love a good HEA and romance, so a story about a woman leaving her abusive husband and making her own way in the world or other stuff like that is just not appealing to me at all.
> I don't read chick lit either, for many of the same reasons, even though I perceive chick lit as being lighter and more humorous than women's fiction. But if the latest Bridget Jones book is any indication of what chick lit is, I firmly have no interest (since that one is about her husband from the previous books dying and her moving on with life--which is super depressing to me and would eliminate anything I liked about the previous books).
> 
> Anyway, they're very different, but as a woman who dislikes both chick lit and women's fiction, I get a tad annoyed when people assume that women's fiction is just "fiction that women like".


^ this ^ We must have the same taste in reading. 

A bit off topic.

I was stumped with one of my books when some websites had no 'general fiction' option. Had to decide how to place the book and was forced to choose between 'chick lit' and 'romance' neither of which I read.  Then you get one starred because the story doesn't fit the category.


----------



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

_"I tried selling my MG as an independent publisher but kids are on drugs and parents don't care and there's a big monopoly that's cornered the market but it's not really that much of a market because Harry Potter and YouTube followers but I can make money in a different genre at the click of a mouse so take that kids/parents/monopoly/Harry!"_

Yeah, there's not much of an e-book market for MG. What a revelation. Submit to literary agents. Best of luck!


----------



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

He should read this, it's some good stuff about selling Middle Grade.


----------



## D. A. J. F. (Mar 29, 2019)

Dpock said:


> Search for "Chick Lit" on Amazon--you'll see which authors have keyworded their books to appear for it. On the left side, you'll see all the categories they fall under.





Dpock said:


> There's a range of opinion. Your best bet is to Google "Women's Fiction versus Chick Lit" or similar.


Thanks Dpock.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Furthermore, the idea that Scholastic is simultaneously a failure at selling books because no one reads, but also a monopoly that owns these nonexistent readers


Not unusual. Why work hard to cultivate new talent when you can just recline on your residuals and rely on your monopoly to suffocate the upstarts? But since you brought it up, let's take a closer look at Scholastic.

Did you know they don't even send a representative to a school when they have a book fair? They just ship boxes and a bill. The school staffs the event at taxpayer expense and sends the unsold inventory back with a check stapled to it. Wouldn't it be nice if you could just ship a box of books to a school and have the principal and teachers hand-sell them in classrooms? Wouldn't it be nice if your publicly traded company had the ability to direct market to every parent in that school as often as you please?

Scholastic makes it all sound benevolent because the school can use the book fair as a fundraiser by keeping some of the money. How generous of them! Imagine the gargantuan marketing advantages of being the eternally safe option and being the school's benefactor at the same time! If an alternative book fair or publisher tried to compete, they'd be annihilated in a matter of days.

Meanwhile, there's the Accelerated Reader program, with a list of approved books that have corresponding quizzes matched by the program and provided to school districts with a point-based system to provide kids with incentives to read. Are your books on the Accelerated Reader list? Did you know there was such a thing? The only way I found out about it was being told by a parent. It doesn't appear on my local school district's web site or school web site at all. Do you think parents select books from Amazon or from the incentive list their teachers recommend for their schoolwork? What does it take to get on the Accelerated Reader list? Hell if I know, but I would imagine being on that list would give you somewhat of an advantage in the monopoly-controlled marketplace.

Do you suppose Scholastic is on that list?

When you published your book did it ever occur to you forces like these were arrayed against any possibility of you getting sales? You still think it's your blurb?

Now we've all been in this business long enough to recognize something called a "barrier to entry." Microsoft was convicted in federal court of monopolistic business practices by creating one for PC operating systems. The only reason there is even one alternative choice today for PC operating systems is because there was no practical way for Microsoft to sue or buy out Linux. Had there been such an option, Microsoft would have burned Linux to ash a quarter-century ago. One need only spend a few minutes with Windows 10 to see what happens when you tolerate a monopoly for 30 years. They were (and still are) experts at creating barriers to entry. Microsoft still owns 97% of the market despite the fact Linux is superior to and safer than Windows in almost every measurable sense.

I propose that things like taxpayer-subsidized book distribution and "these books are blessed and all others are dangerous" lists are also barriers to entry. I can't distribute my books at schools. I've never been given the option to be included in an "Accelerated Readers" list, even though I have print distribution to bookstores. I have no idea how to even begin the process of getting on that list. I suspect the process would be similar to being confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the U.S. Senate and would end with a form letter that begins with "We're sorry..."

We were all credibly led to believe we were competing on a level playing field. That notion couldn't be further from the truth. All we have accomplished in the last 8-10 years is to unravel a portion of the labyrinthine entrenched Maginot line separating us from the paying customers. We've found ways to sell books to geeks: paranormal romance, military sci-fi, urban fantasy, LitRPG and all kinds of other weird stuff. In all other respects, we're still fighting the age old battles: "I'm afraid of your books" "I'm afraid to use my credit card on the Internet" "How do I read an e-book?" "Why should I buy your book when I can just go to the library?" And we're doing it with impulse engines. Our competition is using warp drive fueled by their decades-old relationships with the status quo and a government that has already made marketing to children on the Internet illegal.

The middle grade market will never produce another Harry Potter at this rate, because creativity and barriers to entry are not compatible with each other. This is probably one of the reasons kids would rather watch YouTube. The people who make funny and entertaining videos are not bound to the requirements of a stale, stagnant and boring list approved by moms and teachers. Kids aren't interested in what moms and their teachers want. They want to be entertained just like everyone else, and creativity is a necessary ingredient for entertainment in much the same way water is a necessary ingredient for iced tea.

What I do know is this: taxpayers subsidizing a book publisher should be illegal, and further if Scholastic is allowed to direct market to students and their parents at taxpayer expense, any other author or publisher should have the exact same opportunities. There will be lightning strikes here and there, but by and large, as long as these monopoly barriers to entry remain, the middle grade "market," even if it does exist, will be as dead as a bag full of doorknobs.


----------



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

Just a question: do you have any kids in this age group? Do you have any kids at all?


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2019)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> Just a question: do you have any kids in this age group? Do you have any kids at all?


Why should that have anything to do with the discussion. The issue doesn't revolve around whether you have children, or not. It's an interesting subject and Shane does a good job of educating me (and others) on the issues of writing books for children of any age. There is a a mine of information in these posts that I'm more than prepared to read and digest.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> do you have any kids in this age group? Do you have any kids at all?


No. I'd like to start a family someday, but until I find a way to earn a living without having to single-handedly defeat a 100-year, billion-dollar entrenched government-subsidized monopoly I can't afford it.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

What does taxpayer expense have to do with anything? All of the teachers I’ve known have been paid a salary. If they stay late to run the book fair, they’re not being paid any more than they would have been if they left school at 3:05.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> No. I'd like to start a family someday, but until I find a way to earn a living without having to single-handedly defeat a 100-year, billion-dollar entrenched government-subsidized monopoly I can't afford it.


Life is hard, especially for writers trying to make a living.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> No. I'd like to start a family someday, but until I find a way to earn a living without having to single-handedly defeat a 100-year, billion-dollar entrenched government-subsidized monopoly I can't afford it.


No one is owed a living as an MG writer. If you can't do it writing MG as an indie, submit to publishers. Or, since you've said you can make money writing MilSF, why don't you do that instead?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> What does taxpayer expense have to do with anything?


Who said Scholastic books are only sold after school? What about the facilities? Insurance? Accounting? Administrators? Librarians? Shipping? Electricity? Heat? Equipment? Security? I doubt the school is operating on good will while they move inventory for the benefit of Scholastic's shareholders.

Further, retail book sellers are not exempt, and if a teacher isn't "primarily engaged in the duty of teaching, instructing, or lecturing" (California Labor and Professions Code 515.8 ) then they are no longer considered salaried professionals and are eligible for overtime and required by law to be paid minimum wage. Since they have no choice but to "work" at the book fair, they can't be considered independent contractors or volunteers either. So yes, the taxpayers are on the hook to provide Scholastic with a staggeringly unfair competitive advantage. Minute by minute and dollar by dollar.

This leaves aside, of course, any book selling or recommending that takes place during the school day (including the Accelerated Reader lists and the ubiquitous Scholastic direct marketing program flyer), when the taxpayers are paying teachers to teach, not run a book store.



> Life is hard, especially for writers trying to make a living.


Wasn't hard for my parents. They were both journalists. I grew up in a four bedroom house with a swimming pool. Let's just say things were different for my generation.



> No one is owed a living as an MG writer.


No one said they were. But everyone is owed an opportunity.

If Scholastic isn't afraid to compete on an even playing field, have them bring their bestselling author and do a live reading in front of an audience of 1000. Then I'll read a selection from _Dawnsong_ to the same audience. Let's see who gets a better response. Tell me where and when and I'll show up. In fact, I'll do it on a live stream.

It's not going to happen, because it's much easier to hide behind a monopoly and perpetuate the mediocre status quo while reclining on Harry Potter royalties.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Everyone has an opportunity. If you can’t make it in indie MG fiction, why not try subbing a manuscript to an agent? Or try writing a different genre?


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Further, retail book sellers are not exempt, and if a teacher isn't "primarily engaged in the duty of teaching, instructing, or lecturing" (California Labor and Professions Code 515.8 ) then they are no longer considered salaried professionals and are eligible for overtime and required by law to be paid minimum wage. Since they have no choice but to "work" at the book fair, they can't be considered independent contractors or volunteers either.


Teachers don't usually work at the book fairs (other than supervising their classes at them) because the hours are mostly during the day when the teachers are busy teaching. They wouldn't get nearly as many sales if they only operated after school because a lot of parents wouldn't care enough to go. The schools get free stuff from a catalog in return for sponsoring the fairs based on a percentage of profits. From what I remember, they just make some space in the library so it doesn't cost the school any more than they were already spending on operations. It's a net gain for the school or they wouldn't bother doing them.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> Just a question: do you have any kids in this age group? Do you have any kids at all?


Someone once said to me, "You haven't got any children, so how can you write children's books!?" I must say I was quite miffed about that comment. But was happy to reply, "Beatrix Potter didn't have any children."


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> From what I remember, they just make some space in the library so it doesn't cost the school any more than they were already spending on operations.


Well, the school doesn't get to charge Scholastic the market rate *RENT* for access to that nicely furnished library and the captive audience of students, does it?

For those of you watching at home, note the lengths to which people will go to defend Scholastic. They are entitled to space on a public school campus at taxpayer expense to sell products to students for the benefit of their shareholders and management. They're the safe option. They have the benefit of the doubt. They have unlimited distribution. They have unlimited marketing budgets. They never have to compete. They have hundreds of governments on their side. Meanwhile, as an author you are entitled to nothing. See if you can guess why Scholastic wins?

For the record, they will all go to the same lengths to defend Disney. After all, Disney now owns Star Wars, the Muppets, Pixar, Marvel, Fox, ABC Television, their own cable network and soon they'll have their own streaming service. Completely vertical monopoly business with no competition at all. Nobody says a word.

(Note: Disney owned Sailor Moon for about six years and didn't know it. When you are so big you are misplacing $2 billion properties, it's time someone took a second look)

This is what you must overcome to even reach a level playing field. _Then_ people will skeptically pick up your book, provided you're in print, available at bookstores and declared safe (probably by Scholastic and Disney). Until then, you're locked out.

Now you know the truth. The plaintiff rests.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Not unusual. Why work hard to cultivate new talent when you can just recline on your residuals and rely on your monopoly to suffocate the upstarts?  But since you brought it up, let's take a closer look at Scholastic.
> 
> *Did you know they don't even send a representative to a school when they have a book fair? They just ship boxes and a bill. The school staffs the event at taxpayer expense and sends the unsold inventory back with a check stapled to it. *Wouldn't it be nice if you could just ship a box of books to a school and have the principal and teachers hand-sell them in classrooms? Wouldn't it be nice if your publicly traded company had the ability to direct market to every parent in that school as often as you please?
> 
> ...


I attended a middle school book fair just a few weeks ago. No, I don't have a student at that school. I was there as a "local author" at a table to sell my own books, right next to the Scholastic books. And it's not the first time. I contact local middle-school libraries and ask if I can be at their book fairs, and guess what? A few have said yes!! So far I've been to two different schools. (The school I went to just recently had an entire agenda around the arts, with student sculptures & paintings on display, and musicians and dancers putting on a show. It wasn't just about books.)

And I'm not sure why anyone would expect a representative from Scholastic to be in attendance. There's really no reason for them to be there. Buying the books is a simple transaction, no "official" presence needed. The kids benefit, the school benefits, Scholastic benefits. Nothing to cry about, as far as I can tell.

Also, Paranormal Kitty is correct, in that book fairs don't take any time from the teachers' schedules. Books are sold in the school library (or media center, or whatever they call it), and kids peruse the books during their regular library time. And there's usually at least one evening when the Book Fair is open and parents/family members are free to visit and browse.

As for the Accelerated Reader program, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a totally voluntary thing, and schools can decline to participate if they wish. Again, I don't see anything evil or nefarious in the program.

By the way, I'm not a huge fan of Disney. They've ruined the Muppets an are also diluting the Star Wars franchise disgracefully.


----------



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

Tobias Roote said:


> Why should that have anything to do with the discussion.


Because, as a parent of an 8 year old, the claims being made about kids and parents today are absurd to the point of being laugh-out-loud funny.

If someone was writing about planes and explained the reason the 737 Max is having problems is that they moved the engines and when the wings flap, the balance is wrong, one might reasonably ask if they had ever flown on a plane or seen one.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2019)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> Because, as a parent of an 8 year old, the claims being made about kids and parents today are absurd to the point of being laugh-out-loud funny.
> 
> If someone was writing about planes and explained the reason the 737 Max is having problems is that they moved the engines and when the wings flap, the balance is wrong, one might reasonably ask if they had ever flown on a plane or seen one.


Actually if you want to you could liken it to having once been a plane, one knows how they should fly. You're a parent of an 8 year old... I've been there and done that - twice! I was also one myself and knew many hundreds, if not thousands of others. You 'really' don't have to be a parent to know children. By the way, the real fun starts at around eleven...


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> But everyone is owed an opportunity.


I sense a whiff of entitlement there. No one is owed anything, really. Insofar as "opportunity" goes, failing to achieve success doesn't mean you were denied the opportunity to succeed. KDP presents the same opportunity to everyone here, but it can't assure we'll have the talent required to make a living.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2019)

Dpock said:


> I sense a whiff of entitlement there.


There's more than the whiff of it..

What is obvious is that the OP is looking for external factors to blame for his lack of "success" rather than looking at things he can control. You only have to read the samples/reviews to see the issue is not Scholastic or the state of the market.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Well, the school doesn't get to charge Scholastic the market rate *RENT* for access to that nicely furnished library and the captive audience of students, does it?
> 
> For those of you watching at home, note the lengths to which people will go to defend Scholastic. They are entitled to space on a public school campus at taxpayer expense to sell products to students for the benefit of their shareholders and management. They're the safe option. They have the benefit of the doubt. They have unlimited distribution. They have unlimited marketing budgets. They never have to compete. They have hundreds of governments on their side. Meanwhile, as an author you are entitled to nothing. See if you can guess why Scholastic wins?


Again, it costs the taxpayers nothing. The school wouldn't be earning any rent money from that space otherwise. The school works with them because it's a beneficial relationship for all parties involved. The school gets free books and supplies while the kids get a supply of pre-vetted books their parents can be comfortable with them purchasing. Do you also get up in arms about the Dasani water and Apple & Eve juice in the school vending machines?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Again, it costs the taxpayers nothing. The school wouldn't be earning any rent money from that space otherwise.


I don't earn any rent from the spare bedroom down the hall either, but if someone wants to live in it, they're going to be writing me a check the first of every month. By the way, with regard to whether teachers are involved with the book fair:

http://www.scholastic.com/bookfairs/idea-share/jen-wellman/teachers-on-board-022816



> The school gets free books and supplies while the kids get a supply of pre-vetted books their parents can be comfortable with them purchasing.


You always leave out the part where Scholastic cashes a big check.



> Do you also get up in arms about the Dasani water and Apple & Eve juice in the school vending machines?


No. But then again I don't think Dasani has a nationwide government-protected, taxpayer-funded monopoly on public school vending machines.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Wanderer said:


> The lack of reading comprehension is astounding.


One can pick apart every word the OP has stated, or you can concentrate on his main point: _If you are an indie author, and want to sell MG, and you are concentrating on eBooks, you may have problems getting back your ROI._

I choose to concentrate on the main point, which no one here has disproved: It's not easy for indie authors to sell eBooks to the MG market.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

klerner said:


> The idea that there are no middle-grade readers--and that _is_ what he said, *jb1111*, multiple times; his theory is that kids are just ignoramuses suckling on the teat of a Playstation or Xbox (sorry for the visual there), and that parents are lazy morons who turned out a generation of illiterates--is farcical.


You ever heard of hyperbole? Or recognize it when you see it?


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

jb1111 said:


> ...It's not easy for indie authors to sell eBooks to the MG market.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all got that with the first post.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

jb1111 said:


> One can pick apart every word the OP has stated, or you can concentrate on his main point: _If you are an indie author, and want to sell MG, and you are concentrating on eBooks, you may have problems getting back your ROI._
> 
> I choose to concentrate on the main point, which no one here has disproved: It's not easy for indie authors to sell eBooks to the MG market.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


Almost every claim he made was nonsensical. He knows nothing about the subject - his reasoning was a mixture of offensive and comical. All he "proved" is that he wasn't capable of success in that genre.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> I choose to concentrate on the main point, which no one here has disproved: It's not easy for indie authors to sell eBooks to the MG market.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


No one is arguing that it's easy. Just that it's not impossible.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> You always leave out the part where Scholastic cashes a big check.


