# Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500 / Don't write for the money (MERGED)



## J.R.Mooneyham (Mar 14, 2011)

Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500

Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500
> 
> Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


Most human beings are very basic and blase people, I don't expect most authors to do well.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

It does mention that books that are edited and have covers made by professionals earn more. Not surprised about that!


----------



## Wingpeople (Oct 7, 2011)

I found the comments even more interesting than the original article.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

So only a few *outliers* make a lot of money? 

Nothing new there. It has ever been thus.


----------



## GPB (Oct 2, 2010)

Sometimes I very much wish that I could write romance, or that my preferred genres had such a large population of ravenous readers. Color me green (with envy, not dollars).


----------



## Christine Murray (Oct 4, 2011)

That was the bit that I found most surprising. I know most writers can't live off their writing alone, but less than $500 is insane.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

It's the same in the traditional market.  There are very few authors making 6 figures.  You just hear about them all the time.  The midlist authors make about $12000-$20000 a year, and that might be generous.  

I know I will make more selfpublishing this year, then I ever did traditionally, except for the one year I had two 3 book contracts intersecting.


----------



## 41352 (Apr 4, 2011)

Vivi_Anna said:


> It's the same in the traditional market. There are very few authors making 6 figures. You just hear about them all the time. The midlist authors make about $12000-$20000 a year, and that might be generous.
> 
> I know I will make more selfpublishing this year, then I ever did traditionally, except for the one year I had two 3 book contracts intersecting.


Same here. I currently make more from self publishing than my trad published titles. Let's see if the trend continues.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500
> 
> Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


But isn't that always the case? I think the motivation should never be money but loving what you do. I wouldn't write "young adult" for instance because I don't like it and wouldn't be any good at it. I also wouldn't write "romances" either because that's not what moves me and others do it a lot better than I possibly could. So you've got to find what you love and the appreciate each and every sale. We can not all be best sellers, but we can do our level best and be proud of our work.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500


And 90% of aspiring trade-published authors earn nothing because they never get published. So they're better off self-publishing and having a 50% chance of making $500 or more.


----------



## The world would be prettier with more zebra strip (Apr 20, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> But isn't that always the case? I think the motivation should never be money but loving what you do. I wouldn't write "young adult" for instance because I don't like it and wouldn't be any good at it. I also wouldn't write "romances" either because that's not what moves me and others do it a lot better than I possibly could. So you've got to find what you love and the appreciate each and every sale. We can not all be best sellers, but we can do our level best and be proud of our work.


YES.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

500$ per year is the average? That's very-very sad, especially as the budget for most of the books is around $700-1000 (Editing, pro cover, marketing, etc, etc...). Well, I believe I won't complain and say a thing after this article. Comparing to this I'm doing just fine.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

_"Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell..."_

...but every last one of them was finally given a shot. And that is what matters.

B.


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

My full-time job is being a Managing Broker for a real estate office in Washington State.

Several years ago, the Multiple Listing Service I belong to released a report that said that the average agent in the MLS sold two houses per year and earned $6000.  That number was severely skewed because there are many agents who are licensed and belong to the MLS but never, ever do a transaction.  

Likewise, isn't it possible that these reported numbers are dragged down by the large number of independent authors who upload something on a lark with no editing, no formatting, no decent cover art and thus, no sales?  

It would be impossible to get the data, of course, but I would be interested in what the numbers might be for authors who do those things.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Vivi_Anna said:


> It's the same in the traditional market. There are very few authors making 6 figures. You just hear about them all the time. The midlist authors make about $12000-$20000 a year, and that might be generous.


Tawny beat me to it. Most authors write for borderline slave wages. This is nothing new.

Upsetting, yes. But not new.


----------



## Tracianna24 (May 24, 2012)

Self publishers every where need our help and support. Let's encourage them that they can make it in the book industry


----------



## Christine Murray (Oct 4, 2011)

Guardian said:


> 500$ per year is the average? That's very-very sad, especially as the budget for most of the books is around $700-1000 (Editing, pro cover, marketing, etc, etc...). Well, I believe I won't complain and say a thing after this article. Comparing to this I'm doing just fine.


This.


----------



## Dave Adams (Apr 25, 2012)

Well, I'm a little past $500 now, so I'll put the happy spin on that and say I'm in the top half of self-published earnings!


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Guardian said:


> That's very-very sad, especially as the budget for most of the books is around $700-1000 (Editing, pro cover, marketing, etc, etc...).


If the people they hire for that money are competent, then the writer probably won't be in the sub-$500 bracket unless they're plain unlucky. $500 a year is only about a dozen sales a month at $4.99.

And, anyway, if you can make $500 a year on a novel, in three years you'll have paid off that $1000 and be $500 ahead. In another ten years you'll have beaten the average new writer advance.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

These numbers aren't a surprise. Doing it all yourself is HARD work. Anyone who thinks self-publishing is the path to easy riches is in for a rude awakening.