The school gets part of it. You keep ignoring that for some reason. Apparently they can choose between an actual share of the profits or double that if they shop from the Scholastic catalog: http://www.scholastic.com/bookfairs/articles/scholasticdollars

According to the link, schools get 30-50 percent of the profit in Scholastic Dollars, which is twice what they would get in cash, so a cash profit would be 15-25 percent. I would guess that's probably larger than the margin most bookstores get.

So...*The. Schools. Are. Getting. Paid. For. This.* I don't know why you think they are doing this for free or that taxpayer money is being given to Scholastic. It's a profit-making thing for the schools, lets the kids get access to books and doesn't require a whole lot of effort. It's a win-win for everyone except apparently disgruntled indie MG authors. If you want to cash in on it, do what Jena does and see if you can sell your print books at local book fairs.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Our nine-year-olds are big readers. We recently finished _The Phantom Tollbooth_ and are just getting into the Artemis Fowl series, which I read years ago and loved. The older widget just finished _Wish_ and has embarked on _The Thing About Jellyfish_, which is hideously sad, ugh. The younger is reading ... um ... it's about a girl and Pegasus? She has them stashed upstairs under her pillow, so I can't remind myself.

What they don't read is ebooks. Zero interest in that. Less than zero, actually -- they're actively turned off by the idea. They like to go to Barnes & Noble and spend an hour or two pulling books off the shelves, reading them on the floor, and making a purchase pile. And I can buy that pile because they're mostly mass-market paperbacks at $6.99 a pop, not pricey indie paperbacks. Or, yeah, Scholastic books -- a good deal through their school. They're plowing through all the Dog Man graphic novels that way right now. Scholastic is a great source of Spanish kids books too, which we appreciate.

But in Shane's defense, they absolutely will suckle at the screen teat for every minute we allow it. They read in part because screen time is limited, so they've developed the habit of finding something else to do. Enforcing the screen limitations can be exhausting, and I imagine some parents give up on the effort. I do think there's research showing book reading is down -- across U.S. culture, not just among kids -- and has been going down for decades, since the invention of television.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2019)

What I really don't understand is the mindset on here.

We're Indie authors and we live and survive in a world where we make our own market. Amazon and others allow us to do that - go up against the major traditionals on a level playing field - except, it seems in the MG market where there is a total monopoly being exercised which locks out not just the other traditionals (I could be wrong, but none mentioned here), but also every single Indie author. Surely, the OP has a major point in that, we should be allowed/able to compete. 

It's not a matter of 'entitlement' as some suggest, but a matter of equality and freedom. The Scholastic monopoly ensures that only their approved authors can get into the schools and impress younger minds. All the Indies are quite capable of producing printed books, so the argument against youngsters not reading Indie ebooks is invalid. They can or could if they were offered them.

Instead of thrashing the OP for an enlightening viewpoint maybe we should be searching for ways to break the monopoly of our childrens' minds.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Tobias Roote said:


> The Scholastic monopoly ensures that only their approved authors can get into the schools and impress younger minds.


No one is stopping the OP or anyone else from getting an agent to submit their work to Scholastic. There's a reason they work that way. It's called vetting.

I doubt any parent would want their young kids to read unvetted books from indie authors. I don't even read indie authors.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2019)

Dpock said:


> I don't even read indie authors.


Sheesh! And you wonder why the OP thinks there's a problem!

...and seeing as this forum is predominantly focused on ebooks and Indie authors it begs the question of why you spend your time here amongst the great 'unwashed' ?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Tobias Roote said:


> What I really don't understand is the mindset on here.
> 
> We're Indie authors and we live and survive in a world where we make our own market. Amazon and others allow us to do that - go up against the major traditionals on a level playing field - except, it seems in the MG market where there is a total monopoly being exercised which locks out not just the other traditionals (I could be wrong, but none mentioned here), but also every single Indie author. Surely, the OP has a major point in that, we should be allowed/able to compete.
> 
> ...


YA and MG fiction has certain requirements due to the age groups it's being written for, while indies have long been about the fact that they can do whatever they want. And they can. But doing whatever one wants isn't really a good recipe for getting past gatekeepers. When a book comes from Scholastic, teachers and librarians and parents can feel safe in knowing that the story is suitable for their kid's age, and won't be full of swearing or inappropriate scenes of sex and violence. They like that, and I don't blame them.

What other traditionals are you talking about?


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2019)

ShayneRutherford said:


> YA and MG fiction has certain requirements due to the age groups it's being written for, while indies have long been about the fact that they can do whatever they want. And they can. But doing whatever one wants isn't really a good recipe for getting past gatekeepers. When a book comes from Scholastic, teachers and librarians and parents can feel safe in knowing that the story is suitable for their kid's age, and won't be full of swearing or inappropriate scenes of sex and violence. They like that, and I don't blame them.


The trouble with that is the Gatekeepers decide the material that children can read. Ergo, their views short, broad, long, narrow etc., are imposed on the whole upcoming generation. And we're talking 8-12 year old's. They know EVERYTHING!  Especially the cuss words and sex thingies... 



ShayneRutherford said:


> What other traditionals are you talking about?


None! I was covering my ass in case I missed something


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

Tobias Roote said:


> Sheesh! And you wonder why the OP thinks there's a problem!
> 
> ...and seeing as this forum is predominantly focused on ebooks and Indie authors it begs the question of why you spend your time here amongst the great 'unwashed' ?


Not so. The forum is focused on what its name implies. Kindles. eReaders. It has attracted many who are also writing, and writers' cafe is their sub-group, but Kboards is primarily an eReader forum.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

vagabond.voyager said:


> Not so. The forum is focused on what its name implies. Kindles. eReaders. It has attracted many who are also writing, and writers' cafe is their sub-group, but Kboards is primarily an eReader forum.


You're referring to the entire site, not this forum. KBoards is a site with several forums. The Author's Forum consists of Writer's Café.

So, yeah, when Tobias Roote mentions that this forum is focused primarily on indie authors, it's accurate.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

jb1111 said:


> One can pick apart every word the OP has stated, or you can concentrate on his main point: _*If you are an indie author, and want to sell MG, and you are concentrating on eBooks, you may have problems getting back your ROI.*_
> 
> I choose to concentrate on *the main point, which no one here has disproved: It's not easy for indie authors to sell eBooks to the MG market.*
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


First bolded statement: That is NOT what the OP says. Your, um, interpretation is seriously soft-selling his baldly-stated statement. The OP doesn't suggest that "_you may have problems_" selling MG. He says flat-out that there ARE NO readers of MG. He states as much in the thread title: There is NO MARKET for MG fiction. And in the first post,he says "there are no middle grade readers." Yes, it's a bit of hyperbole, but he goes on--and on, and on, in numerous posts--claiming that there are (virtually) no readers in the stated age range. None. Nil, zip, zilch. Not only is that unprovable by him, but is easily disproved by everyone else. And yet, again, it's repeated as a universal, general fact.

Re the second bolded statement: again, that is NOT what the author said. Yes, I'm sure it's what he ultimately means, and is the lesson that we all can take from it, but _it's not what he* says, *_and even the OP has doubled down and repeated the statement in his thread title. He insists on repeating the hyperbolic falsehood.

And btw, for those of us who already have MG books on the market, WE KNOW it's a tough slog. WE KNOW it's not easy to break in and get a toe-hold. WE KNOW it's an uphill battle. But we also know there ARE readers out there. Reaching them may not be easy, but THEY DO EXIST and THEY LIKE TO READ. His insistence on claiming otherwise is just baffling.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> First bolded statement: That is NOT what the OP says. Your, um, interpretation is seriously soft-selling his baldly-stated statement. The OP doesn't suggest that "_you may have problems_" selling MG. He says flat-out that there ARE NO readers of MG. He states as much in the thread title: There is NO MARKET for MG fiction. And in the first post,he says "there are no middle grade readers." Yes, it's a bit of hyperbole, but he goes on--and on, and on, in numerous posts--claiming that there are (virtually) no readers in the stated age range. None. Nil, zip, zilch. Not only is that unprovable by him, but is easily disproved by everyone else. And yet, again, it's repeated as a universal, general fact.
> 
> Re the second bolded statement: again, that is NOT what the author said. _*Yes, I'm sure it's what he ultimately means,*_ and is the lesson that we all can take from it, but _it's not what he* says, *_and even the OP has doubled down and repeated the statement in his thread title. He insists on repeating the hyperbolic falsehood.
> 
> And btw, for those of us who already have MG books on the market, WE KNOW it's a tough slog. WE KNOW it's not easy to break in and get a toe-hold. WE KNOW it's an uphill battle. But we also know there ARE readers out there. Reaching them may not be easy, but THEY DO EXIST and THEY LIKE TO READ. His insistence on claiming otherwise is just baffling.


Like you, when I read his comments about kids not reading and staring at screens all the time I also saw a lot of hyperbole, to make a point.

We also appear to be ultimately in agreement on Mr. Black's basic message, as hyperbolic and over-the-top as it is.

Yeah, I "soft sold" his statements for a reason.

Glad to hear you are succeeding in the genre.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

jb1111 said:


> Like you, when I read his comments about kids not reading and staring at screens all the time I also saw a lot of hyperbole, to make a point.
> 
> We also appear to be ultimately *in agreement on Mr. Black's basic message,* as hyperbolic and over-the-top as it is.
> 
> ...


I would like to THINK the basic message is simply stated in "hyperbolic and over-the-top" manner, but the constant, insistent repetition of those increasingly hyperbolic statements suggests I may be giving the benefit of the doubt where it hasn't been earned. If it was truly hyperbole driven by frustration, the OP would have admitted that, and confessed something about 'needing to vent'--something which we can all relate to and understand. The lack of that admission is what is baffling. Not to mention very off-putting.


----------



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

I think this elementary librarian says it best:



> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/5sw55q/can_someone_explain_the_relationship_between/%5B/url
> 
> Two months ago:
> ...


----------



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

jb1111 said:


> You ever heard of hyperbole? Or recognize it when you see it?


Apparently you don't recognize when its usage is meaningless.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> I would like to THINK the basic message is simply stated in "hyperbolic and over-the-top" manner, but the constant, insistent repetition of those increasingly hyperbolic statements suggests I may be giving the benefit of the doubt where it hasn't been earned. If it was truly hyperbole driven by frustration, the OP would have admitted that, and confessed something about 'needing to vent'--something which we can all relate to and understand. The lack of that admission is what is baffling. Not to mention very off-putting.


Fair enough.


----------



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

Jena H said:


> He says flat-out that there ARE NO readers of MG. He states as much in the thread title: There is NO MARKET for MG fiction. And in the first post,he says "there are no middle grade readers." Yes, it's a bit of hyperbole, but he goes on--and on, and on, in numerous posts--claiming that there are (virtually) no readers in the stated age range.


He also blames this on parental neglect and parents refusing to encourage reading in favor of allowing unlimited screen time.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2019)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> He also blames this on parental neglect and parents refusing to encourage reading in favor of allowing unlimited screen time.


and I don't think he's entirely wrong. Looking at the current adult generation's level of literacy, I really cannot see them spending any time at all, either reading to their kids, or encouraging them to do so. If the schools do so - power to their elbow - just encourage them to read a wider selection and not just the bunkum that keeps them believing that nobody swears or has sex. Teaching children when and how to swear is a fundamental aspect of parenting.


----------



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

Tobias Roote said:


> and I don't think he's entirely wrong. Looking at the current adult generation's level of literacy, I really cannot see them spending any time at all, either reading to their kids, or encouraging them to do so.


Fortunately market analysis is statistical and not anecdotal in nature.


----------



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

Tobias Roote said:


> and I don't think he's entirely wrong. Looking at the current adult generation's level of literacy, I really cannot see them spending any time at all, either reading to their kids, or encouraging them to do so. If the schools do so - power to their elbow - just encourage them to read a wider selection and not just the bunkum that keeps them believing that nobody swears or has sex. Teaching children when and how to swear is a fundamental aspect of parenting.


Which generation is illiterate? Just so I can know. Boomer, Xer, or Millenial?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Which generation is illiterate? Just so I can know. Boomer, Xer, or Millenial?


According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 33 percent of U.S. high school graduates never read a book after high school, and 50 percent of U.S. adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Only Nixon can go to China.

Your turn...


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 33 percent of U.S. high school graduates never read a book after high school, and 50 percent of U.S. adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.


But surveys have also shown that millenials are the biggest readers since the 1950s, which isn't surprising since that is the generation that grew up with Harry Potter.

Sorry, I'm just not buying this hell in a handbasket stuff. Kids are reading like crazy. Parents and schools work really hard at encouraging it.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Monique said:


> Only Nixon can go to China.
> 
> Your turn...


I've been to China several dozen times. It's big.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Tobias Roote said:


> *
> and I don't think he's entirely wrong. Looking at the current adult generation's level of literacy, I really cannot see them spending any time at all, either reading to their kids, or encouraging them to do so.* If the schools do so - power to their elbow - just encourage them to read a wider selection and not just the bunkum that keeps them believing that nobody swears or has sex. Teaching children when and how to swear is a fundamental aspect of parenting.


That's ridiculous. And it's implying that adults are now less literate than previous generations. Do you have a single shred of evidence to support that statement?

People were saying the exact same thing about kids not reading when I was a kid. This is just more of the same shit. Back then, it was the PlayStation stealing attention. Or the computer. Now, it's supposedly the iPad or Tik Tok or whatever. I'm sure, in previous generations, people complained about TV and radio keeping kids from reading.

OP has ZERO EVIDENCE in favor of his claim that kids are reading less than they used to. He's also dead wrong about the lack of a middle grade market, as evidenced by our ability to name a dozen uber successful middle grade authors. Is there no indie market? Maybe. But no one is debating that claim.


----------



## josephdaniel (Jan 30, 2019)

Can't say I completely agree with this, but definitely agree that it is harder. Most middle grade sales, in my opinion--and the opinions of well-established indies who have done this a lot longer than I have--come from parents reading your book, then giving it to their child. I know for a fact that a good number of my growing list of readers are adults who read the books with their kids, or adults who enjoy the genre.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2019)

Crystal_ said:


> OP has ZERO EVIDENCE in favor of his claim that kids are reading less than they used to. He's also dead wrong about the lack of a middle grade market, as evidenced by our ability to name a dozen uber successful middle grade authors. Is there no indie market? Maybe. But no one is debating that claim.


This ^

The OP's entire argument about the (demonstrably false) lack of a MG market is hinged on the fact *he* can't sell MG. I can't sell romance novels, using the OP's logic that means there's no romance market.

Another indie (small press?) MG author who does incredibly well is Richard Roberts with his "Please don't tell my parents..." series. Kids do get their hands on indie MG but it has to be well written and a great story, for news of it to reach their ears.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 33 percent of U.S. high school graduates never read a book after high school, and 50 percent of U.S. adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.


My brother--an engineer who just retired after working for the US government for almost 40 years--never read a book for fun. (Well, I think he finally did, probably when he was in his 40s.) He just never cared for reading. Yeah, that's a small anecdote involving one person, but some people just don't care to read.

As to the number of US adults who can't read, or who read at a child's level.... that's a school system issue. If states and municipalities were able to actually offer teachers a decent salary and fully fund schools, I'm pretty sure illiteracy wouldn't be such an issue.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> But surveys have also shown that millenials are the biggest readers since the 1950s,


True:

http://www.theindependentpublishingmagazine.com/2019/04/infographic-the-surprising-reading-habits-of-millennials.html.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> He's also dead wrong about the lack of a middle grade market, as evidenced by our ability to name a dozen uber successful middle grade authors.


Few years back I worked on a PC video game project for one of my clients. The art was serviceable. The gameplay was adequate, if a little confusing. By all objective measures, the game was mediocre to below average at best. It certainly wasn't going to set any records or make the papers. It was an indie project. Self-funded by the client. Total outlay was roughly the same amount an author might spend for a pro cover and a top-shelf editor for a new novel.

That game grossed $96,000 on Steam in three days.

So I'm sure you'll understand if I have a different perspective on the relative meaning of "uber successful."



> If states and municipalities were able to actually offer teachers a decent salary and fully fund schools, I'm pretty sure illiteracy wouldn't be such an issue.


Here in California, the general education budget is a little over $11000 per student per year, not counting the lottery. That's roughly $330,000 a year per classroom. Being generous, if the teacher makes $100,000 a year, that's $230,000 a year per classroom that's, without putting too fine a point on it, not getting to the classroom. We know it isn't being spent on books, field trips, fine arts, athletics, clubs, supplies, buildings, computers, science equipment or elective classes. School organizations (including student government and all the student associations) have to do endless fundraisers to survive. It's not being spent on food either, since all the kids are in lunch card debt despite the $14 billion annual bill for the federal lunch program. Then we can go into the classes being held in trailers in the LAUSD year after year after year while the buildings crumble around the students and the teachers using their lunch hours to go out and buy pencils and craft supplies because apparently the schools can't afford construction paper and glue.

California is at the bottom of the list when it comes to academic performance. Meanwhile, librarians are being fired and libraries closed at school after school. It's pretty clear the literacy crisis goes way beyond just adults. By the way, if you're looking for concerned parents, you will find them absent. When they swept our school district clean of all art, music, dance, theater, drawing, music, choir, home economics and industrial arts classes, including all the after-school volunteer programs, five parents showed up to the school board meeting to complain.

Leaving aside the billion-dollar monopolies and their government servants, these are just a few of the challenges one faces when making the mistake of writing books for kids.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Tobias Roote said:


> The trouble with that is the Gatekeepers decide the material that children can read. Ergo, their views short, broad, long, narrow etc., are imposed on the whole upcoming generation. And we're talking 8-12 year old's. They know EVERYTHING!  Especially the cuss words and sex thingies...
> 
> 
> 
> None! I was covering my ass in case I missed something


I used to work for the local school board as a broom jockey. Believe me, I know they know all the bad words, and all the rest of it, too. But it doesn't matter what they know - what matters is what the parents are comfortable giving their kids to read. As long as the parents are paying for the books and want to believe that little Johnny or little Jane don't know all the four-letter words, gatekeepers are going to be a necessary evil.

LOL


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Jena H said:


> My brother--an engineer who just retired after working for the US government for almost 40 years--never read a book for fun. (Well, I think he finally did, probably when he was in his 40s.) He just never cared for reading. Yeah, that's a small anecdote involving one person, but some people just don't care to read.
> 
> As to the number of US adults who can't read, or who read at a child's level.... that's a school system issue. If states and municipalities were able to actually offer teachers a decent salary and fully fund schools, I'm pretty sure illiteracy wouldn't be such an issue.


I wonder how the amount of adults who can't read or read at a child's level compares to the amount who can't do math or do math at a child's level? I can't even do division at all without a calculator. I used to get lectures in school about not trying hard enough because I always had As in English while failing math (because if you're good at one thing, obviously you're good at everything).


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> I wonder how the amount of adults who can't read or read at a child's level compares to the amount who can't do math or do math at a child's level?


Googling: One in four American adults lacks basic math skills. Forty-three percent have below basic literacy skills.

We score well below the head of the pack on both counts versus other countries.

We have about two hundred and seventy million adults, so that's a lot of stupid. I don't know if it changes THAT much over different generations.

It's fun to look at the (top) magazine circulation figures in the U.S. The New Yorker ranks at #69 (1,050,000), while Costco Connection (below AARP) comes in at #3 (12.8 million).

Game Informer? #5 with six million subscribers.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Dpock said:


> Googling: One in four American adults lacks basic math skills. Forty-three percent have below basic literacy skills.
> 
> We score well below the head of the pack on both counts versus other countries.
> 
> ...


This is a bit if a thread derail, but on this topic of math & reading illiteracy, I think we're (universal "we") victims of our own success & technology. Other than in school, who needs to read all that well? Internet articles are usually relatively short (to go along with attention spans), and with news and entertainment so common in visual form, who needs to read for fun? Not to mention even audio books remove the need to actively read.

As for math... I'd say the most common use for math that most people run across in their daily lives has usually been in relation to money. Paying for a $6.50 salad with a $20 bill, how much change to expect, etc. But A) most people don't use cash anymore; the proliferation of credit and debit cards, or things like Apple Pay have really reduced the need to handle cash. Also, if someone DOES pay in cash, then B) cash registers will calculate applicable tax and how much change to give. Who needs to know how to divide or subtract? I know schools always use examples like cooking or carpentry or laying a carpet to try to show how "you'll use math in every day life!" but, yeah, no.

So it sort of seems like the smarter we get (creating AI, conquering diseases [if parents would only avail themselves of the options!], exploring space, etc), the dumber the average populace becomes.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Jena H said:


> This is a bit if a thread derail


Thank God!

If it devolves into who still books, and what kinds of books, it could be useful.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Here's an article on reading rates that I found interesting. The New Yorker is paywalled, but I think you get a few freebies per month before it shuts you out: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/why-we-dont-read-revisited. This older, more pessimistic, piece is linked in that article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/24/twilight-of-the-books.

In the more recent article of these articles, one of the data points for the U.S. is that only a small percentage of people read, and that percentage is falling (from 26.3% in 2003 to 19.5% in 2016); however, among the fifth of the population that does read, time spent reading actually went up a bit (from 1.39 hours/day in 2003 to 1.46 hours/day in 2016). It could be that ereading has made books more accessible to those committed readers? Dunno.

This graph captures the pre-web shrinkage of reading in the Netherlands (from 5 to 3 hours/week), which correlates with the growth of TV:










None of which applies to kids specifically, but I imagine the diversification of entertainment options affects all of us.

At any rate, I think the no-thank-you-to-ebooks effect is by far the biggest factor for kids, when it comes to the indie market. It sure is in my family. The kids want paper, and in most cases, the parents don't want to pay the POD premium.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

One thing though is that all these statistics don't count reading on the internet as reading. What people are doing constantly is reading content online: forum posts, news articles, social media posts, comments on videos, etc. Some of it good, some of it not so good, but still reading. Some sites like Quora and Medium have some great content that's as thought-provoking as a book. When someone today spends his spare time browsing the web, he's doing a lot more reading than someone 30 years ago who vegged out on the couch with cable tv instead.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> One thing though is that all these statistics don't count reading on the internet as reading. What people are doing constantly is reading content online: forum posts, news articles, social media posts, comments on videos, etc. Some of it good, some of it not so good, but still reading. Some sites like Quora and Medium have some great content that's as thought-provoking as a book. When someone today spends his spare time browsing the web, he's doing a lot more reading than someone 30 years ago who vegged out on the couch with cable tv instead.


Internet browsing has probably had a broader effect on newspapers (well, duh), magazines, phone chats and neighborly visits over the fence than book reading. (The neighbors are likely too busy web surfing to come out for a chat.)

Of course, I'm guessing.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Wanderer said:


> Given how many hours I've spent reading fanfic on the internet, I'd be very curious to know how the existence of fanfic (and other free fiction sites like Wattpad) affect the book-reading time of those who read on such sites. There is a huge amount of fanfic out in the world, and a fair amount of it is actually decent-quality, novel-length fanfic...


That's where genre writers have a real advantage (in addition to big markets). They have plenty of places online to find their target audience and leave samples or news of their writing. Some here use Wattpad for that reason. A LITrpg writer I know just announces a new release in a LITrpg forum and sits at top ranks for weeks.

Beyond that, I don't think dissecting what counts as "reading" will really get us anywhere useful.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> One thing though is that all these statistics don't count reading on the internet as reading. What people are doing constantly is reading content online: forum posts, news articles, social media posts, comments on videos, etc. Some of it good, some of it not so good, but still reading. Some sites like Quora and Medium have some great content that's as thought-provoking as a book. When someone today spends his spare time browsing the web, he's doing a lot more reading than someone 30 years ago who vegged out on the couch with cable tv instead.


Yes, something I read (maybe the article I linked ... can't remember) pointed out that surveys may capture reading habits inaccurately. For instance, if you read a book on your laptop, do you think of that as "reading" or as "computer use" when you fill out a survey on how you spend your leisure time? And setting books aside, much of what we do online _is_ reading.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Dpock said:


> Googling: One in four American adults lacks basic math skills. Forty-three percent have below basic literacy skills.
> 
> We score well below the head of the pack on both counts versus other countries.
> 
> ...


But magazine subscriptions, and readerships, have been falling over the past two decades along with newspapers. It's obviously a gauge of _what_ adults are reading, but might not be an accurate gauge of their overall literacy.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Dpock said:


> Internet browsing has probably had a broader effect on newspapers (well, duh), magazines, phone chats and neighborly visits over the fence than book reading. (The neighbors are likely too busy web surfing to come out for a chat.)
> 
> Of course, I'm guessing.


Point taken, but there are still only so many hours in a day. If your allotted reading time is spent on social media, that could dig into book reading time.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Wanderer said:


> For that matter, there's also a lot of free manga available on the internet or apps. I've been spending a lot of time on such an app lately. Some of the people leaving comments on the manga I'm reading are in the middle grade age range (they say their age). (Whether they should be reading those stories or not is their parents' problem.) Sure, it's pictures too, but that's reading. And again, free. Kids are limited by what their parents are willing/able to buy them. So if they want more than that (or different stuff than that), they find other ways to get it. The internet and apps provide them many opportunities to read without ever paying any money. And let's face it, even if the quality of those stories is often less than what we might call professional, kids that age are usually not discerning enough to notice or care that they're lower quality. Especially if it's free.


I also wondered about this "comic book" factor. It's obvious that comics, graphic novels, and manga are hugely successful -- the movies based on them prove that much. I wonder if that also factors into reading time in some way.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

jb1111 said:


> Point taken, but there are still only so many hours in a day. If your allotted reading time is spent on social media, that could dig into book reading time.


Hmm... I don't know that people view their "reading time" as something they allot themselves on a per diem basis. My habit is to turn to "books" in the evening, regardless of how much other reading I've done during the day, and my book time has increased over the past twenty years. I am reading fewer print magazines, having replaced many with online media. Non-book reading time hasn't varied much over the years.



> magazine subscriptions, and readerships, have been falling over the past two decades along with newspapers. It's obviously a gauge of what adults are reading, but might not be an accurate gauge of their overall literacy.


According to the first site I grabbed off Google (unvetted), literacy is defined as:



> _"ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum, of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society."_


That's not very instructive in terms of what people are actually able to read (nor is the dictionary definition). One could be literate while only equipped to read a sixth-grade primer. I imagine the average _Family Circle_ reader might find _The Atlantic_ a slog (and vice versa), but they can probably read it. So overall literacy is less important than what people actually enjoy reading, and that's no mystery. We know the relative size of the total book market and how it's divvied up among the reading public.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Here in California, the general education budget is a little over $11000 per student per year, not counting the lottery. That's roughly $330,000 a year per classroom. Being generous, if the teacher makes $100,000 a year,


[hysterical laughter]

Got a source for that salary statement?


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Few years back I worked on a PC video game project for one of my clients. The art was serviceable. The gameplay was adequate, if a little confusing. By all objective measures, the game was mediocre to below average at best. It certainly wasn't going to set any records or make the papers. It was an indie project. Self-funded by the client. Total outlay was roughly the same amount an author might spend for a pro cover and a top-shelf editor for a new novel.
> 
> That game grossed $96,000 on Steam in three days.
> 
> So I'm sure you'll understand if I have a different perspective on the relative meaning of "uber successful."


Translation: I don't have anything of substance to support my original claims, so here's an unrelated anecdote that has absolutely nothing to do with books that nonetheless makes me sound more successful. 



> Leaving aside the billion-dollar monopolies and their government servants, these are just a few of the challenges one faces when making the mistake of writing books for kids.


Yes, leaving them aside, because you're wrong, and they don't exist. But you already know that. It's the reason you didn't reply.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> If you're a kid and you've got dozens or hundreds or thousands of stories on the internet, freely available and starring your favorite characters, you might spend many, many hours reading that instead of spending money to get a new book by a new author with a new story.


Meanwhile, if some poor dumb indie author bleeds enough on Facebook and that same kid wants to buy their book on Amazon, mom clutches her prescription bottles and hits the panic button to surround her suburban estate with electric fences and machine guns because indie authors are evil.



> Got a source for that salary statement?


You actually copied and pasted the words "being generous," yet failed to read them. And I'm the one treated skeptically when I say we have a reading problem in this country?



> I don't have anything of substance to support my original claims, so here's an unrelated anecdote that has absolutely nothing to do with books that nonetheless makes me sound more successful.


I've already conclusively proven my original claims. The only middle grade authors who don't suffocate within six months of publishing their first book are trad-pubbed print authors who would be selling the exact same number of books regardless of what Amazon does. That or they pivot away from middle-grade the moment they have the opportunity, like I did. Turns out authors like to eat three times a day and live indoors. Imagine!

This example was meant to illustrate the difference between "middle grade writer" successful and "video game developer" successful. As you can see, the market has spoken. As far as the middle-grade demographic is concerned, books are obsolete, and the parents are thrilled. Big relief for mom and dad too because indie authors are scary. The paranoia is probably caused by all those pills.

Are there any middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling who do $30,000 a day? Isn't it interesting how Steam can generate those kinds of revenues for developers with a molecular fraction of Amazon's traffic, and yet even the most outsized success from our top-of-the-top authors doesn't come close? Fun fact: that developer didn't have to spend dime one on Facebook ads.



> because you're wrong, and they don't exist


Scholastic has government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded retail distribution in 75,000 schools. They are a $1.19 billion company. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/schl/stock-chart These two facts _just might_ be related.

Meanwhile, Starbucks has five percent of Scholastic's retail reach and is nearly 100 times more valuable. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sbux/stock-chart Compare and contrast to see how America values reading for young people. When mom has a choice between buying a book for her child and buying her daily frappu-latte-cappucino-espresso for three times the price, well, take a look at the line at Starbucks.

My work is done here.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

nail file said:


> [hysterical laughter]
> 
> Got a source for that salary statement?


Based on the wording and general tenor of the post, I took it as a purposefully generous guessimate, not a statement.

California public school teacher salaries do pass $100K at the high end of the scale, though I think the vast majority make way less.


----------



## bossk (Dec 3, 2018)

Reading, in and of itself, isn't enough. It's what you read. Reading long-form fiction promotes erudition and empathy. I'd be interested to know what the comparison statistics are for readers of long-form fiction across all demographics from yesteryear versus today or if there's a trend pointing in one direction or another.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Scholastic has government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded retail distribution in 75,000 schools.


Continuing to claim this doesn't make it true. I posted this earlier, but here it is again: http://www.scholastic.com/bookfairs/articles/scholasticdollars

The schools make money from the book fairs. 30-50 percent if they use Scholastic rewards dollars or 15-25 percent if they want cash, which is probably a higher margin than most bookstores. They're not spending taxpayer money to make Scholastic money. Scholastic's distribution is no more taxpayer-funded than the items sold in school vending machines or sold for fundraisers at schools.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

bossk said:


> Reading, in and of itself, isn't enough. It's what you read. Reading long-form fiction promotes erudition and empathy. I'd be interested to know what the comparison statistics are for readers of long-form fiction across all demographics from yesteryear versus today or if there's a trend pointing in one direction or another.


The trend is down. You can take my word or Google for yourself. The Washington Post has several recent articles on the decline of leisure and/or literary reading (let's say both).

The same articles could have been written thirty years earlier. On the plus side, there are nearly a hundred million more Americans than in 1989 so, even if fewer are reading as a percentage, there are still possibly more readers today, even though they represent a fewer percent of the population. This thinking is what's called a "stretch".


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> I've already conclusively proven my original claims. The only middle grade authors who don't suffocate within six months of publishing their first book are trad-pubbed print authors who would be selling the exact same number of books regardless of what Amazon does. That or they pivot away from middle-grade the moment they have the opportunity, like I did. Turns out authors like to eat three times a day and live indoors. Imagine!


No, what you've done when challenged on your original claims is to shift your rhetoric to make it _seem_ as though you are only talking about an indie/Amazon MG market.

But in fact you originally attempted to suggest there was no MG market at all:

[quote author=Shane Lochlann Black]
Scholastic has unlimited marketing cash and a captive taxpayer-subsidized monopoly protected by 50 state governments. They haven't accomplished a thing since Harry Potter. That is conclusive proof there is no MG book market. Case closed. [/quote]

Saying you've conclusively proven them is a lie when we look at the long list of posts by several users who cast doubt on your proof, to which you never responded.

If you can't respond to facts and lines of criticism, then you lose all credibility when you repeat the same nonsense as though it's true.



> This example was meant to illustrate the difference between "middle grade writer" successful and "video game developer" successful. As you can see, the market has spoken. As far as the middle-grade demographic is concerned, books are obsolete, and the parents are thrilled. Big relief for mom and dad too because indie authors are scary. The paranoia is probably caused by all those pills. Are there any middle grade authors other than J.K. Rowling who do $30,000 a day? Isn't it interesting how Steam can generate those kinds of revenues for developers with a molecular fraction of Amazon's traffic, and yet even the most outsized success from our top-of-the-top authors doesn't come close? Fun fact: that developer didn't have to spend dime one on Facebook ads.


Whatever it was meant to illustrate, it fell flat on its face. The anecdote is worthless in this sense because video game developers develop games *for more than one age demographic*.

And even if you were to illustrate that the MG video game market is larger than the MG book market, it wouldn't constitute proof that there is no MG book market. 



> Scholastic has government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded retail distribution in 75,000 schools. They are a $1.19 billion company. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/schl/stock-chart These two facts _just might_ be related.
> 
> Meanwhile, Starbucks has five percent of Scholastic's retail reach and is nearly 100 times more valuable. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sbux/stock-chart Compare and contrast to see how America values reading for young people. When mom has a choice between buying a book for her child and buying her daily frappu-latte-cappucino-espresso for three times the price, well, take a look at the line at Starbucks.


Yeah, take a look at the line at Starbucks. Are all the customers mothers and fathers of MG children?

lol do you even analogize brah? 



> My work is done here.


Covering your eyes and ears after you say something will indeed produce that sentiment. 

Case in point:

[quote author=Shane Lochlann Black]
captive taxpayer-subsidized monopoly protected by 50 state governments[[/quote]

The librarian in each school decides whether to host a book fair, and whose book fair services to use. There are websites and blogs where these librarians discuss amongst themselves the process, who they choose, and why.

You might've noticed that in earlier posts from multiple people you probably figured it was easier to pretend like you didn't see.

So, is the word captive synonymous with free choice?

Is the word monopoly synonymous with the reality that Scholastic has at least one viable national competitor, and plenty more regional and local competitors?