----------



## Lee Lopez (Jan 19, 2012)

Don't quit your day job, if you're a indie. Unless you hit the jackpot, like Amanda Hockings, or Bob Mayer, good luck making a living. If you write a book it's not to make money, but to write a good book. It's the creative side of your brain working and chattering away at you. Selling and selling well is a confirmation of your work and imagination. But don't count on making a living unless you hit it like 50 Shades, which was a fluke.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

Christine Murray said:


> That was the bit that I found most surprising. I know most writers can't live off their writing alone, but less than $500 is insane.


It's not all that surprising, though. I'm in the sub-500 group. In fact, I don't think I'm broken the $100 barrier, and that's across four titles.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500
> 
> Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


In the UK, maybe, LOL... (That's where the Guardian is based.)

At least the odds are better for us than actors.

I think only about 30 percent of SAG membership "regularly finds work" in Hollyweird.

All other actors tend to "wait tables" and (probably) pray that the customer they flirted with isn't married to an ex-NFL player who owns a White Bronco...


----------



## rubyscribe (Jun 2, 2011)

I have been published since 11 months and now own 7 titles (4 short stories and 3 non-fiction tiltles).  I have not made $500 as of yet.

I'm however, happy that I do sell every month, even if a few copies only.  I am happy when even one book gets sold, because it tells me someone find it worthwhile enough to pay even 99 cents for it.  

Having said that, I love writing and I write what I feel strongly about.  My books can be hard hitting so they wont appeal to the close minded or the superficial folks.  If someone reads my message and introspects, and then gains an appreciation of something they were previously rigid or judgmental about, then my book has vindicated itself, once.

For me, its the love of writing and communication that makes me write.  Money is only an added benefit.  So far, I have bought little treats for myself with it.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> If the people they hire for that money are competent, then the writer probably won't be in the sub-$500 bracket unless they're plain unlucky. $500 a year is only about a dozen sales a month at $4.99.


True, but most of the authors are selling their books for $0.99-$2.99, which is making it much harder to reach $500 or even $200 (I'm selling one of my books for $8.88, with a royalty rate of $8.06 in my webshop, so with that it's not that hard to achieve this $500+ per year, plus I had no true expense as I'm a pro artist and I did my cover, website, webshop, etc, etc... But imagine when a book has a minimal expense of 500$ (covers, editing, etc, etc...) and the author is selling it for $0.99 with a royalty rate of $0.35. You have to sell 1428 books per year to cover your basic expenses. And if you sell 1428 units, you'll have a clear income only after that. So, to have a clear income of $500, you have to sell around 3200 in the first year year (If your book is $0.99. If your book is $2.99, with a royalty of $2.09, you have to sell 250 to cover your expenses and additional 250 to reach $500.). And pro editing and pro covers won't help to sell. At least not always. That's the other sad fact.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

I had always heard "won't sell more than 35 copies." Now... I'm by no means "successful" in my own estimation, at least not by my goals, but I've sailed past both of these numbers a looooong time ago, and I have been self publishing only 1 year with 3 titles (the third was released last month). So chins up, fellow writers! It's absolutely doable.


----------



## LucyFrancis (Sep 8, 2011)

I love these doom and gloom articles about self-pubbing. *sigh* In any endeavor, there are always going to be failures or low-end successes. A huge percentage of all business ventures end in failure. For all the artists offering their paintings or sculptures or other works to the world, how many actually sell anything, much less make an actual living? A great many traditionally published authors never get the chance to release more than one or two books because of poor sales, or make more money on a book than their meager advance.

No one who self-pubs should expect to strike gold, but at least there is a chance. A chance we would never have if our manuscripts continued languishing in slush piles or gathering dust in a dark corner of the hard drive. I'm grateful that the chance of success, of getting our work in front of readers and perhaps even making some money, exists. And you never know. You could make a little money each from a lot of books, or perhaps your tenth release will surprise you and turn into a runaway hit. At least we're now able to give it a shot.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

This article is regarding this survey: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,115110.0.html

So, it's based on authors from primarily the US with some UK authors & all of those who replied to the survey would have been following the latest news on self-publishing enough to notice the link to the survey being tweeted, etc. - Thus, they probably weren't the 'just bang it up on Kindle & forget about it' crowd. If anything, the real average return is probably lower!


----------



## MHVK (Apr 6, 2012)

OK--unless I've done my math wrong--even if only 10,000 DIY authors earn $500 p/y, that's still $5 million annually being spent on books that isn't going to the Big 6. Sure, the cream is always going to rise to the top, but DIY in the Amazon Age is altering the game.

Personally, I'd rather drag my own chair to the table and help myself to a plateful, however meager, than wait to be invited and maybe get nothing. If I'm good enough, good things will happen.


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

Lee Lopez said:


> Don't quit your day job, if you're a indie. Unless you hit the jackpot, like Amanda Hockings, or Bob Mayer, good luck making a living. If you write a book it's not to make money, but to write a good book. It's the creative side of your brain working and chattering away at you. Selling and selling well is a confirmation of your work and imagination. But don't count on making a living unless you hit it like 50 Shades, which was a fluke.


Aren't you assuming every author wants to be EL James or Amanda Hocking? Last time I checked, you can live on $50k a year and MANY indie authors make this (and more) and you never hear about them.

Personally, I don't want that kind of fame. I just want to be able to support my family and I can do that just fine on $50k per year.


----------



## heavycat (Feb 14, 2011)

This amount would increase by an order of magnitude if more authors had better tools with which to promote their work.

We have this amazing communications technology and yet the individual author is largely still locked out of the marketplace for want of viable, effective and affordable promotional and marketing tools.

It should be simplicity itself at this point for an author to find their audience.  We have search engines that index the entire web.  Why is this still so difficult?  Think of how this one missing element would re-energize the economy.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Well, I'm quite a bit over that 50% but I think the most important thing (from a simple dollars-and-cents perspective) is this:  $1 is infinitely more than the $0 I made via the trad-pub citadel of Dolorous Garde and their regal exclusivity.  Hot damn, even though I'm merely a filthy peasant, I have readers and I make some money when they buy and enjoy my books.

Of course that's secondary to the fact that for the first time in my life I have non-family people admiring my work, connecting with it and sharing with me that they have similar hopes, dreams, pains and life experiences, and that they find my work inspiring.  How do you put a dollar figure on that?

Quite frankly I hope that anyone who is solely in it for the money fails spectacularly and then whines about it publicly, so I can gloat about it.  Damn speculators, go do something you actually care about.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Enlightening. I thought I was doing poorly at $3,000 a year. Now I'm not in for the money, but the circulation and at 16,400 copies of 19 works in circulation, I'm content as a one-person (plus editor) show. But I assumed (since the majority of my books y\ield the $ .35 royalty), that I would be in the lower realms of DIY earners. That survey made my day. Thanks

Edward C. Patterson
An Old War Horse earns his harness.
4.5 years on the Kindle


----------



## Hilary Thomson (Nov 20, 2011)

I wouldn't pay much attention to the data at this point.  Self-publishing through programs like KDP and Pubit is so young a business, the data isn't very meaningful.  A lot of self-pubbers don't even have two years in the business, and plenty don't even have a year.  If your full career of books hasn't yet been created and put out there, you can't tell what it's going to sell.  Nor can you tell what you're going to sell until your author name gradually seeps into the public consciousness, a process which can take several years.  People tend to forgot it's usually taken trad authors many years and several books to really hit their sales stride, and become well-known.  

On the whole, I'd label this article excitable nonsense.  Screech!  Screech!  Self-pubbers make only a few hundred bucks after a few months of publishing!  Well, what the heck did you expect?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "After respondents completed the Taleist Self-Publishing Survey they were asked to leave their email address so we could be in touch with them. Some did not, which means we can't get in touch with them to give them their complementary respondent's copy of the report. If you qualify, i.e. you took the survey, you will [...]"


This makes me suspect it is a self-selected sample. It's not certain from the above para, but I wouldn't rely on it until I knew the methodology. Self-selected samples are not statistically reliable.

If they don't know the email addresses, how did they collect the sample? Where did they get the respondents? How did they contact them? If the survey takers contacted the sample, then they must have some way of getting back in touch. If the respondents are self-selected, and simply filled in a form on a web page, then the sample is unreliable.

I don't know. Anybody have better info?


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

It's a tough market out there and that number doesn't surprise me at all.  I spend 8 hours a day during the week promoting.  Being a self-published author means you work TWICE as hard as anyone else.  My morning starts at 6 am and I look at this as a full time job.  This concept that you're going to write a book and people will just magically appear out of thin air to ooh and aah over it, well it just doesn't work that way.  Convince me to spend my hard earned money on your book if you want me to buy it.  Tell me why I shouldn't go with a proven author who's got a bestseller under their belt.  That's the mentality you're working with in my opinion.

I discovered the hard way that no one was going to magically walk up and say "Hey I've never heard of you, but I really really want to buy your work!"


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

Vegasgyrl007 said:


> Personally, I don't want that kind of fame. I just want to be able to support my family and I can do that just fine on $50k per year.


My goal is to make 50k / month

I guess that's why I'm already 1/4th the way through book 2 while the 1st book is waiting on the cover design.


----------



## LadaRay (Apr 6, 2011)

Interesting statistics


----------



## Jean E (Aug 29, 2011)

Christine Murray said:


> This.


Funny.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Kent Kelly said:


> Well, I'm quite a bit over that 50% but I think the most important thing (from a simple dollars-and-cents perspective) is this: $1 is infinitely more than the $0 I made via the trad-pub citadel of Dolorous Garde and their regal exclusivity. Hot d*mn, even though I'm merely a filthy peasant, I have readers and I make some money when they buy and enjoy my books.
> 
> Of course that's secondary to the fact that for the first time in my life I have non-family people admiring my work, connecting with it and sharing with me that they have similar hopes, dreams, pains and life experiences, and that they find my work inspiring. How do you put a dollar figure on that?
> 
> Quite frankly I hope that anyone who is solely in it for the money fails spectacularly and then whines about it publicly, so I can gloat about it. d*mn speculators, go do something you actually care about.