What exactly are you talking about when you say fifty state governments have taken measures to protect Scholastic?

How is Scholastic subsidized by taxpayer money, when the only money they receive comes from the parents of these children? Isn't it in fact the other way around, that the school system is "subsidized" by Scholastic money, since they in fact pay the school for its librarian having made the voluntary choice to host them?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> video game developers develop games for more than one age demographic.


Scholastic publishes books for more than one age demographic too.



> And even if you were to illustrate that the MG video game market is larger than the MG book market, it wouldn't constitute proof that there is no MG book market.


If you define "market" as "mom took a bunch of junk to the school parking lot to get rid of it," then I suppose you could say there's a middle grade book "market." While we're at it, I suppose we could compare say, Blizzard Entertainment with Scholastic and see who is doing better revenue-wise. Shall we?



> The librarian in each school decides whether to host a book fair, and whose book fair services to use.


The principal decides whether to host a book fair, and gets approval from the school board far in advance after paperwork is signed according to city, county and state regulations. These are some of the legal requirements under California's education code. No outside entity can do anything on a public school campus without the approval of the principal.



> So, is the word captive synonymous with free choice?


Not unless we're discussing a market of librarians.



> Is the word monopoly synonymous with the reality that Scholastic has at least one viable national competitor, and plenty more regional and local competitors?


Yes, because Scholastic is already entrenched in 75,000 schools. Microsoft had multiple competitors, and they were convicted by a federal judge of being a monopoly anyway and then heavily sanctioned and almost broken up.



> What exactly are you talking about when you say fifty state governments have taken measures to protect Scholastic?


Fifty state governments have a financial relationship with Scholastic that taxpayers not only have no say in, but which taxpayers are largely unaware of. If you want to see that relationship in action, try and set up a book fair at a school where Scholastic already has a contract. See how that works out for you.



> How is Scholastic subsidized by taxpayer money


Because they go out of their way to involve the teachers, librarians and principals (and district lawyers, accountants, janitors, security guards and facilities management) in their retail sales operations, all of whom are paid by the taxpayers to teach, not run a bookstore. They also ingratiate themselves in the curriculum, so their product becomes a legal necessity for parents, like car insurance. The Accelerated Reader program isn't the only incentive parents have to open their wallets at various times during the school year.

If a proposal were made to set up an actual physical retail bookstore location on a public school campus, the parents would throw a Bakersfield chimp fit, and so would the voters. Which only illustrates the ignorance in all of this. There are already 75,000 bookstores in America, all hosted by public schools and paid for by the taxpayers in every county. They're just well concealed and kept quiet. The fact that the schools "make money" from this arrangement is irrelevant. Schools are not there to participate in financial deals and create revenue. They are established and funded by taxpayers to *EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN, PERIOD.*

Now I fully understand why Scholastic invaded America's schools, inventory in tow. If they relied on frappucino mom and soccer dad to put down their phones and television remotes and pill bottles long enough to actually take an interest in their child's reading skills, they would be out of business so fast it would leave a trail of wreckage from Missouri to Seattle. I contend the only reason Scholastic is still in business and hasn't been bought out is because they managed to scrabble together enough cash for a Harry Potter life raft. One need only look at their stock chart for the last 10-15 years to see even that is barely keeping them out of Chapter 11. Their entire market cap is a rounding error for most other companies of their type, which is shocking considering the alleged "market" for middle grade books.

It would be a trivial thing for Scholastic to be bought out. Most other entertainment companies could pay cash for the lock, stock and barrel tomorrow, and Scholastic's shareholders would probably be dancing up and down Wall Street. You know why they haven't been bought yet, even though the last 25 years has seen nothing but media mergers? Because Wall Street and the rest of America's business elite know there's no money to be made. Scholastic sells an archaic product that nobody wants and puts zero effort into improving things for themselves or anyone else. Amazon makes zero effort to pursue or develop the market for children's/MG/YA books on the Kindle for the exact same reason. They know it's a waste of time and money, because kids don't read and their parents don't care.

The idea that any of us can move the needle with our rewritten blurbs and five buck ads is ludicrous.



> Isn't it in fact the other way around, that the school system is "subsidized" by Scholastic money, since they in fact pay the school for its librarian having made the voluntary choice to host them?


The lottery pays the school too. How did that work out for us? Teachers are still buying construction paper out of their own pocket and little Susie and little Timmy owe the cafeteria negative card balances for lunch. Yeah, I'm sure Scholastic _paying the school_ will make it all better.

Meanwhile I'd like to know how much of the $22,000 we paid the school to educate Susie and Timmy last year actually made it to their classrooms. Since the teachers are constantly having to threaten strikes to get cost of living raises, I'm going to guess "not enough."


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I've removed a post. Plenty of other threads on the forum, if this one strikes you as lacking merit. Carry on.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

nail file said:


> Got a source for that salary statement?


It's not that unusual in California. Even if starting salaries aren't great, the average salary creeps toward six-figures in many places, which means about half are making more. I know some teachers (and administrators) personally. They got paid well. I'm in a fairly affluent area--SF bay area--so I'm sure that's hurting the curve a bit, but much of the population is also in similar suburban areas. And that's for the standard school year which still runs in many counties allowing moonlighting during the summer if desired. That wasn't uncommon either. One example:
https://www.santaclarausd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=1212&dataid=4345&FileName=2018-2019%20APPR-TEACHERS%20188%20DAYS-3_%201-8-19.pdf

(That said, this is not a greater defense of Shane's statements. He exaggerated wildly on a variety of points that he could have just conceded rather than argued. I guess he finds no fun in just restating his premise as "the middle grade market is very tough to crack for self-publishers because ebooks are notably unpopular with the target audience (or their parents)" and leaving out the unsubstantiated claims about this generation not reading due to a variety of nonsense claims. As many have stated, entertainment has been fractured for decades and this is nothing new. Novel readers are a minority, period. So all in all, it looks to me like impish overstatement for the intended--and successful--desire to get folks hackles up.)


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

In the discussion of teacher salaries, let's not forget that it can be an apples/oranges situation.  What seems like a "big" salary in one state can be average or even meager in another.  I think California, for example, has one of the highest cost of living in the country, so someone earning, say, $70k/year there may have the same buying power as someone earning $43k in another state.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

J. Tanner said:


> As many have stated, entertainment has been fractured for decades and this is nothing new. Novel readers are a minority, period.


Quite right. "Strategies For A Shrinking Market" would be a good thread topic. Also, "Saturated Markets" (romance, being a magnet for indies, seems saturated. I know a few great writers who can't make any headway there).


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

And then this is stated: "We were all credibly led to believe we were competing on a level playing field."

When, exactly, was that? At what point in life, love, school, work, etc. did you ever get told this, or ever believe this?


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

I see mention of Scholastic all the time... seems to be a thorn in the side even though they mainly focus on learning / educational books. Do your books fall into this category? If not, what's to complain about?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

So basically, you don't know how to sell books, or certain kinds of books, so everyone should give up?

Those of us who are up on the publishing business knows it's hard to sell books, and some genres/categories are harder than others. It's always been this way, even in the traditional publishing house world. MG is hard for indies, known for years. Literary fiction is hard for indies. Known for years. Insert genre, hard for indies. Known for years.

This stuff is hard. You've been around this forum for a while, how you've missed that is unknown. Write what sells for you, if that's what you want. That's how this indie thing works.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

atree said:


> I see mention of Scholastic all the time... seems to be a thorn in the side even though they mainly focus on learning / educational books. Do your books fall into this category? If not, what's to complain about?


Scholastic has all kinds of books. They used to send out a catalog through the schools, where kids could order books and other things (posters, stickers, I don't remember what all). I got books through them when I was a kid, which was practically the stone age (1960s and 1970s), all kinds of books. Books of all age ranges, though I read older. My father cringed when I came home with the little catalog.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

J. Tanner said:


> *He exaggerated wildly on a variety of points* that he could have just conceded rather than argued. I guess he finds no fun in just restating his premise as "the middle grade market is very tough to crack for self-publishers because ebooks are notably unpopular with the target audience (or their parents)" and leaving out the unsubstantiated claims about this generation not reading due to a variety of nonsense claims. As many have stated, entertainment has been fractured for decades and this is nothing new. Novel readers are a minority, period. So all in all, it looks to me like impish overstatement for the intended--and successful--desire to get folks hackles up.)


Which was exactly my point.

They've used hyperbole, gross (or 'generous') estimations, thin arguments and shifting goal posts, going so far as to even trot out government conspiracies, through out this entire discussion just to support the simple fact that they've been unsuccessful in cracking a market.

In essence, falling prey to the most elementary author traps: Not looking to their own work in why they haven't succeeded and have, instead, blamed the reader.


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

atree said:


> I see mention of Scholastic all the time... seems to be a thorn in the side even though they mainly focus on learning / educational books. Do your books fall into this category? If not, what's to complain about?


They sell educational books, but we're mainly talking about the Book Clubs and book fairs that Scholastic does in the schools. They send home flyers advertising age appropriate fiction and non fiction, science kits, book-themed stickers, character stuffed animals... but mostly books. The flyers are online now, too, and the school still gets credit for the sale.

See here: http://www.scholastic.com/home/

If you click on the "Shop Flyers"/Book Clubs banner toward the bottom, it explains the process.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Do your books fall into this category?


I make a point of including educational material in my formerly MG books.



> So basically, you don't know how to sell books, or certain kinds of books, so everyone should give up?


Show me evidence there's a market. I've produced voluminous evidence there isn't one. Scholastic's market cap is only $1 billion. If there were a market for middle grade books, given their monstrous distribution network they would be able to manufacture millionaire authors the way Nucor manufactures steel plating. Right now they're two bucks off their 52-week low. Their P/E ratio is insane. Their stock is *WAY* overvalued and hasn't done anything for investors, even since Harry Potter. Even with a ten billion dollar film franchise. Even with a theme park. *They're not making any money.* That is a mathematical fact.

Why? Because nobody wants their product. Kids are interested in Minecraft and Fortnite. Their parents are interested in Netflix and their iPhone. Kids don't read. Parents don't care. Scholastic would go bankrupt in six weeks if it weren't for leftover Harry Potter sales to people now in their 30s.

It's an empty, moribund, dead market.



> Not looking to their own work in why they haven't succeeded and have, instead, blamed the reader.


Looks like we'll have to break out the Sailor Moon example again. When the English-language adaptation of the first two seasons of the show was originally licensed, it was released in syndication. Sailor Moon is a $2,000,000,000 property with more than 100 million fans worldwide. It was aimed squarely at the tween market here in the U.S.

The syndicated Sailor Moon series flopped. Nobody could find it because it was on at all hours. There was no consistent visibility. It failed.

Then it was scheduled on Cartoon Network at 4PM weekdays as part of the Toonami block. Within months it was the #1 show on the network and #1 movie on Amazon. Turned Cartoon Network into the #1 cable channel in America with more than 88 million subscribers. When the third and fourth seasons were released, the ratings tripled. Had better numbers than the Fox News Channel.

What changed? It was exactly the same material. The syndicated show flopped. The network show became #1.

Visibility.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

My applause to Shane for artfully navigating the vitriol of people who argued just for the sake of arguing.  

I grasped everything he said, even the hyperbole, and had a good laugh at all the ruffled feathers. With his credible examples and explanations, I know now I would never want to "test a toe" in that market. My time would be better spent elsewhere.

Many thanks to you, Shane.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Show me evidence there's a market.


I've seen it. Been in it. Had members of the target audience stop by my table and look at my books. I may not have sold a lot (although I did sell a fair amount), but the point is, I saw the market, and the market saw me.



Shane Lochlann Black said:


> What changed? It was exactly the same material. The syndicated show flopped. The network show became #1.
> 
> Visibility.


As always, that's the key: making ourselves visible. Visibility is about marketing, and marketing is marketing, no matter what genre you write in. If you weren't able to get "visibility" for you MG books, then you have every right to fold your tent and move on to the next thing, and good luck to you. Maybe visibility will be easier to achieve in another genre.

But that doesn't mean the market doesn't exist.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jena H said:


> In the discussion of teacher salaries, let's not forget that it can be an apples/oranges situation. What seems like a "big" salary in one state can be average or even meager in another. I think California, for example, has one of the highest cost of living in the country, so someone earning, say, $70k/year there may have the same buying power as someone earning $43k in another state.


Indeed, in my poduck Central Valley town, you have to be making $25/hour -- twice minimum wage -- to properly afford a median one-bedroom apartment. In San Fran, a family of four making $117,400 officially qualifies as low-income. It's awful.


----------



## mojomikey (Apr 9, 2014)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> One thing though is that all these statistics don't count reading on the internet as reading. What people are doing constantly is reading content online: forum posts, news articles, social media posts, comments on videos, etc. Some of it good, some of it not so good, but still reading. Some sites like Quora and Medium have some great content that's as thought-provoking as a book. When someone today spends his spare time browsing the web, he's doing a lot more reading than someone 30 years ago who vegged out on the couch with cable tv instead.


this x 200....I spend two or three hours online just reading newspapers, magazines, etc. researching for freelance articles and for my PhD dissertation...I count it as reading not screen time...


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> Indeed, in my poduck Central Valley town, you have to be making $25/hour -- twice minimum wage -- to properly afford a median one-bedroom apartment. In San Fran, a family of four making $117,400 officially qualifies as low-income.* It's awful*.


And yet... I have a daughter living in an SF bedroom community working two nursing jobs at two different hospitals. She lives in a California style McMansion, mortgaged beyond reason, which forces her to spend every dollar earned. I keep telling her to move (return) to North Idaho where I live, where spending two grand a month for everything is difficult. Her resistance is fueled by the assumption she won't earn as much, which is actually true. That she'll need only a fifth as much or less as she's earning in California hasn't quite sunk in.


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Scholastic publishes books for more than one age demographic too.


So what? You were talking about *the MG book market*. As if you didn't know.

An anecdote about the success of one video game means nothing when it comes to analyzing whether or not there is an MG book market.

Video games ≠ books.

The market for video games could be 1/2 or 5 or 10 times the size of the MG book market.

And it wouldn't matter.

Because only the size of the MG book market itself tells us whether or not there is a market.

That's logic. Sorry.

Saying _"well Scholastic publishes to more than one demographic too"_ doesn't change that. It's completely irrelevant. *You* tried saying there wasn't an MG book market because look at how easy it is to have more success in video games.

But video games in general ≠ MG books because video games encompass more than one demographic.

And saying Scholastic publishes in other demographics too is irrelevant when you were talking solely about the MG book market.





> If you define "market" as "mom took a bunch of junk to the school parking lot to get rid of it," then I suppose you could say there's a middle grade book "market."


Why would we define "market" like that? It sounds totally stupid and unprofessional. In the real world, market analysts rely on *data*, not anecdotes and preconceived biases.



> While we're at it, I suppose we could compare say, Blizzard Entertainment with Scholastic and see who is doing better revenue-wise. Shall we?


You can, but it'd be stupid.

What's next on the list? Comparing McDonalds with Boeing?

You can't analyze the existence or size of a market with your rhetorical approaches. See above: the size of one market doesn't determine the size of another market.

It shouldn't be a secret, but if you actually _want_ to determine market size, you need *data*. # of customers, $$$, etc. etc.

Let us know when you_ actually_ find out if there's an MG book market. 



> The principal decides whether to host a book fair, and gets approval from the school board far in advance after paperwork is signed according to city, county and state regulations. These are some of the legal requirements under California's education code. No outside entity can do anything on a public school campus without the approval of the principal.


So you're saying that public schools operate under the law and as such have rules and regulations governing how they operate. Not exactly a mystery, and as commentary provides no substantiation for your wild allegation that Scholastic is legally protected by fifty state governments.

Protected from what, exactly?

How does describing the process by which decisions are made within the school system constitute "protection"?



> Yes, because Scholastic is already entrenched in 75,000 schools. Microsoft had multiple competitors, and they were convicted by a federal judge of being a monopoly anyway and then heavily sanctioned and almost broken up.


Ha! In truth it was a question of whether Microsoft was _illegally abusing_ its monopoly on the market.

And Microsoft had no competition. Windows belonged exclusively to Microsoft.

Microsoft used its monopoly over Windows to include its own browser and blocked manufacturers from replacing it with someone else's browser.

So, you were wrong about Microsoft having competitors in that domain, and you were wrong about them being "convicted for being a monopoly."

Scholastic isn't a monopoly. Sorry.



> Fifty state governments have a financial relationship with Scholastic that taxpayers not only have no say in, but which taxpayers are largely unaware of. If you want to see that relationship in action, try and set up a book fair at a school where Scholastic already has a contract. See how that works out for you.


It probably won't work out any differently than when you try to put a vending machine in the school despite the fact that the school system already has a contract for vending machines.

Imagine that; public and private entities make contracts for services, and those contracts actually mean something.

State governments have financial relationships with any number of businesses which taxpayers are largely unaware of.

You make it sound untoward, but all it means is governance requires financial relationships, and most taxpayers do not educate themselves or become involved in that process.

And when the librarian makes a free choice whose book fair services to use, and that state government enters into a financial relationship with who she chose...

... where does the "protection" come into the picture? Because what you're describing doesn't protect Scholastic anymore than Wal*Mart protects Jack's Pizza by choosing to stock their pizza in their stores.



> Because they go out of their way to involve the teachers, librarians and principals (and district lawyers, accountants, janitors, security guards and facilities management) in their retail sales operations, all of whom are paid by the taxpayers to teach, not run a bookstore.


I wonder if you would say the same thing about whichever food distribution company is chosen for lunch in the cafeteria.

Because there's zero difference between the two in this sense.

The school decides to run a book fair to raise money for itself, and you want to pretend that the company they chose to collaborate with is enlisting school employees to in effect work for them.

When in fact they're simply serving lunch. 



> If a proposal were made to set up an actual physical retail bookstore location on a public school campus, the parents would throw a Bakersfield chimp fit, and so would the voters. Which only illustrates the ignorance in all of this. There are already 75,000 bookstores in America, all hosted by public schools and paid for by the taxpayers in every county. *They're just well concealed and kept quiet.*


Probably because they only exist once a year for like three days. And only if the school decides to do a book fair. And only if they decide to collaborate with Scholastic. And only if we commit a categorical error by confusing a book fair with a book store.



> The fact that the schools "make money" from this arrangement is irrelevant. Schools are not there to participate in financial deals and create revenue. They are established and funded by taxpayers to *EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN, PERIOD.*


*

So you're saying you don't believe in schools running fundraisers to help educate our children because schools are only supposed to educate our children.

Well, we all have to believe in something. 




The lottery pays the school too. How did that work out for us? Teachers are still buying construction paper out of their own pocket and little Susie and little Timmy owe the cafeteria negative card balances for lunch. Yeah, I'm sure Scholastic paying the school will make it all better.

Meanwhile I'd like to know how much of the $22,000 we paid the school to educate Susie and Timmy last year actually made it to their classrooms. Since the teachers are constantly having to threaten strikes to get cost of living raises, I'm going to guess "not enough."

Click to expand...

Again, you're concerned schools aren't well funded, but for some reason you think it's a bad thing they can host a book fair at no cost and raise more money.*


----------



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

So, to sum up the thread: 

1.) The indie MG book market isn't very large compared to other genres, because kids don't read on devices, and

2.) There's a traditional MG book market, but no one has provided any proof regarding its size.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

mojomikey said:


> this x 200....I spend two or three hours online just reading newspapers, magazines, etc. researching for freelance articles and for my PhD dissertation...I count it as reading not screen time...


I think everyone gets that. There's "reading novels" and all the other forms of reading. Unless you're a journalist/freelance writer, only trends in the market for books really matter to members of this forum (I would think). Why people may be reading fewer novels is sort of irrelevant.


----------



## chrisstevenson (Aug 10, 2012)

It's just damn tough out there, collectively. I have a gigantic promo and marketing push behind my new upper YA fantasy and she's just not getting the love my other ones have had. Although she is scoring way up (getting raves) in foreign reviews on Amazon. Which has never happened before. So as far as tackling my YA sales problems, I'm going to look further into the foreign responses and see if I can develop some type of strategy to enhance the push. 

Our promotion and marketing tactics are always in flux it seems, and we have to change up on a constant basis to adapt to the marketplace. I wish it wasn't so hard, but it is what it is. Oh, and being published by the small trade--it really sucks because we can't change up covers, blurbs, prices or offer giveaways. I had to beg my price down. Gak.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> An anecdote about the success of one video game means nothing when it comes to analyzing whether or not there is an MG book market.


It does when there is an assertion that an author had "uber success" in the MG book market. The middle grade demographic is one of the largest and most financially significant markets in video games. If we're going to talk about uber success in that age group, let's compare say, Pokemon to Harry Potter and see just how successful J.K. Rowling really is. I think you'll find that even Rowling's success didn't add up to what was possible at the time.



> What's next on the list? Comparing McDonalds with Boeing?


Only if you are asserting success where none exists.



> Let us know when you actually find out if there's an MG book market.


I've had mathematical proof it doesn't exist for years.



> Protected from what, exactly?


Competition.



> And Microsoft had no competition.


Netscape. Apple. Linux. Oracle. Lotus. Borland. Sun. IBM. Red Hat.



> and you were wrong about them being "convicted for being a monopoly."


Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly. This is a matter of record in a federal court of law.



> I wonder if you would say the same thing about whichever food distribution company is chosen for lunch in the cafeteria.


If it were also chosen without a competitive bidding process, absolutely.



> Probably because they only exist once a year for like three days.


Categorically false. Scholastic routinely sends home flyers, continually encourages teachers to buy and sell books and is constantly working to take advantage of its unique relationship with taxpayer-funded institutions to expand marketing to parents.



> So you're saying you don't believe in schools running fundraisers to help educate our children because schools are only supposed to educate our children.


That is correct. We've already gone over the education budget, which is also a matter of record. The amount we spend in this state on education is embarrassing, especially considering what we get for our money. The idea that schools need to be distracted with selling a publicly traded company's products in order to meet our educational obligations is outrageous.

My objections to Scholastic can be summed up rather simply. They drain all the oxygen out of what market may or may not exist. Further, their products are not selling, as evidenced by the complete lack of progress in their stock value for the last 20 years. Whether this can be put down to incompetence or laziness really doesn't matter. They aren't getting kids to read and they aren't cultivating new talent.

But, since they have a monopolistic hammer-lock on distribution and mindshare among the gatekeepers, they have the luxury of reclining on their incompetence like a great fat hog and doing nothing but cash checks from the sales of yesteryear. Even with a ten billion dollar film franchise they have accomplished nothing for their investors or customers for decades. Scholastic is a backwards, fossilized relic run by a pack of sloppy, money-drunk scriveners, and they are doing real damage to our culture by blocking the path to success for any other author that makes the mistake of writing for kids.

Scholastic needs to be thrown out of our schools one and all and allowed to go bankrupt like they should have 20 years ago. Then maybe we can make way for some authors who actually want to write stories for middle grade readers instead of clinging to J.K. Rowling's pantleg like the Duke brothers after the orange juice trading bell.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Jeanie Gold said:


> And Crow Bar Beer wins the thread. This would have been a nice last post, but hey, let's not stop people from circling the drain with unsubstantiated assertions some more. How would we avoid the actual work of writing if we left well enough alone?


I actually haven't read any of Shane's posts since the first page, but several of the sidebar discussions have been interesting.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Jeanie Gold said:


> Same here, though I think I got a few pages further than you did. Mind numbing stuff. The bummer is *the valuable truth of his experience is hidden like a needle in a haystack* of questionable posts, but hey, I'm the arbiter of nothing so carry on. *shrug*
> 
> Also, true story, flowers do occasionally grow from concrete.


His "truth" hasn't been hidden at all. Nobody is doubting his experience, or the fact that it IS his experience. But the key words here are _"his experience."_ It's irrational to extrapolate "his experience" to a universal truth applicable for _everyone_, forever and ever, amen.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

The OP has a history of making incredibly broad assertions...with little to no basis in fact. And then defending his position despite evidence that other people succeed in doing the precise thing that he says is impossible.

If I remember right, he started a thread just like this some while ago saying that it was impossible to advertise profitably. He stuck to his guns despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

And then, some time after, managed to run one or two successful Facebook campaigns. Announcing that he'd discovered the "secret", he then set about trying to sell it to us...

_Please_.


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

I enjoyed the post. Seems pretty straight up. Maybe I'm not reading for trouble. Just going with the flow....

Real world experience: I visited my grandsons aged 2 to 6 and their mother is reading them a Harry Potter series edition that must be skewed to younger kids. I confess I didn't look that closely. My son (now 31) was the MG demographic when HP came out and all the moms in my gang were on board reading it to their kids. I think I tried the first book but both kids said MEH and we moved on. Now his sons are getting HP-ed via his wife who loved HP. 

But hungry for stories my grandsons are and they consume anything an adult is willing to read to them. The gatekeeper in this instance is the parent who has to read the thing. My daughter-in-law has fond memories of the series so she likes to read them to her sons. I guess I'm saying I see MG as a bottomless market. To succeed, an author has to keep in mind the parent at the other end because quite often, MG is read to the kid by the parent. 

Interestingly, my grandsons never want to pretend to be boy wizards. They want to be hockey players or work with dinosaurs or be treasure hunters. When they choose their own books, it's always those types of stories.

I suppose my other point in scanning the responses is when it comes to kids, the market isn't now. It's three or four years from now. Peace out.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Most independent video game developers make next to nothing. The market is just as competitive as the ebook market, if not moreso, but players have much less loyalty to creators.

Comparing an indie book to Minecraft is like comparing an indie game to Twilight. Either way, the indie is making nothing compared to the runaway hit.

The average game isn't Minecraft. The average book isn't Harry Potter.


----------



## spellscribe (Nov 5, 2015)

Found on a quick google - juvenile fiction outsold YA and adult fiction in Jan to Sep 2017 and 2018. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/78257-print-unit-sales-up-in-2018-to-date.html


----------



## spellscribe (Nov 5, 2015)

Oh, and the old EA report - have a look at audio (kids is genre number 7) and print (second) https://web.archive.org/web/20180201073100/http://authorearnings.com/report/january-2018-report-us-online-book-sales-q2-q4-2017/


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

spellscribe said:


> Oh, and the old EA report - have a look at audio (kids is genre number 7) and print (second) https://web.archive.org/web/20180201073100/http://authorearnings.com/report/january-2018-report-us-online-book-sales-q2-q4-2017/


Thanks for presenting some data.

A few cursory searches online, and on the Zon, seem to bring up diverse results. It seems that one of the problems with MG is that on the Zon it's not a specific category (they seem to have a rough division between 'children's books' and 'teen and young adult').

Another thing is that not all 8-12 year olds have the same reading capabilities or preferences in what they read. I can see how it would be a difficult nut to crack for an indie new to the category.


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> It does when there is an assertion that an author had "uber success" in the MG book market.


Nope. Can't measure what "uber success *in* the MG book market" means by talking about a different market.



> The middle grade demographic is one of the largest and most financially significant markets in video games.


Super.

But we're talking about the MG book market. Uber success in the MG book market is defined within the parameters of the MG book market.



> Only if you are asserting success where none exists.


No, only if you are pretending success in one area doesn't exist because there's more success in another area.



> I've had mathematical proof it doesn't exist for years.


Then why are you trying to delude us into thinking we can't measure success within the MG book market because success means something else in a different market for a different kind of product?

I noticed the part where you didn't share your mathematical proof with the class.



> Competition.


You must've missed the part where Scholastic isn't protected from competition, and has competitors, and a contract for services with one company doesn't constitute "protection", it constitutes... services being provided.



> Netscape. Apple. Linux. Oracle. Lotus. Borland. Sun. IBM. Red Hat.


Wrong. Having competition in a different domain is irrelevant.

The whole point is Microsoft abused its monopoly over Windows to seek illegal gains in a _a different market_ where it didn't.

Listing competitors Microsoft has in different marketspaces doesn't mean they had competition *in the one that's relevant to this discussion*.



> Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly. This is a matter of record in a federal court of law.


Wrong. It's not even illegal to be a monopoly. Microsoft was hit because it took efforts to _illegally preserve and extend its monopoly into other areas_.

If it's a matter of record in a federal court of law, maybe you should've bothered to actually _check_ that record.

Why do you think the term _"illegal monopolization"_ even exists?

Hint: to distinguish between the _legal_ ones. 

I'll leave you to your opinions on Scholastic, though. Sometimes it _is_ healthy to lash out at the bogeyman.  As long as it doesn't metastasize into a blinding fixation...


----------



## Diana Kimpton (Feb 19, 2018)

There is a middle grade market but I think it's hard to tackle through self-publishing because most children don't read ebooks. All my grandchildren prefer paper books and so do all the other kids I talk to. And it's difficult for self-published authors to sell paperbooks because we can't afford the huge discounts needed to get them into bookshops and non-book outlets. 

Competition with other means of entertainment is real but it applies to all ages, not just children. In the past, friends used to talk about the books they are reading. Now they're all talking about what they are watching on Netflix.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

crow.bar.beer said:


> I'll leave you to your opinions on Scholastic, though. Sometimes it _is_ healthy to lash out at the bogeyman.  As long as it doesn't metastasize into a blinding fixation...


Which competitors do Scholastic have in public schools? I mean, not theoretically, but literally.

I understand some here have stated that they've been able to conduct or join book fairs at schools, but does any other company have the same reach when it comes to selling books in schools? I'm sure it has little bearing on the discussion here, being that indie authors use online booksellers primarily. But Scholastic has been mentioned numerous times here as important to the MG genre's sales.

As an aside, I see Scholastic's net income has dropped over the past several years. No idea why, though. $5 million loss last year.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/schl/financials


----------



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

spellscribe said:


> Found on a quick google - juvenile fiction outsold YA and adult fiction in Jan to Sep 2017 and 2018. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/78257-print-unit-sales-up-in-2018-to-date.html


Fake news!


----------



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

jb1111 said:


> Which competitors do Scholastic have in public schools? I mean, not theoretically, but literally.


Follett entered into the book fair market a couple years ago, and recently opened five new distribution centers to better service public schools as its business continues to grow. I included a few links on this earlier. From the discussions by school librarians that I read, Follett is pretty much on par with Scholastic as far as merits go, with the exception that there are certain titles exclusive to Scholastic that kids would've wanted to choose.

Usborne, although it doesn't seem to offer as many advantages.

Apparently Barnes and Noble is in the market, and there were some companies operating solely on regional levels whose names I forget, and then of course there are local businesses some schools opt to collaborate with.



> I understand some here have stated that they've been able to conduct or join book fairs at schools, but does any other company have the same reach when it comes to selling books in schools?


It's more of an Amazon vs. Apple/Google/Kobo/etc. dynamic at the moment.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> I noticed the part where you didn't share your mathematical proof with the class.


https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SCHL/

It's been trading in the same range for 27 years, right through all the Harry Potter books, films, games and theme parks. The words "total failure" don't even begin to describe it.



> It's not even illegal to be a monopoly.


It is illegal to even attempt to become a monopoly. In fact, it's a felony.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> It's been trading in the same range for 27 years, right through all the Harry Potter books, films, games and theme parks. The words "total failure" don't even begin to describe it.


The stock price of Scholastic ≠ the MG book market.

When you have figures like # of books sold by author, average advances and total income for both new and old authors, etc. etc., you have an _actual_ way of determining the size of the market and what qualifies as success in it.

That is, success for *authors*, not investors. 



> It is illegal to even attempt to become a monopoly. In fact, it's a felony.


Great, but that's not what was being talked about.

Trying to become ≠ being.


----------



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

Perhaps the stock price of Scholastic isn't soaring because they have priorities in addition to profit?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> The stock price of Scholastic ≠ the MG book market.


You are so far into the Twilight Zone at this point that if we had Rod Serling, Spock and a HAL-9000 at the controls of a warp-driven spacecraft, I doubt we could even determine what dimension you're in.



> Trying to become ≠ being.


Oh, so if I have money I robbed from a bank I'm not a bank robber? See above.



> Perhaps the stock price of Scholastic isn't soaring because they have priorities in addition to profit?


Yeah, I'd say a $20 billion hole in your balance sheet would be a priority.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mismanage

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chapter-11-bankruptcy-overview.html


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> Perhaps the stock price of Scholastic isn't soaring because they have priorities in addition to profit?


Corporations generally have a fiduciary duty to provide a return for their investors.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

Haha the bitterness in this thread is starting to become entertaining.

Here's food for thought _(skip to long story short for the recap)_
The main problem is approaching the market with the idea that MG actually exists as a genre. It does not, more on that later.
Just because it's a school administrative student-grouping label does not mean there is also a specific middle grade _reader group_. Trying to target the school definition of MG is like trying to box in a herd of wild horses.
Kids aged 8-12 can have wildly varying levels of maturity, from toddler-childish to wannabe-teen. And yet, I am sure every parent can agree that roughly between 8 and 12 is a special age where kids transition from being small children to being smart children. As such, trying to market to MG as a single type of reader would be like trying to exclusively reach senior citizen readers by writing adult mysteries.

Ah.. but wait, adults are adults and make their own decisions and no 9 year old buys their own books, specially not online. Correct, so if it's the parent making the choices, what are the most important factors that influence their decisions when buying books for this wild-horse scattered group of readers? (HINT, we're not writing books for kids, we're writing books for parents with kids  )
Trust, children's requests, content type (educational value, mystery, fun etc), content difficulty and length, etc etc. I'm not mentioning price (as in cheap) because it's not a limiting issue here. Seriously, kids won't read 30 books a year so if it costs 0.99 or 9.99 is irrelevant and pricing at 0.99 is a huge mistake as it works against the trust factor.

Forget KDP and KU. Books for these ages need to be wide and recognize that print sales may be important.