I've had a similar experience, and I agree with your post through and through. Especially the people connecting part: it really is unbelievably cool to see people's faces brighten up as they ask about it, then they launch into their story ideas, tell you about the story they've been wanting to write for eons, or the comedy sketch they wrote and might actually go do an open mic night now... etc. Yeah, we all want to get paid and make a living if we can, but the connection with people is where the stuff that matters comes from.

As far as the money part, I think the 34% increase related to quality book covers is pretty telling, and the article suggests that combines with the 13% from editing. 47% is a big increase, particularly as numbers rise.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> This makes me suspect it is a self-selected sample. It's not certain from the above para, but I wouldn't rely on it until I knew the methodology. Self-selected samples are not statistically reliable.
> 
> If they don't know the email addresses, how did they collect the sample? Where did they get the respondents? How did they contact them? If the survey takers contacted the sample, then they must have so way of getting back in touch. If the respondents are self-selected, and simply filled in a form on a web page, then the sample is self-selected.
> 
> I don't know. Anybody have better info?


As I remember, it was self-selected. There was a thread on here asking for people to fill in the survey, it was also mentioned on various blogs & tweeted by lots of people.


----------



## seela connor (Apr 11, 2011)

I personally feel like I simply love the act of writing stories -- the kind of stories that I like to read -- and feel blessed to have a chance to also publish them.  Yes, it's a business and I try to treat it like one, but basically I would be doing this with or without the payout.  If a few people also happen to make it big, well then that's also pretty awesome!


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Hilary Thomson said:


> I wouldn't pay much attention to the data at this point. Self-publishing through programs like KDP and Pubit is so young a business, the data isn't very meaningful.


I don't think it matters how long a self-publisher has been in the business. I expect these numbers to stay about the same as long as self-publishing is around. Actually, the percentage at the bottom end of the income spectrum will probably get bigger as more authors publish, sales don't meet their expectations and they move on to the _next big thing_


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

sicklove said:


> My goal is to make 50k / month
> 
> I guess that's why I'm already 1/4th the way through book 2 while the 1st book is waiting on the cover design.


You crack me up! Yeah, $50k per month wouldn't be bad but this is a public board and I want to at least appear not so self-deluded...lol


----------



## Christine Murray (Oct 4, 2011)

MGalloway said:


> It's not all that surprising, though. I'm in the sub-500 group. In fact, I don't think I'm broken the $100 barrier, and that's across four titles.


I guess I thought it would be closer to the estimated average in trad publishing, which tends to be four figures at least. I know only a small number of writers make a living exclusively from writing, but $500 is less than $45 p/m. Which is extremely low, by anyone's reckoning.

I know some writers are making less than $500 dollars, it was the fact that 50% are below that threshold that struck me. Half of those surveyed. I took part in the survey and I felt like a bit of a fraud taking part in it, like I wasn't a 'good enough' self-pubber to be counted. So to find out that earning wise I'm in the top 50% was, to me, surprising.


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

Mcoorlim said:


> If you want to make more money spend those 8 hours a day working on your next book. I have a blog that I never update, a twitter that I never tweet to, and a facebook that I neglect, and I've been making $500 a month since my third month doing this.
> 
> I gave away 100+ copies of my first story through LibraryThing and got a dozen or so positive reviews. This has had a negligible impact on my sales. Reviews don't matter. Social media doesn't matter.


This...I finished a book last month that has been proofed and is about to go to my editor and I am 60k into the first draft of my next novel. I write every day...all the time. Yeah, I spend some time on these sites to catch up with fellow authors but the only way you can make money is by having a catalog of work people can pick and choose from. That won't happen blogging and twittering, unfortunately.

If you do want to advertise, there are some great sites that have a lot of traffic and get your book out that way (not all of them are pricey either). But don't spend that precious time you could be working on your next novel on social media websites.


----------



## williamvw (Mar 12, 2012)

Shawn Inmon said:


> Likewise, isn't it possible that these reported numbers are dragged down by the large number of independent authors who upload something on a lark with no editing, no formatting, no decent cover art and thus, no sales?


Very possible. Also, speaking as one of the 1,000+ people who completed the Taleist survery behind these statistics, keep in mind that is 2011 data, and many people who filled out these surveys only started publishing in the 2010/2011 time frame. The Taleist results are a snapshot of an infant. Will I have crossed the $500 line two years from now? I sure hope so, but I'm definitely not surprised that I haven't yet.

An even more interesting statistic for me was the fact that essentially 2% of the respondents make $100,000 or more a year through self-publishing. These are called outliers in the report, which, statistically, they obviously are. Making $100,000/year from writing may seem like winning the lottery, but if you had a 2% chance of winning the lottery, you'd buy a lot more tickets, right?

I'm a lot more interested to see the 2014 Taleist results than the 2012 numbers. Today's fledgling data is interesting, but it's the trend that will be most enlightening. How will the mean income shift as the self-publishing market matures? THAT is the $64,000 (and then some) question.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> _"Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell..."_
> 
> ...but every last one of them was finally given a shot. And that is what matters.
> 
> B.