Middle Grade is defined as 8-12. It's an impossible market to target due to human development maturity speed. An author wanting to write for readers younger than YA but not pre-school kids may profit from fine-tuning the age selection and crafting the book (story, plotting, characters, everything) for more precise targeting of readership. We can call the age group MG if we want but the readership is more like
*a) ages 7-9
b) ages 10-13*
_(there's an overlap at 13, with some reading simpler books while others transition into YA territory)_

*Huge* factors to consider:
in group a you will need to craft and above all package you material to influence the parent to make a buying decision
in group b you need to package your material to influence the reader to make a buying decision (passed along to parent or buy themselves... yes some kids that age have buying privileges)

_What does "package" mean? EVERYTHING. Title, cover, blurb, first pages shown through look inside are very important and need to present the buyer with a solid impression that 
in group a) the 7-9 influence the parent with a sensation of trust and educational interest and
in group b) the 10-13 influence the kid with a sensation of adventure and emotion. 
But the packaging is not just how you present it, the package is ALL OF IT and that includes the story itself. The theme, character action and character names are all part of the package and should be carefully considered when crafting the first rough ideas (same goes for all genres). 
Character names, genders and interests are a big deal, don't overlook them (same in any genre).
If one thinks Elizabeth or Betty makes no difference in character names in a book targeted for a 9 year old we're not thinking it through and not writing to market.
Elisabeth's life can be tough and serious, Betty is childish, Olivia likes to bake, Sophie is good at finding clues and and Ava is not afraid of anything._

Tying in with the trust factor, we all know an author needs a website (anyone who does not have a site should reconsider) but an author who is targeting parents as buyers of books for their children needs to have a very special website, one that is clean and easy to navigate, that contains answers to all the questions and doubts that influence parent trust: what are the books about, what motivates the characters, how long are they, what kind of language, what's the action and very prominently what age group are these for (same in shop presentation blurb etc, be precise). It's also important to NOT mix in with other work the author may be doing. DO NOT indicate you also horror for older teens or YA romance or picture books for toddlers because none of those are a positive signal here. A pen for MG with only MG material.

The "MG" market is tough, but no different from any other book market when it comes to crafting these days: you have to write to market. Knowing what makes that market tick is the very first thing every modern author needs to know. Then, you can decide to skip all that and _not_ write to market which is fine, but then we need to be aware it will hurt sales. It's simply a fact. Publishing (trade or self) has 2 faces which are much more defined now than they were just a decade back:
1) write to market = a business
2) write for enjoyment = vanity publishing
_(vanity publishing has always existed but has been very very expensive, these days everyone can publish at no cost)_

Writing to market for the grown out of children's books but not-yet teen readership requires a much higher degree of packaging / marketing accuracy than for example clean historic romance or litrpg but it requires far less plotting and world-building.

So here's more food for thought. MG books might not rank super-high, but how many can you churn out per year compared to let's say crafting MilSF? What's the time/roi ratio? Kids books don't have to be long, and the plots benefit from being clear and having few threads. 
Most "MG" authors are not outputting enough books per year to even test the market properly because yes... publishing rate does influence visibility, regardless of genre. Publishing rate is a marketing tool, and part of "the package" since more titles = more trust. Sounds silly but if a parent is faced with a choice to buy a book from one unknown author who has 2 books from 2017 under their name, or an unknown author who has 12 more recent books... right?

*Long story short*

"MG" is not MG, it's two groups with distinct reader profiles aged 7-9 and age 10-13. Craft, target and package accordingly
Package is everything, the totality of the work and its presentation is more important than the story.
Cheap is bad, price for quality
The "MG" market is not for KU. Go wide, specially apple and use printed book channels.
Kids books require less production time than most adult fiction
Website and social profile is crucial. DO NOT mix with other stuff you write. keep separate pen-names.

Anyway......

Since there is no indication of this thread slowing down, can the OP please define what you mean by Middle Grade Fiction through example so we at least know what we are talking about?

Does The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain fit? Harbor Me by Jacqueline Woodson? The Math Inspectors by Daniel Kenney? The Great Treehouse War by Lisa Graff? Every Shiny Thing by Cordelia Jensen? Alice in Wonderland by Carroll? Mother of the Sea by Zetta Elliott? The Abyss Surrounds Us by Emily Skrutski? Sweep by Jonathan Auxie? The Wolves of Willoughby Chase by Joan Aiken? Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins? Bark at the Park by Dustin Brady? My Dad is a Mad Scientist by Matthew S. Cox? A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket?

Your turn.

[list type=decimal]
[*]?
[*]?
[*]?
[*]?
[*]?
[/list]


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

atree said:


> Seriously, kids won't read 30 books a year



I don't know about anyone else, but at that age I was reading 10-20 books a week.
Admittedly, mostly from libraries, so price was irrelevant.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Since there is no indication of this thread slowing down, can the OP please define what you mean by Middle Grade Fiction through example so we at least know what we are talking about?


I wrote a book targeting roughly the same market that Toonami was after on Cartoon Network in the late 1990s. It wasn't all middle-grade, but the story is appropriate. It's lightweight, breezy fantasy with generous helpings of humor and educational narrative. The characters are all extraordinarily positive. There's no language or attitudes. The characters are not hostile to one another. There's no objectionable material. Their adversary is even rather tame. The purpose of the book isn't to frighten readers. It's not crunchy Wheel of Time stuff. It's to introduce characters I enjoy writing.

I thought it would be received as a breath of fresh air, considering parents are constantly opining about how there are no positive options for their kids and so forth. When I found out those complaints have roughly the same credibility as the technology managers who constantly gripe that they can't find "qualified employees," I began to suspect my time and creativity had been wasted.

When I watched my work sit untouched on the shelf for month after month after year after year, I realized I had been duped. I attacked social media like a swarm of angry bees. Built a Twitter following of more than 8000 people for a fictional character. Drew on my success in comics. Contacted reviewers, librarians, teachers, bloggers and on and on. Commissioned art. Built enormously complex web sites and updated them religiously. Wrote a TV show. Published three video games. Poured money into ads. Nothing.

Based on some news stories I read, I discovered I could make more money panhandling.

Then I took a look around and discovered the truth by applying my marketing and analytical experience. There is no market. Parents do not care about reading, despite their protestations. Neither do their kids. Frankly, neither do their teachers. That explains my experience and those of the many other authors I know who made the same mistake. Frappucino mom and soccer dad care about on-demand streaming, their iPhone and getting their prescriptions refilled early. They are paranoid about keeping their children "safe," a state of mind that probably doesn't mix well with the psychotropic medications they down every morning. Speaking with them rationally about a wholesome fictional world and the benefits of literacy is the rough equivalent of lecturing a room full of narcotic-loaded golden retrievers about linear algebra.

They do not care at all about their childrens' literacy, which neatly explains the nation's statistics in exactly the same way Scholastic's stock price explains the total lack of demand for middle grade books. Scholastic had roughly $450 million in sales last year, which is about $11 per public school student. That's why they have a sky-high P/E ratio and should have gone bankrupt long ago.

I realized that I'm trying to sell a product to people who haven't existed for fifty years. My better instincts are a throwback that no longer fits society's preferences. Kids want attention-deficit instant gratification with a side of colorful explosions on an expensive screen. They want six-second videos and non-stop texts filled with emptiness and nonsense. They don't have the attention span to get anything out of my stories or characters, even if they did trip over my books, and even if they had the reading skills. I'm a farmer growing nutritious vegetables in a world where people are addicted to junk food.

To be honest, I've lost the inspiration to write any more at all. I suspect what is happening to me is what will eventually befall all but the favored few in the Amazon publishing world. Bezos himself said there were only 1000 authors making more than six figures. That's a knockout punch to anyone who still believes this business is anything but a frail, withering remnant on six different kinds of life support. Maybe ten years from now after five of those plugs have been pulled it will be possible to make a living, provided you can crank out a novel a month in one of a handful of very narrow niche categories. The authors with multiple Bookbubs who got in early will have the best chance. The rest will suffocate, like me and the hundreds of others who have wandered away from here over the years.

Reality will come for all of us eventually. The ad money will run out and the flood of crap will swamp the remaining talent. The Visigoths will come over the hill and the sun will set on what once was. The most successful authors now are those who write the same book over and over again at an amphetamine-popping pace and who obsessively pursue Bookbubs while they do it. Those are not signs of a growing market. Those are signs of someone squeezing the last drops of water out of an animal skin somewhere in the Mojave. Eventually they too will burn out and that's the ball game, kids.

Yeah, I sold a few military sci-fi books, but the only reason I wrote them is because they're the only books that sell. They're not art. They don't edify my readers. I'm not exploring meaningful themes in those pages. I'm just using my ability to write dialogue and technobabble to make little orange lines line up next to each other. It makes me feel empty and despondent. Trust me when I say you don't want to feel that way.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

Old survey but interesting (trade publishing) This is what work looks like (marketing resources and quallity control)
https://hannahholt.com/blog/2017/10/4/writing-middle-grade-a-look-at-the-numbers

Recent (self-publishing) This is what vanity publishing looks like (read between the lines, lots of pointers)
https://hannahholt.com/blog/2018/5/17/self-publishing-childrens-books-a-look-at-the-numbers


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> *snip*
> 
> There is no market. Parents do not care about reading, despite their protestations. Neither do their kids. Frankly, neither do their teachers. That explains my experience and those of the many other authors I know who made the same mistake. Frappucino mom and soccer dad care about on-demand streaming, their iPhone and getting their prescriptions refilled early. They are paranoid about keeping their children "safe," a state of mind that probably doesn't mix well with the psychotropic medications they down every morning. Speaking with them rationally about a wholesome fictional world and the benefits of literacy is the rough equivalent of lecturing a room full of narcotic-loaded golden retrievers about linear algebra.
> 
> ...


Wow. I won't go into this as in-depth as I could, because, well, it's Friday evening and I have things to do. But..

A) "There is no market." Even when people have proven that there is.
B) "Parents do not care about reading," etc.. They're all apparently selfish and lazy and don't care about their children, according to the rest of that paragraph. You even likened them to animals. Really?? You've taken hyperbole and exaggeration to a whole new level. But of course you already know that, and you already know that many people on this forum are parents of young or middle-grade kids.
C) "They do not care at all about their children's literacy." (Again with the universal, all-inclusive, uber-generalizing "they." sigh) Anyway, see B) above. And yet at the same time as "parents don't care," we have a growing national scandal of parents who are paying thousands of dollars to get little Johnny or Susie into the best colleges. Because they "don't care," apparently. And, if you want to get all skeptical about their motives for doing that, we also have places like Sylvan Learning or other "learning" centers that work with kids, tutor them, etc. And in local libraries I see instances of tutors working with kids on their reading or other schoolwork. All because Mom and Dad "don't care."
D) Again with Scholastic. So they sell tons of books, and they won't even look at books by the "little people" like us indies. As the saying goes, if you can't go over the mountain, find a way around it.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

atree said:


> Publishing (trade or self) has 2 faces which are much more defined now than they were just a decade back:
> 1) write to market = a business
> 2) write for enjoyment = vanity publishing
> _(vanity publishing has always existed but has been very very expensive, these days everyone can publish at no cost)_


It's a false equivalence. You don't have to write to market in order for your work (writing, publishing, etc.) to be "a business." And it's also very possible to "write for enjoyment" and make money. Happens all the time.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)




----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> We've been over the numbers. *In the author survey above, half of all trade published MG authors earn below the poverty line. Why? Because there's no demand for their product. * Kids don't read. Parents don't care.


Wrong, yet again. There might not be _as much_ demand as for other types of books, but there IS a market.



Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Of course. Mom can go get her prescriptions refilled and just write a check to a room full of strangers to educate her child. Meanwhile, there's a quarter million clams missing at school, but solving that problem would require work and thinking and we all know how that movie ends.
> 
> If mom and dad cared they would be working with their kids instead of dumping them at the library.


Again with mom (?? Mom only??) getting her drugs? Sounds like there's a story there behind that fallacy....

Also, a lot of parents have learned that kids learn best from a neutral (non-related) person, i.e., a tutor. Less pressure on kid and parent both.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Again with mom (?? Mom only??) getting her drugs?


Dad's busy playing golf at work. Someone has to cover the co-pay and the Sylvan bill.



> Sounds like there's a story there behind that fallacy....


There is:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/25/americas-opioid-crisis-how-prescription-drugs-sparked-a-national-trauma



> Also, a lot of parents have learned that kids learn best from a neutral (non-related) person, i.e., a tutor. Less pressure on kid and parent both.


Sure. Heaven forbid there be any pressure on mom. She might have to forego her nitro-frapp-espresso-lattocino one day a week to shoulder the heavy burden of buying a book for her child. Or worse, she might have to put that steel trap mind of hers to work to figure out Kindle Unlimited.

If only I had a gallery of the blank looks I've gotten over the years when I tried to explain Kindle Unlimited to California moms. You'd drop to a knee and weep.

But I've got a new idea for a plot. Aliens are going to incinerate the planet unless Timmy and Susie can read a whole chapter without checking their phone. My won't that be a thriller!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Dpock said:


> And yet... I have a daughter living in an SF bedroom community working two nursing jobs at two different hospitals. She lives in a California style McMansion, mortgaged beyond reason, which forces her to spend every dollar earned. I keep telling her to move (return) to North Idaho where I live, where spending two grand a month for everything is difficult. Her resistance is fueled by the assumption she won't earn as much, which is actually true. That she'll need only a fifth as much or less as she's earning in California hasn't quite sunk in.


Yeah, I'd probably opt out of CA if I could, though I do like the state. I always imagined myself as the generational steward of an ideosyncratic old house in one of those charming little university towns dotted through the East and Midwest. Ah well. Life deposits you where it will.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Oh, so if I have money I robbed from a bank I'm not a bank robber? See above.


I think what crow.bar.beer was getting at is that it's possible for a company to become a monopoly without them trying to become a monopoly. If that company deliberately tries to run all the other companies out of business that would be illegal. But if outside factors cause the competition to go out of business, the remaining company can't be punished for something it didn't cause.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Jena H said:


> Again with mom (?? Mom only??) getting her drugs? Sounds like there's a story there behind that fallacy...


It's probably best not to dig on that point. We all know there are unimaginable horrors and iniquities out there, perhaps even including aloof parenting. But what surprises me is how most of us get on with life regardless of our circumstances or the possible terrors lurking around the next corner.

Pointing fingers isn't of much use unless one is also willing to offer a hand. Perhaps this is where Shane is coming from, benefit of the doubt and all that. But nothing I've learned about Scholastic in this thread disturbs me.


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

How do you block people on Kboards? I have had enough exposure to the OP with his wild unsupported claims, derogatory put-downs of parents and failure to understand children and families, or publishing in general. His snide attacks on mothers offends me. How do I ensure I see no more from him?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

vagabond.voyager said:


> How do you block people on Kboards? I have had enough exposure to the OP with his wild unsupported claims, derogatory put-downs of parents and failure to understand children and families, or publishing in general. His snide attacks on mothers offends me. How do I ensure I see no more from him?


Well, not going into threads he creates would be a good start. For other threads where he posts, here's a how-to... https://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=246665.0


----------



## vagabond.voyager (Jul 24, 2018)

Thank you. I went into the thread initially before realising that it was just a "It's not my fault that I failed..." rant. I would rather no longer be aware of his involvement in the forum. Sort of like weeding my garden. It makes the garden nicer and more productive.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Jeanie Gold said:


> Wasn't it you who thought up-thread this rant was just a means to get attention to his blog?


Indeed... Attention to his blog, himself, his books, while delivering at the onset some useful perspectives to anyone struggling with or contemplating a career writing to the MG crowd. I'm not sure how to qualify the rest of it.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

https://hannahholt.com/blog/2017/10/4/writing-middle-grade-a-look-at-the-numbers



Shane Lochlann Black said:


> We've been over the numbers. In the author survey above, half of all trade published MG authors earn below the poverty line.


It's all a matter of perspective  I found the numbers to be pretty darn good. Why? Because:

First of all, the % of authors in any genre, even Romance, who can expect to live off writing are fewer than few. Most that earn anything at all from writing have it as extra money on top of their dayjob pay. "Earning" below poverty level from writing does not mean anything unless it is their only source of income (which it very very very rarely is).
Second, the income level was better than average when you look closely at the low number of writing hours per week these authors put in to generate this income.
Third, numbers become even better when you factor in that many of these authors lacked continuity as they a) published only a few books b) did not write in series format.
Fourth, I am not a friend of trade (I managed to break free) but in a tough genre like children's books it makes sense. The refusal/success ratio on submissions seems better than the average book market. Advances were surprisingly generous _(don't comment on this unless you have been trade published and know what an advance is and how much it tends to be for the average writer - outliers don't count)_.

Obviously, the surveys mentioned may not be representative because they sample a small amount of authors and both were done some time ago (yes a couple of years is a long time these days)

I also think it is fair to those considering writing children's books to mention that USA is not the only market. If you live in a different country the potential for success may be better or worse in your own language, probably better since children's books have (profit from having) a literacy educational purpose. In my country, print is still big with bookstores playing a significant role and the way to approach the market is therefore different than I would do for US. Some things are easier in another country, some things are more difficult.

The bottom line on the surveys though is that children's, MG and YA are no different from any other genres: it takes a lot of work and most who write do not have the time the interest or the capability to put in enough work to improve their chances of success.

I can understand why authors in this group are not putting in more time and not following through year after year: most authors probably write out of frustration of not finding the right book when they themselves have kids... and when the kids grow older, the parent/author's interest to write fades.

If this is a correct assessment... there's a lesson in there: if a substantial amount of parents are frustrated with what's on the market to the point of attempting to create their own books... there's room for improvement, which means there's market potential 

_ETA: 
don't forget competitions! Newbery, National Awards, etc. Earning a label can mean a lot in a market where the buyer (the parent) is wary of what to put in the hands of the reader. Being part of a competition can be seen as having passed a suitability filter and even just being selected for round 2 can be enough to boost the trust factor (if you add this mention on the cover of course). It's like the Science Fiction market where Hugo Award nominee (just means you were submitted not that you won anything....) is good enough to boost sales. Tip: Emblems in form of medals on covers help._


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jeanie Gold said:


> Are you still not reading his posts because his response to Jena H's quote is pure camp. Wasn't it you who thought up-thread this rant was just a means to get attention to his blog? It might be to get attention period, but I have to say, it's crossed over into amusing now. Maybe that's why people weren't bothered up-thread, they saw the showmanship for what it was (akin to Twitter theatrics) and never took it seriously.