Exactly. How soon we forget.

Every story has access to a potential audience. If you combine skill with luck, you may just be able to work the rest of your life doing something you enjoy. The horror.

And no, probably you will not strike oil on the dirt you are mining, but few do and few ever did.

Writing is not a get rich quick scheme, it is not a Ponzi scheme, or pyramid selling; you must work at this, and even then, you may achieve little. But you do have a shot. More than you had a couple of short years ago.


----------



## bhealey (May 14, 2012)

The only thing this article has taught me is that I need to start writing erotica under a pen name.


----------



## Ernie Lindsey (Jul 6, 2010)

Mcoorlim said:


> If you want to make more money spend those 8 hours a day working on your next book. I have a blog that I never update, a twitter that I never tweet to, and a facebook that I neglect, and I've been making $500 a month since my third month doing this.
> 
> I gave away 100+ copies of my first story through LibraryThing and got a dozen or so positive reviews. This has had a negligible impact on my sales. Reviews don't matter. Social media doesn't matter.
> 
> All that matters is blurb, cover, and title, then get on writing your next book revenue stream.


I'm not quite at the $500 a month mark, but this has been my experience as well. I uploaded 3 shorts and a novel in the middle of December, then spent Jan/Feb/March busting my tail, trying to promote via LibraryThing, Facebook, Facebook ads, Twitter, Google ads, KND sponsorships, and all the other avenues, and *rarely* noticed an uptick in sales. I'd venture to say I haven't spent more than 10 hours in the past two months trying to promote, and my sales/borrows keep ticking merrily along. With all that time I saved, I finished another novel and will likely have it up and ready to go by this weekend. On to the next.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

sicklove said:


> My goal is to make 50k / month
> 
> I guess that's why I'm already 1/4th the way through book 2 while the 1st book is waiting on the cover design.


Mine's to make enough so I can buy the Pittsburgh Steelers. I have a way to go.

Hell, I'll take an extra $500 a year. Besides, the daydreams and delusions of grandeur are priceless. I can't get that watching reruns of Leave It To Beaver.


----------



## StephenLivingston (May 10, 2011)

Tracianna24 said:


> Self publishers every where need our help and support. Let's encourage them that they can make it in the book industry


Thank you Tracianna.


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

Mcoorlim said:


> If you want to make more money spend those 8 hours a day working on your next book. I have a blog that I never update, a twitter that I never tweet to, and a facebook that I neglect, and I've been making $500 a month since my third month doing this.
> 
> I'll keep promoting and writing it's what got me over that $500 a month hurdle. Thankfully I've been lucky enough to have a husband with a real job so I could just focus on writing. Actually the one thing that did more for my books than anything else was a promotion I was a part of where I used KDP to give away over 10K books. I'll give you this though, I have over 11K twitter followers and it's done *very little* for book sales. Facebook has been more productive and joining triber so my blog posts were actually being pushed out where people could see them.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Actually, the percentage at the bottom end of the income spectrum will probably get bigger as more authors publish, sales don't meet their expectations and they move on to the _next big thing_


True. While doing searches on this forum and elsewhere I've often read posts from a couple of years ago, clicked on someone's Amazon link and found they only uploaded one short story or book which sits at 1,000,000+ on the rankings or has never been bought at all.

Many people are going to put up a book or two, discover they're not the next Harry Potter and quit, while most people making a decent living are likely to have dozens of books up. That in itself will skew the numbers toward the low end.


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm going to continue to be a dreamer with the hopes that we may be the exception.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

I doubt any writer will have on their tombstone: "Made less than $500 selling ebooks" or even "Made more...etc." 

Often it isn't how much one makes but what is done with it. Colonel Sanders took his first $195 Social Security check and a recipe for fried chicken and built a brand and an empire he sold for millions.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Mine's to make enough so I can buy the Pittsburgh Steelers. I have a way to go.
> 
> Hell, I'll take an extra $500 a year. Besides, the daydreams and delusions of grandeur are priceless. I can't get that watching reruns of Leave It To Beaver.


I'm willing to put in the effort it takes to make 50k a month, because I know the lifestyle associated with that level of income is one that I enjoy


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

I can only tell you what worked for me.  I'm definitely not rolling in money, but my sales have increased dramatically since I begin promoting consistently.  Whatever works for you I say use it.  My main idea is to brand my work so that when people see a book that I've written they want to buy it.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Vegasgyrl007 said:


> Last time I checked, you can live on $50k a year and MANY indie authors make this (and more) and you never hear about them.
> Personally, I don't want that kind of fame. I just want to be able to support my family and I can do that just fine on $50k per year.


I guess it depends on where you live, but for many parts of the country, $50K/year -- while a very nice chunk of change -- (and I should note I'm not making anywhere near that) wouldn't be enough to warrant quitting your day job for.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

Christine Murray said:


> I guess I thought it would be closer to the estimated average in trad publishing, which tends to be four figures at least. I know only a small number of writers make a living exclusively from writing, but $500 is less than $45 p/m. Which is extremely low, by anyone's reckoning.


Part of that, though, might be that there are a lot more obstacles to overcome (at least in terms of marketing, promotion, etc.). That seems to be changing, however.



Christine Murray said:


> I know some writers are making less than $500 dollars, it was the fact that 50% are below that threshold that struck me. Half of those surveyed. I took part in the survey and I felt like a bit of a fraud taking part in it, like I wasn't a 'good enough' self-pubber to be counted. So to find out that earning wise I'm in the top 50% was, to me, surprising.


Congrats on being in the top 50%!


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Stuff like this cracks me up. How many self-published authors are there on KDP? And they based their conclusions on 1,007 people who filled out an online survey?

And how does this compare to the average $$ earned from traditionally published authors? Let's throw that up as an online survey.


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

@Michelle Hughes

We all have our own paths. Do what works best for you!

Personally, I didn't get much out of the social networks and prefer to do what I do best and that is write. It is paying off and I make a decent amount of money per month. I suppose that is all that counts: what ever you do is paying off for _you_.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Victorine said:


> Stuff like this cracks me up. How many self-published authors are there on KDP? And they based their conclusions on 1,007 people who filled out an online survey?
> 
> And how does this compare to the average $$ earned from traditionally published authors? Let's throw that up as an online survey.


The average for traditionally published authors would be higher simply because a substantial amount get advances. Yog's Law and all that...


----------



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

Dave Adams said:


> Well, I'm a little past $500 now, so I'll put the happy spin on that and say I'm in the top half of self-published earnings!


Or put another way - better than average


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

LilyT said:


> The average for traditionally published authors would be higher simply because a substantial amount get advances. Yog's Law and all that...


You can already find such a survey for the romance genre on Brenda Hiatt's "Show Me the Money" site. She's been compiling anonymous data (self-reported by authors) for many years now.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

sicklove said:


> I'm willing to put in the effort it takes to make 50k a month, because I know the lifestyle associated with that level of income is one that I enjoy


Exactly! Here's to working our asses off to have the easy life....


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

Hilary Thomson said:


> I wouldn't pay much attention to the data at this point. Self-publishing through programs like KDP and Pubit is so young a business, the data isn't very meaningful. A lot of self-pubbers don't even have two years in the business, and plenty don't even have a year. If your full career of books hasn't yet been created and put out there, you can't tell what it's going to sell. Nor can you tell what you're going to sell until your author name gradually seeps into the public consciousness, a process which can take several years. People tend to forgot it's usually taken trad authors many years and several books to really hit their sales stride, and become well-known.
> 
> On the whole, I'd label this article excitable nonsense. Screech! Screech! Self-pubbers make only a few hundred bucks after a few months of publishing! Well, what the heck did you expect?


This. Besides, that $500 I've barely been able to make was $500 more than what I made when I wasn't self publishing. So whatever!


----------



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

This is the bit I found interesting. 

Other keys to success included making a book trailer, investing in proofreading, editing and cover design, *and being over 40.* Romance writers also did better than science-fiction, fantasy or literary fiction writers.


----------



## 41352 (Apr 4, 2011)

LilyT said:


> The average for traditionally published authors would be higher simply because a substantial amount get advances. Yog's Law and all that...


This is only for traditionally published authors published with the *big *houses.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

LilyT said:


> The average for traditionally published authors would be higher simply because a substantial amount get advances. Yog's Law and all that...


Unless we include all authors that have submitted to agents and publishers in the hopes of being "published" (Read: aspiring)


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Hm. Extrapolating from my current rate of failure, I'll need to have about 45 titles out to make $500/year.

So glad I'm not in this for the money. Just wish I could remember what I _am_ in it for, though...


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LilyT said:


> The average for traditionally published authors would be higher simply because a substantial amount get advances. Yog's Law and all that...


But they are saying $500 a year. Even those that do get advances, you'd have to spread that out over the years they've been published. And add in all those who didn't get advances. I've heard so many authors say they make more indie publishing than traditionally, it's not even funny.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Unless we include all authors that have submitted to agents and publishers in the hopes of being "published" (Read: aspiring)


Let's not kid ourselves. You've got to figure in the non-fiction writers as well, and that includes the likes of pro athletes, politicians, and even Snookie, who not only get royalties, but they also get cash for coming on radio and TV shows to talk about their books. I hardly think the successful self-pub'd authors stack up as far as money earned per writer off their books. It doesn't matter. Point is, indies are just getting rolling, many, many, many more indies will improve with time, and they already make an average of 10k a year. It's the new .com, and all you have to do is write a good book. Simple!


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Victorine said:


> But they are saying $500 a year. Even those that do get advances, you'd have to spread that out over the years they've been published. And add in all those who didn't get advances. I've heard so many authors say they make more indie publishing than traditionally, it's not even funny.