Bingo.

ETA: although there is admittedly a lot of 'entertaining' writing in this thread, I do think the OP actually cares about childhood literacy.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

jb1111 said:


> although there is admittedly a lot of 'entertaining' writing in this thread


I can't help wonder what the world has come to when
insulting = 'entertaining'
even on a forum for writers


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

This thread has been circling the drain for a while. It's just a trainwreck now. No one is budging from their stance, least of all the OP, no matter how many times they shift the narrative to 'stay right'.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Jeanie Gold said:


> Are you still not reading his posts because his response to Jena H's quote is pure camp. Wasn't it you who thought up-thread this rant was just a means to get attention to his blog? It might be to get attention period, but I have to say, it's crossed over into amusing now. Maybe that's why people weren't bothered up-thread, they saw the showmanship for what it was (akin to Twitter theatrics) and never took it seriously.


"..his response to Jena H's quote is pure crap." There, I fixed it for you.

"..they saw the showmanship for what it was.." you mean irrational, inconsistent, and mean-spirited? yes, we did.

"..the showmanship.." Showmanship? Look around, nobody's buying tickets.

".. never took it seriously." But the OP is the one _demanding_ to be taken seriously. That's what the constant repetition of his screed is all about.

In any case, it's nice that you're enjoying the 'show.'


----------



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

> Sure. Heaven forbid there be any pressure on mom. She might have to forego her nitro-frapp-espresso-lattocino one day a week to shoulder the heavy burden of buying a book for her child.


Maybe the reason you can't sell books is your misogynistic nasty attitude turns off readers. The young kids are pretty woke. They aren't down with that stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2019)

I've appreciated the show of restraint (mostly) on all sides. It's definitely been an 'education' (to roll a pun) into the views of both sides where I had no prior knowledge (as per many others, I'm sure) of the MG market and player(s). I think I do now.   

and in spite of some of the posters, I think we've largely moved on from the degrading and insulting behaviour that previously used to swamp these boards.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Tobias Roote said:


> I've appreciated the show of restraint (mostly) on all sides.


Well, as a parent of three grown children and grandparent to nine, it's a bit annoying when others assume this means I'm a prescription swilling, latte lapping, self-centered excuse of a human being. It's true I tired of reading "Harry The Dirty Dog" to my youngest and hid it under the sofa before being asked to read it for the 100th time, but have some mercy.


----------



## brianmartinez (Feb 13, 2011)

> How do you block people on Kboards? I have had enough exposure to the OP with his wild unsupported claims, derogatory put-downs of parents and failure to understand children and families, or publishing in general. His snide attacks on mothers offends me. How do I ensure I see no more from him?


I'm with vagabond.voyager. Every time I see a thread or a response from this guy it's an attempt to be inflammatory. And the worst part is, it works. Stop turning the least productive conversations into the most popular.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

This thread ...


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

I am deliberately necroing this thread to ask a question about Scholastic (because so many people in here claimed to be top experts).

*Does Scholastic have any indie offerings?* I am under the impression they are all curated by forcing the trad-publisher funnel. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks!


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Laran Mithras said:


> I am deliberately necroing this thread to ask a question about Scholastic (because so many people in here claimed to be top experts).
> 
> *Does Scholastic have any indie offerings?* I am under the impression they are all curated by forcing the trad-publisher funnel. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Thanks!


Scholastic is a traditional publisher.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Thanks, Shayne. I was under the impression they were just a distributor.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

This was one of my favorite bunch of statements and concave/convex opinions ever on kboards. And, at the risk of rehashing everything, I did read the last two pages to catch up. Nothing changed I guess, and I can't  change the OP's thoughts, but a reply said "Ah.. but wait, adults are adults and make their own decisions and no 9 year old buys their own books."

FWIW, it's Book Fair week at my daughter's school. It's amazing how many books are being purchased every morning, and by children with no adult supervision who are in 2nd through 5th grade. My daughter is 10 - and she choose her own books last year at 9 years old, and is doing so again this year. Obviously we are the great exception to the rules outlined across 14 pages of opinion.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> It's amazing how many books are being purchased every morning, and by children with no adult supervision who are in 2nd through 5th grade.


It would be amazing if the second graders were actually purchasing those books. What really happens is: a teacher walks into the room and says "who wants a book?" All the hands go up, books get passed out, mom's credit card gets billed. That's not a market. That's a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded monopoly. The public pays the bills, Scholastic pockets the profits.

And if you're not a Scholastic author, you're locked out. Go ahead. Try to do the exact same thing Scholastic does. Try to offer your books for sale in a classroom during school hours. Give us a call after all the paperwork is approved in about 2061.



> Obviously we are the great exception to the rules outlined across 14 pages of opinion.


Children choosing books handed out by their teacher and mom being billed later is not a market.

Let me give you all a little context, since there seems to be some confusion about marketing to children. By and large, on television and on the Internet, marketing to children is either outright illegal or heavily regulated. Look up the Child Online Privacy Protection Act or the Children's Television Act. Look up the KidVid rules and the Comics Code Authority. Just establishing basic distribution for a product marketed to children is a multi-million dollar affair, and roughly half the time and money is spent on compliance with both state and federal regulations regarding the content and frequency of advertising.

Unless you are Scholastic.

Scholastic can walk directly through all the gatekeepers and ENLIST A TEACHER TO PLACE A BOOK CATALOG ON A CHILD'S DESK during school hours. That same teacher can also take orders at the same desk. There is no opportunity for the parents to say "no." There is no regulation or authority or approval process. The child is free to "buy" whatever they like, and the bill shows up on mom's credit card later. For Scholastic, it's completely weightless. No compliance expense. No delays. No approvals. No manpower or staffing. No insurance. The taxpayers pay all the expenses. The parents are absent.

Now, how about those authors who are competing with Scholastic? They last about six months, because eventually they realize that mom is never going to buy a book from anywhere but the Scholastic catalog. Why should she? It's a good question that no mere author can answer. Whether you wrote a good book or not is irrelevant. You're dead in the water six years before you write the first chapter.

And that, boys and girls, is why there is no market for middle grade books.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> It would be amazing if the second graders were actually purchasing those books. *What really happens is: a teacher walks into the room and says "who wants a book?" All the hands go up, books get passed out, mom's credit card gets billed. * That's not a market. That's a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded monopoly. The public pays the bills, Scholastic pockets the profits.
> 
> And if you're not a Scholastic author, you're locked out. Go ahead. Try to do the exact same thing Scholastic does. Try to offer your books for sale in a classroom during school hours. Give us a call after all the paperwork is approved in about 2061.
> 
> *Children choosing books handed out by their teacher and mom being billed later is not a market.*


Are you suggesting that teachers "hand out" random books--or books chosen by the teacher--rather than the kids choosing their own? I call bogus on that.

It's really no different than kids being able to buy books from the kids' section at Barnes & Noble, or whatever other bookstore you can still find.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Are you suggesting that teachers "hand out" random books--or books chosen by the teacher--rather than the kids choosing their own?


Stop deliberately clouding the issue. I suggested no such thing.



> It's really no different than kids being able to buy books from the kids' section at Barnes & Noble


Yes it is. They have to go to school. They don't have to go to Barnes and Noble.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Stop deliberately clouding the issue. I suggested no such thing.
> 
> Yes it is. T*hey have to go to school.* They don't have to go to Barnes and Noble.


But kids don't _HAVE_ to buy books. Nobody is forcing any child to choose a book, or forcing any parent to pay for one. There are wares for sale; people can browse and either buy or walk away. Yes, it's a market.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> But kids don't _HAVE_ to buy books. Nobody is forcing any child to choose a book, or forcing any parent to pay for one. There are wares for sale; people can browse and either buy or walk away. Yes, it's a market.


Maybe it is indeed a market. A market is, technically, "a place where merchandise is exposed for sale", or "a place where a commodity is in demand"; "a subdivision of the population considered as buyers", etc. Obviously, in the case of Scholastic in the schools, the kids are the "market", and Scholastic products are the commodity.

But it looks like a fairly closed market, doesn't it? Earlier in this thread I asked if there were other publishers who were able to go into the schools and sell their wares and I think someone listed three of them. That isn't much competition for a large company like Scholastic.


----------



## Flying Pizza Pie (Dec 19, 2016)

Statement by an actual parent who goes to the book fair: "It's amazing how many books are being purchased every morning, and by children with no adult supervision who are in 2nd through 5th grade."

Reply: "It would be amazing if the second graders were actually purchasing those books. What really happens is: a teacher walks into the room and says "who wants a book?" All the hands go up, books get passed out, mom's credit card gets billed."

You raise great statements about Scholastic. However, I'm the one taking my daughters to our school book fair. It's usually held in an extra room for several days. No teachers are holding guns to make the children buy books or certain books. There are no sales people; just kids meandering alone or with parents. Most are choosing their own books. Many do this after looking at a page or two inside the covers. 

I won't say you or any other author can get a deal with Scholastic. I've never made that statement. I've only said there is a market for MG because as I see every year, the children are choosing their own books to read.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I just asked my two 9-year-olds how many kids in their classes receive books when the Scholastic orders come in. Both said "only a few." One said "sometimes, only me." So I'm not sure how dominant Scholastic really is when it comes to kids' reading. Well off families who can afford Scholastic books probably also buy books from other sources, as we do. Families that can't afford Scholastic probably aren't buying books from other places either, relying on libraries instead.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

jb1111 said:


> Maybe it is indeed a market. A market is, technically, "a place where merchandise is exposed for sale", or "a place where a commodity is in demand"; "a subdivision of the population considered as buyers", etc. Obviously, in the case of Scholastic in the schools, the kids are the "market", and Scholastic products are the commodity.
> 
> But it looks like a fairly closed market, doesn't it? Earlier in this thread I asked if there were other publishers who were able to go into the schools and sell their wares and I think someone listed three of them. That isn't much competition for a large company like Scholastic.


But schools aren't the only place these kids can buy books. According to the OP, Scholastic has a "monopoly" on the MG market, when that is demonstrably not true.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> What really happens is: a teacher walks into the room and says "who wants a book?" All the hands go up, books get passed out, mom's credit card gets billed. That's not a market. That's a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded monopoly. The public pays the bills, Scholastic pockets the profits.


This is not what happens. What actually happens is, every month an order form with a couple hundred books in it is passed out to anyone who wants one. They fill out the form and bring it back with money, the forms are sent away, and a couple of weeks later the order comes in along with another batch of order forms.


----------



## Lessa (Sep 11, 2019)

Flying Pizza Pie said:


> This was one of my favorite bunch of statements and concave/convex opinions ever on kboards. And, at the risk of rehashing everything, I did read the last two pages to catch up. Nothing changed I guess, and I can't change the OP's thoughts, but a reply said "Ah.. but wait, adults are adults and make their own decisions and no 9 year old buys their own books."
> 
> FWIW, it's Book Fair week at my daughter's school. It's amazing how many books are being purchased every morning, and by children with no adult supervision who are in 2nd through 5th grade. My daughter is 10 - and she choose her own books last year at 9 years old, and is doing so again this year. Obviously we are the great exception to the rules outlined across 14 pages of opinion.


Yup. At 9 I was picking out my own books. Before 9 too, and after. The only thing I got from my parents was a limit on how many I could get at a time. So yes, 9 year olds do pick out their own books, and buy them with money handed over from parents, and other adults who feed their reading habit.

Sure, many parents give some supervision regarding what they feel is, and is not, appropriate, and may also be buying stuff for their kids. But many kids do also choose for themselves.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> So I'm not sure how dominant Scholastic really is when it comes to kids' reading.


Can you name another publisher that has a retail presence in 75,000 schools?



> But schools aren't the only place these kids can buy books.


Schools are the only place where one particular publisher has their order forms and catalogs delivered and processed by taxpayer-funded state employees during school hours.



> What actually happens is, every month an order form with a couple hundred books in it is passed out to anyone who wants one.


Distinction without a difference.



> At 9 I was picking out my own books.


Nobody is contending the students don't pick out their own books. What I am contending is when they pick out a book, it is always a *Scholastic* book.

The authors on this board pay considerable lip service to the notion we are all competing on a level playing field. After all, a free market is where all sellers have an equal opportunity to offer their product and compete. Everyone nods and agrees until it is revealed that one publisher has astronomical advantages over everyone else. Then the authors on this board immediately jump to the defense of the incumbent and blame those who rightly point out the advantages incumbency enjoys, right down to the government intervention and taxpayer subsidies.

Surely the reason new middle grade and YA authors can't compete is because they haven't spent enough on their covers, or they haven't fretted enough over their blurbs. It can't be the fact that Scholastic can sell hundreds of millions of books with no advertising expenses, no retail distribution expenses, no staff and no competition. No, it must be the fact those new middle grade authors are just poor sports.

The truth is if you aren't published by Scholastic, you have no access to middle grade readers. You are locked out. That is the textbook definition of a monopoly, which is the precise opposite of a free market, and which proves there is no market.

Children in America do not read unless forced, and parents in America do not buy books for their children unless someone is willing to do the work for them (teacher, library, RIF, what-have-you). That is why half the adults in this country can't read at an 8th grade level, and why writing for middle grade readers is pointless and self-destructive.

It took me eight years to discover this fact, and the reality of it completely shattered my motivation to write at all. Now I have talent with no audience, which is worse than having no talent. My only alternative is to write in one of the half dozen marketable genres (for absolutely no reason other than money) and abandon the world full of color and magic I spent 20 years building.

It's soul-destroying.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Being English, I'm not sure what the grades mean, but if the reading level of young people in the USA is so low, I would say it is more to do with the teachers' abilities than what parents are doing.

My eldest daughter would never look at a book. I discovered she was not only dyslexic but had poor eyesight and none of her teachers noticed. She got a degree last week, but that is off topic.

My youngest daughter read a lot; she told me what books she wanted and I bought them for her. We would visit the local book shop and browse; that's a luxury long gone from smaller towns in England now.

I would also approve or disapprove the books she wanted, so perhaps that's the OP's problem?


----------



## Vidya (Feb 14, 2012)

is  there any way to submit an MS directly to Scholastic without an agent? I searched on their site when this thread was at its zenith, but found nothing then.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> That is why half the adults in this country can't read at an 8th grade level,


Does this necessarily mean anything? By 8th grade, you're pretty much set in learning to read. That was the year we stopped having "reading" class in school and just had regular language and literature classes in high school. This was also the year we had to take some standardized reading test that you had to retake until you passed it or you couldn't get your driver's license. At that point, you're reading as well as you can and it's more about dissecting the meaning of works, expanding your vocabulary, etc.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Paranormal Kitty said:


> This was also the year we had to take some standardized reading test that you had to retake until you passed it or you couldn't get your driver's license.


Is that really a thing? Is there no way round for people who can't read? Or foreigners who don't speak English?

Sorry to go off topic, but this is quite fascinating to me.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Does this necessarily mean anything?


Yes it does. There is an enormous universe of reading skills beyond 8th grade level. Things like context, tone, metaphor, allegory, symbolism, lyricism and character concepts like anti-heroes, unreliable narrators and so forth are the subject of advanced reading skills far beyond junior high school. Then there are the advanced writing skills which virtually nobody learns, as can be proven by glancing at the magnificent product our newspapers publish on a daily basis.

The literacy situation in this country is a catastrophe. I think if this thread accomplishes nothing else, at least it has shone a light on the cause.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Yes it does. There is an enormous universe of reading skills beyond 8th grade level. Things like context, tone, metaphor, allegory, symbolism, lyricism and character concepts like anti-heroes, unreliable narrators and so forth are the subject of advanced reading skills far beyond junior high school. Then there are the advanced writing skills which virtually nobody learns, as can be proven by glancing at the magnificent product our newspapers publish on a daily basis.
> 
> The literacy situation in this country is a catastrophe. I think if this thread accomplishes nothing else, at least it has shone a light on the cause.


You're talking more about literature and literary criticism than reading. It's more of an art, and not everyone is interested or talented in that area. Boys often test worse at reading because it's being tested by literary standards while they tend to be more interested in non-fiction and informative content. Just because you're passionate and talented at something doesn't mean that everyone needs to be. I know I'd hate it if some calculus genius criticized me for being unable to add two digit numbers without a calculator.

NTM the issue of these tests and statistics nearly always pertaining to _English_ literacy only. How's your literacy in your non-native language, huh?


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> You're talking more about literature and literary criticism than reading.


No, I'm talking about reading. Reading and literature are two different academic subjects.



> It's more of an art, and not everyone is interested or talented in that area.


Nevertheless, they can be trained to read beyond the level of a 12-year-old.


----------



## H.C. (Jul 28, 2016)

Kids are actually reading more now then ever before. Who says kids aren't reading? Kid's book sales are setting all kinds of records. I work in education and we've never seen so many readers as the past few years.

Serious question posted by others needs an answer. How can we put ignore on someone? I can't find the option.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Herefortheride said:


> Kids are actually reading more now then ever before. Who says kids aren't reading? Kid's book sales are setting all kinds of records. I work in education and we've never seen so many readers as the past few years.


It may depend on your region, area of the country, or area of the world.


----------



## EmberKent (Nov 24, 2018)

Herefortheride said:


> Serious question posted by others needs an answer. How can we put ignore on someone? I can't find the option.


At the top, hover over My KBoards. Hover over Profile, then click Forum Profile.