The article also said that writers who traditionally published first and then switch to hybrid/indie-only make more money. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

Example: Author A publishes a novel with Midpub and gets $X advance. That X is above $500 so s/he already outearns most indies. They earn out that advance but their royalties are piddling. The book slowly goes out of print and the rights revert. They upload the book to KDP and now receive 70% of royalties. Multiply this by the number of books they've published. Bob Mayer is a good example of this.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

LilyT said:


> Example: Author A publishes a novel with Midpub and gets $X advance. That X is above $500 so s/he already outearns most indies. They earn out that advance but their royalties are piddling. The book slowly goes out of print and the rights revert. They upload the book to KDP and now receive 70% of royalties. Multiply this by the number of books they've published. Bob Mayer is a good example of this.


Or Gemma Halliday. She hit the NY Times bestseller list with her High Heels series that was previously published by Dorchester. (And we all know the troubles Dorch had.)


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

Just a few random points:

1. Anyone who has ever studied statistics would never say "Oh, but the sample size is too small." Statistians work with formulas to determine the needed sample size. There is a interesting little online tool that lets you see what size sample you need based on what confidence level you are aiming for. For example, if we assume there are a million self-publishers, and you want a 99% confidence rating with a +/- 3% variable, you only need a sample size of 1846

2. In self-selecting surveys, the people most likely to participate are those doing well. So it is more likely that people with no sales at all would not participate in the survey. The type of people who "upload and forget about it" (as some people have speculated dragged down the median) wouldn't even have been on the sites that were offering the survey.

3. Self-publishing isn't this new thing that just started two years ago. People have been selling ebooks successfully online for over a decade now. So claiming this is all still too "new and shiny" to judge only means you haven't been paying attention. It may be new and shiny to people who just started, but the industry existed before Amazon. Do you think Amazon created the idea for the Kindle out of a void? Amazon sought to capitalize on a market that was already growing and existing.

4. These numbers aren't "negative". They are reality. It's like any other business. Most businesses fail in the first three-five years. That is reality. That doesn't mean people shouldn't open businesses. It just means you need to pay attention to detail. READ the study. It pretty clearly says that there is a relationship between professional presentation (cover, editing, etc) and profit. So it needs you need to come into this with some resources at your disposal to do it right. You can't upload the book in beta mode and hope to go back and edit it later after you make some money. If you do the work on the front end, it pays off on the back end.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

All excellent points Julie. I think some people look at this survey as being a slam against self-publishing, rather than using it as an informative piece of what the self-publishing world looks like.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them, the rest of us could not succeed." Mark Twain, _Puddn'head Wilson. _


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

LilyT said:


> The article also said that writers who traditionally published first and then switch to hybrid/indie-only make more money. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.


That's what I did. I was one of the doomed Dorchester authors who got my rights back. I have made FAR more money on my backlist than Dorchester ever claimed they owed me. (I didn't actually get paid for a lot of it)


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> 3. Self-publishing isn't this new thing that just started two years ago. People have been selling ebooks successfully online for over a decade now. So claiming this is all still too "new and shiny" to judge only means you haven't been paying attention. It may be new and shiny to people who just started, but the industry existed before Amazon.


I agree with all your points except this one. Yeah, it's been around for ten years, but in the early days, it was considered BY MOST would-be indie authors to be a kind of a dark industry, where the Lulu's of the world "scammed" you into buying fifty copies of your own book for $40 each, and trying to peddle them like old time encyclopedia salesmen. It's only been recently that e-books have taken off, when you didn't need to be chained to your desk to read an e-book, that people have realized that writing that book they always wanted to write may not be the waste of time they thought it was. Hence the exponential explosion in the number of self-pub'd authors. Let's say the serious shift started about five years ago. Takes a long time for someone to get the skills to write. Most of us had to re-learn the things we'd forgotten from English classes, and we had a lot more things we had to learn before we could start putting out something legible. I think that within the next five-ten years, there will emerge a wave of indie authors that rivals the trads, because the many of the people who have the talent to write, will just be getting going. Of course, many of them will become the hybrid writers, part indie, part trad. But you'll never convince me that this is as good as indie writing is going to get. I KNOW we'll all get better. Well, not the ones who don't have it and give up along the way. And THAT ratio, the number of bad authors among the indies, will probably stay constant. In short, we have nowhere to go but up.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Wow, I feel so much better about my sales now.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

V - self-publishing was popular amongst the graphic artists/comic writers (especially in places like Canada, where there was no local publisher so you had to go w/ Americans who wouldn't take Canadian material). Also, it has always been popular with religious, memoir, and non-fiction for those who do speaking engagements. Fiction, however, is rather new.

I don't see why people are seeing this as doom and gloom. /shrug Folks on average don't make a lot off self-publishing. I don't see how this is surprising. In fact, this is rather old news. I'd argue that the most surprising thing is that the average is now up to $500 or less. For a while, it was $100 or less.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Just a quibble the math geek inside me won't let pass. 

$500 is the median. . .it's the number in the middle.  Half make more than that, half make less. (Or did in 2011.)  It is NOT the average.

The very first paragraph of the article says the average is $10,000.

So if you made, say $2000. . . .you're well above the 50th percentile, but below average. 