Then where the navigation is (e.g. where in this thread, at the top, you can see KBoards > Authors' Forum > Writers' Cafe), just beneath it you'll see Profile Info and Modify Profile in orange text. Hover over Modify Profile. Hover over Buddies/Ignore List. Click on Edit Ignore List.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Schools are the only place where one particular publisher has their order forms and catalogs delivered and processed by taxpayer-funded state employees during school hours.


You said it yourself: _during school hours._ Big whoop. When I worked for the government, if our building vending machines only sold Poland Springs water, does that mean taxpayer money restricted or limited my access to water, or that Poland Springs had a monopoly on water distribution? Same goes for foods sold in school cafeterias (only Green Giant vegetables?? it's a crime against Del Monte!!)

Again: schools aren't the only place kids can buy books during the course of their day. Or week, or year.....



Shane Lochlann Black said:


> *Children in America do not read unless forced, and parents in America do not buy books for their children unless someone is willing to do the work for them (teacher, library, RIF, what-have-you). That is why half the adults in this country can't read at an 8th grade level, and why writing for middle grade readers is pointless and self-destructive. *
> 
> It took me eight years to discover this fact, and the reality of it completely shattered my motivation to write at all. Now I have talent with no audience, which is worse than having no talent. My only alternative is to write in one of the half dozen marketable genres (for absolutely no reason other than money) and abandon the world full of color and magic I spent 20 years building.
> 
> It's soul-destroying.


Re the bolded part: wow, you need to hang out at some random middle schools, or listen in on students conversations from time to time. I've spent time at middle school book fairs, and it's the kids who often drag their parents toward the shelves to show them which books they want. They like stories, they like adventure, they like having their imaginations piqued. In short, they like books.

As for the rest of your post.... I can't help you there. If you believe it's hopeless and you have no chance, then by all means, give it up and do something else. As for me, I'm going to take time this afternoon to take my MG book to a local independent bookstore that has a program for indie authors to sell books in their brick-and-mortar store. (They also offer marketing programs as well.) Additionally, I'm also in contact with a few local middle schools to appear at school events.

So, feel free to follow your inclination. Since you've already made your opinion plainly, crystal clear, all the whacking in the world isn't going to change your horse's state. As someone said recently in a noteworthy moment, "get over it" and go ahead with your Plan B.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> No, I'm talking about reading. Reading and literature are two different academic subjects.


They are different, and you were talking about literature. Reading is the skillset required to comprehend any written text, not just literature and fiction. Literature and the things you mentioned are taught after reading. A person can read just fine without knowing what an antihero is. That's only important for dissecting literature.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

I remember an oft quoted statistic that newspapers across America are written at the 5th grade level (~10 yrs old). I have also heard, more recently and frequently, that young adults have a hard time understanding a newspaper. I think we have sunk some in reading ability and comprehension. No flashing lights and ringing bells and booms and whistles to entertain a modern reader.

On another anecdotal note, when I was a young one (many decades ago), the English Lit teacher (11th grade) came in with a box of books and started handing them out. "Who wants? Who wants?" These weren't Scholastic. She got to the end and everyone groaned as she held up a 947-inch thick book that weighed more than she did. I waved my hand with enthusiasm - the only student that did. It was Frank Herbert's Dune. I think she just went to some yard sale and bought someone's box of books. Lovely teacher.

In my younger years, it was all Scholastic. I remember being eager that so many books were available for my age when all I ever saw at the store were thrillers and romances.   I think then as it might be now, it is all about exposure - and Scholastic certainly has monopolized its market.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Doglover said:


> Being English, I'm not sure what the grades mean, but if the reading level of young people in the USA is so low, I would say it is more to do with the teachers' abilities than what parents are doing.


I completely disagree. I think the parents should hang their heads in shame if their children can't read competently by the time they are 6 or 7 (not counting dyslexia, or other issues, which should most definitely have been picked up on at the very least).

In many school the poor teachers are little more than prison wardens. They have classes of 30 as standard in England. It's near impossible to give each child the attention they need to read competently. Parents HAVE to pick up the slack. I am shocked by how many people have suggested that American parents don't care or bother, and I find it really hard to believe.

On the other hand, if you look at global literacy rates, I think the USA does need some shaming. You come below Oman, Barundi, Botswana. Places were there are barely schools.

Now, I am also aware that we are a collective who are bookish by nature, and who value the written word more than most, but to blame it on the teachers is just shifting blame from themselves. Yes, teachers can always be better, but it's a job I don't think I could ever cope with and I think they are amazing just for keeping my kid safe all day.

Your child is ultimately your responsibility (not you or anyone personally, but you meaning every parent in the world), so read them bedtime stories so they love books, use flash cards at bath time, sound out letters during car journeys, whatever you need to do to help them. I'm sure everyone here agrees, but then again we're writers. It's educating the parents that needs to happen it seems.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Evenstar said:


> On the other hand, if you look at global literacy rates, I think the USA does need some shaming. You come below Oman, Barundi, Botswana. Places were there are barely schools.


As I mentioned earlier, part of that is because they're gathering these statistics regarding _English_ literacy for the US even though we don't even have an official language. There are also issues with regional and cultural dialects. Plus all these surveys that rate literacy have different definitions, so if you're comparing one country to another it's useless unless you know the same standards were applied. Some statistics might be based on a very loose definition of literacy (just the basic ability to read anything) while others are assessing functional literacy.

According to this Wikipedia article, the US Department of Education uses some pretty strict standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

--prose literacy: the knowledge and skills needed to perform prose tasks, (i.e., to search, comprehend, and use continuous texts). Examples include editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.
--document literacy: the knowledge and skills needed to perform document tasks, (i.e., to search, comprehend, and use non-continuous texts in various formats). Examples include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug or food labels.
--quantitative literacy: the knowledge and skills required to perform quantitative tasks, (i.e., to identify and perform computations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed materials). Examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order form or determining the amount.

I don't even know what balancing a checkbook means, so I'm probably illiterate according to them. Comparing that rate to some country that reports X percent of its citizens can read the newspaper or the label on a can of beans isn't really fair.

Also from the same article:

--The United States was a participant in the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL), along with Bermuda, Canada, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, and the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon. Data was collected in 2003 and the results were published in 2005.[29] Adults were scored on "five levels of difficulty in prose, document and numeracy literacy. In 2003, only 8% of the population aged 16 to 65 in Norway fell into the lowest skill level, level 1; the highest percentage was 47% in Italy. *The United States was third highest* at 20% in 2003.


----------



## H.C. (Jul 28, 2016)

Evenstar said:


> I completely disagree. I think the parents should hang their heads in shame if their children can't read competently by the time they are 6 or 7 (not counting dyslexia, or other issues, which should most definitely have been picked up on at the very least).
> 
> In many school the poor teachers are little more than prison wardens. They have classes of 30 as standard in England. It's near impossible to give each child the attention they need to read competently. Parents HAVE to pick up the slack. I am shocked by how many people have suggested that American parents don't care or bother, and I find it really hard to believe.
> 
> ...


That's your imagination and a misplaced sense of nationalism talking.

The U.S. ranks 3rd global in literacy. Well ahead of the U.K.

The U.S. uses a much stricter standard than the U.K. to define literacy.


----------



## ImaWriter (Aug 12, 2015)

Herefortheride said:


> The U.S. ranks 3rd global in literacy. Well ahead of the U.K.


Actually, no. That may have been true in 2003 but not any more.

Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL)
International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS)

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-604-x/89-604-x2011001-eng.pdf?st=TtH49T_n






























> http://www.caalusa.org/ReachHigherAmerica/ReachHigher.pdf
> 
> Report of the National Commission on Adult Literacy • June 2008
> 
> America is losing its place as a world leader in education, and in fact is becoming less educated. Among the 30 OECDfree-market countries, the U.S. is the only nation where young adults are less educated than the previous generation.And we are losing ground to other countries in educational attainment.





> http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-educated-countries/
> Most Educated Countries 2019
> 
> Several surveys and studies have been conducted to find the most educated countries in the world. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, has made a list of the world's most educated countries based on the number of adult residents between the ages of 25 and 64 that have received a tertiary education: two-year or four-year degree or have received an education through a vocational program.
> ...


What happened to Norway in the last decade??


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Evenstar said:


> I completely disagree. I think the parents should hang their heads in shame if their children can't read competently by the time they are 6 or 7 (not counting dyslexia, or other issues, which should most definitely have been picked up on at the very least).
> 
> In many school the poor teachers are little more than prison wardens. They have classes of 30 as standard in England. It's near impossible to give each child the attention they need to read competently. Parents HAVE to pick up the slack.


I grew up with classes of well over 30 but we still got a good education. I don't think it's anything to do with the size of classes. Back then, in the fifties and sixties, teachers were required to have a degree not a few months at teacher training college. Also we had a system that creamed off the really clever kids to grammar schools so that the others all got a look in.

It's this chuck them all in together idea that has let down English education.

As for parents picking up the slack, my parents were both manual workers and neither of them could read very well themselves and certainly there was no one to help with my homework. That was the teachers' job as far as they were concerned and not their problem. That was what they sent us to school for.

I had an excellent English teacher; she was a battleaxe who terrified all in her path, but I can still hear her voice in my ear when I'm writing.


----------



## atree (Jan 1, 2019)

Literacy is easy to accomplish. It's simply a matter of putting decent kid books in children's hands at an early age (3-5), spending time together discovering and letting the young ones experience that every new letter and word they learn is a super duper accomplishment. Yay!

As such, it is 100% on the parents if their kids fall behind on day 1 in school. This is not just me venting. It's a matter of culture and a parental method common in all high-literacy countries. Parent's who "don't have the time or energy" are deluding themselves. Shut the TV off, stop being on FB and dedicate less time to personal grooming and shopping and voila.... a *bunch* of time saved to be used as quality time with one's kids.

Teach your kids that being smart is cool.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Children are like an investment. What you put in, you get out. If you spend the time to guide them and correct them, you raise an adult. If you set them in front of the TV and let the TV guide them, you get... an adult child.

All three of my children are now adults and all three are voracious readers.

Speaking apart from literacy, I certainly have a love-hate feeling towards Scholastic. As a child, I loved the books and the program. As an adult, I am horrified at the monopoly. If Scholastic is a publisher, then it has essentially unchecked exploitation of of the nation's schools that no other publisher has. Harper Collins? Bantam? Penguin? Simon and Schuster? Out of luck. That's a monopoly. How can other publishers even try to compete? At some point, a teacher(s) will begin to claim too much time is being taken handing out book order forms rather than teaching - and that right there would expose the monopoly for what it is.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Laran Mithras said:


> Speaking apart from literacy, I certainly have a love-hate feeling towards Scholastic. As a child, I loved the books and the program. As an adult, I am horrified at the monopoly. If Scholastic is a publisher, then it has essentially unchecked exploitation of of the nation's schools that no other publisher has. Harper Collins? Bantam? Penguin? Simon and Schuster? Out of luck. That's a monopoly. How can other publishers even try to compete? At some point, a teacher(s) will begin to claim too much time is being taken handing out book order forms rather than teaching - and that right there would expose the monopoly for what it is.


At least here in Ontario where I live, teachers can buy books for the classroom or the library from other sources than just Scholastic. They can go to Chapters and choose books from any publisher they want.

I highly doubt any teacher is going to claim that too much time is being spent handing out Scholastic forms. They leave the forms in a place where the kids can take one if they want one, and then once a month they take about fifteen minutes to hand out the books when they arrive. And personally, I think they'd probably just be happy to see kids wanting to read.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

The reality of what goes on in a Scholastic monopolized classroom is a little different. Feel free to compare and contrast this to what the average MG or YA indie author faces when trying to market their books. Then imagine a random MG or YA indie author offering their colorful catalogs and flyers to teachers and parents and students during school hours.

It was also heartwarming to hear about the kids who don't get to order a book. Such a joyous image. Especially here in California where we spend $11,000 a year per student on education.

By the way, pay attention to that last video where the sixth grade teacher is collecting book order forms with the kids' names on them. If she attempted that on the Internet, it would be a *violation of federal law*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

I was reading before Kindergarten. It was all about the early education, combined with lack of what we now call screen time (for anything but ebooks, I suppose, today). The TV was only on for the news and a few select educational programs such as Sesame Street or National Geographic, perhaps the Olympics or other significant events. I watched the moon landings live in 1969, of course. But aside from that, it was books, radio, record--and books were highly accessible. Mom and dad read to me and my siblings, took us to the library and let us browse the children's section as soon as we could sound out our letters alongside the pictures, and encouraged reading as an approved recreational activity.

I believe this is what it all came down to: reading as a source of fun and enjoyment early on. I wanted to read. I read in the car on trips, I read in my bed until lights-out and often with a flashlight under the covers, I read in my treehouse when I was occasionally told to "go outside and play on such a lovely day." 

By the time I was in elementary school I was at the head of the pack in language comprehension, which made school relatively easier, gave me good grades and a sense of accomplishment, and so on in a virtuous cycle. 

Sure, I also had a relatively stable, lower-middle-class two-parent home, which many don't have--but it's still possible to encourage reading and limit screen time in order to give young children every chance to catch the reading bug. My kids are doing it with our pre-school grandchildren, and despite being die-hard PJ Masks and Doc McStuffins fans, they also read a lot, because that's the example they're set and they have no screens in their own rooms, only in the family room.

Generally speaking, if people followed something like this formula, a lot more kids would be reading nowadays. We used to live in Utah until 2016, where the LDS ("Mormon") population is still significant, and you can see a culture of reading and writing quite strong, a culture of valuing education. Book fairs there have lots of books for kids and lots of parents shopping for them. There are tons of LDS children's writers, it seems. This seems to me to be an example of how raising kids in a culture that values reading and education, be it a larger culture or just the culture of one family, will give kids the best chance possible to become educated readers later in life.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> I was reading before Kindergarten. It was all about the early education, combined with lack of what we now call screen time (for anything but ebooks, I suppose, today). The TV was only on for the news and a few select educational programs such as Sesame Street or National Geographic, perhaps the Olympics or other significant events. I watched the moon landings live in 1969, of course. But aside from that, it was books, radio, record--and books were highly accessible. Mom and dad read to me and my siblings, took us to the library and let us browse the children's section as soon as we could sound out our letters alongside the pictures, and encouraged reading as an approved recreational activity.
> 
> I believe this is what it all came down to: reading as a source of fun and enjoyment early on. I wanted to read. I read in the car on trips, I read in my bed until lights-out and often with a flashlight under the covers, I read in my treehouse when I was occasionally told to "go outside and play on such a lovely day."
> 
> ...


David and I so rarely agree here on Kboards, so you know I mean it when I give this post a resounding "Hear, Hear!"


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I highly doubt any teacher is going to claim that too much time is being spent handing out Scholastic forms. They leave the forms in a place where the kids can take one if they want one, and then once a month they take about fifteen minutes to hand out the books when they arrive. And personally, I think they'd probably just be happy to see kids wanting to read.


I wasn't very clear. What I meant was, imagine the teachers' responses at having to pass out more than just the Scholastic catalog. Two? Maybe. Three, four, five? Per month? Per week? Eventually, the teachers would claim enough was enough. It's one thing to promote reading using Scholastic, but to allow real competition would break the camel's back, so to speak.

I was speaking of competitors passing out catalogs using school hours and teachers' time, not Scholastic.


----------



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

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> What really happens is: a teacher walks into the room and says "who wants a book?" All the hands go up, books get passed out, mom's credit card gets billed. That's not a market. That's a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded monopoly. The public pays the bills, Scholastic pockets the profits.


That statement is not accurate.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> That statement is not accurate.


Distinction without a difference.

Noted for the record how quiet it got in this thread once the videos were posted and the truth became clear. If you aren't a Scholastic author, you are at an astronomical disadvantage when it comes to selling books to middle grade and YA readers.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Distinction without a difference.
> 
> Noted for the record how quiet it got in this thread once the videos were posted and the truth became clear. If you aren't a Scholastic author, you are at an astronomical disadvantage when it comes to selling books to middle grade and YA readers.


I highly doubt most of us bothered to watch the videos. I know I didn't. I think most people are fed up with the back and forth about Scolastic (especially as it's irrelevant to those of us who don't live in the US)


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Noted for the record how quiet it got in this thread once the videos were posted and the truth became clear. If you aren't a Scholastic author, you are at an astronomical disadvantage when it comes to selling books to middle grade and YA readers.


I didn't bother to watch the videos. Arguing about this has become like arguing religion with an extremely religious person, and I've mostly gotten bored. I suspect most people have.


----------



## Lessa (Sep 11, 2019)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I didn't bother to watch the videos. Arguing about this has become like arguing religion with an extremely religious person, and I've mostly gotten bored. I suspect most people have.


Same. I figure anyone who truly, sincerely, believes there's no market for MG (and now YA too? Hahahahaha) books wouldn't write and try to sell MG (or YA as it's now been included).

If the OP truly believes what he's saying he'd stop trying to beat his head against that (he believes) impenetrable wall.


----------



## ImaWriter (Aug 12, 2015)

Shane Lochlann Black said:


> Noted for the record how quiet it got in this thread once the videos were posted and the truth became clear.


Or so many people have you set to ignore they didn't even see them?

Just offering an alternate suggestion for the lack of response to what many here might view as relentless pontificating.


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

> Or so many people have you set to ignore they didn't even see them?


Considering there were four replies within three hours I'd call that unlikely. Then again, it doesn't surprise me the people most inclined to demand evidence avoid it when presented.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

This thread has probably run its course. Positions seem entrenched, tempers frayed.


----------