OTOH, given that the respondents self selected, the sample can not be considered strictly statistically valid.  Informative, perhaps, but the sample was not chosen randomly.  No idea if it was large enough but if anyone knows how many self publishers there are, the formula Julie linked to earlier would answer that question.  I also don't see any thing in the article to indicate if respondents were restricted to those who'd been publishing for some minimum amount of time.  If not, that would tend to make the results skew to low numbers, as well.  OR, as Julie opined, maybe people who'd not had much in sales wouldn't choose to participate; that would tend to skew higher.  The article really doesn't have information to really decide what's what.

Not that it matters: as a reader, I don't really care how much anyone makes.   I just want the authors whose work I enjoy to make enough that they can continue to write books I want to buy.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500
> 
> Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


Interesting story. Now, let's make a comparison by taking every writer who submits their work to the Traditional machine and see how much they make. And you have to include every writer who never made it out of the slush piles. I want the comparison to be between all writers who go one route vs. all writers who go another route. Comparing the ones who made it past the gatekeepers on one side and not doing the same on the other is unfair. Right?


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

StoutWriter said:


> And put into perspective: if the average advance pays out over the course of 2-3 years, then $10k/year would be equivalent to a $20k-$30k advance.


Only if you assume that an author publishes a single title every two or three years.

Very, very few of the people making $10,000/year as indie writers have a single book for sale, I suspect.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

This article means most KB crew are above average or well on their way to being above average.

The glass is half full!

Before I got into writing, I was immersed in making pottery. Now, if you want to examine an art that doesn't have a lot of high-end up-side, have a peek at ceramics. It can take hours to make a cup that some will compare to the ones purchasable at Ikea for $1.00. The top earners in ceramics are by no means household names like top authors, nor do they make the same earnings, for the items are not infinitely digitally replicable. (I suppose you could license the forms, but you get the idea.)

Self-pubbing may have a lot of people at the bottom end of earnings, but are they satisfied that they gave it a shot?

Are Dreams with a capital D good for us? Is it good for the people at the bottom end of earnings to keep trying, keep writing? I feel that, as long as they aren't being scammed, Dreams are o.k.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Interesting story. Now, let's make a comparison by taking every writer who submits their work to the Traditional machine and see how much they make.


Hmm, let's say there are 2000 literary agents in the US and UK, they each get 100 unsolicited queries a day. That's 73 million queries a year. Lets' assume each author queries an average of 40 agents before either giving up or getting signed. That's 1,825,000 authors per year querying. Agents typically say they sign .1% of the people who query them. That's 1,825 authors signed. Of course, then you have the books they solicit, which adds authors signed. Let's say that's another 8,000, and round it up to 10,000. So, using what I think are conservative figures (could be wrong), if you add in the authors who didn't make it through the gauntlet, you have to divide the average a published author makes by 200. Do you think the average trad published author makes 100k? Because, if it's less than that, then the number is less than the $500.

So, there. Take that!
Too much spin?


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Zelah Meyer said:


> This article is regarding this survey: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,115110.0.html
> 
> So, it's based on authors from primarily the US with some UK authors & all of those who replied to the survey would have been following the latest news on self-publishing enough to notice the link to the survey being tweeted, etc. - Thus, they probably weren't the 'just bang it up on Kindle & forget about it' crowd. If anything, the real average return is probably lower!


This is my suspicion. People plugged in enough to respond to the survey are probably on the high end.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm of the belief that it doesn't matter if the odds on something are 1,000 to 1. If I am the "1," my odds are 100%. So it doesn't matter if only 50% of self-pubbers make a certain amount per year if *I'm *making enough to make me happy (and I'm making enough to have changed my life for the better, yet it's far less than the $50,000 some say wouldn't be enough). I bet there are a lot of people in the less than $500 a year category who are happy to see their books sell at all, and if they're selling at $.99, they have to sell almost 1,500 a year.

I think I'm surprised that 50% make that much, although I also think Julie's right that self-reporters to a survey like this are probably pretty involved.


----------



## Steven Lewis (Nov 23, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> 4. These numbers aren't "negative". They are reality.


Thanks, Julie, we just wrote up what the numbers showed. The Guardian focussed on the question of earnings, which is fair enough given that many (most?) articles about self-publishing to this point were also financially skewed, except in those cases to talk about how well the outlier in question was doing.

The report itself isn't so focussed on income. It's 12,000 words divided into six chapters. The media might not find those parts as interesting, which is understandable, but for authors the stuff on marketing, what works and so on is quite important.

That said, we did also have a chapter on Top Earners, and to address some of what's been said here: those were authors who said they could live on their royalties. We let them choose because what one person can live on for a year is a long way south of what others of us might need, so there was a real range there.

In terms of methodology, yes the respondents were self-selecting, and many of them were not what you might call going gangbusters in sales terms. But, as many people here, and we in the survey, point out: money isn't the only measure of success, and selling one copy is more than you'd be doing in a slush pile.

We can't say, as we acknowledge in the report, the survey is representative. No one has a census on the population of self-publishers, so no one could say their sample was representative. Even Amazon with it's mountains of data doesn't even know if its self-publishing authors are men or women.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I'm not usually a glass half full type guy but this is awesome news.  10K Average?  $500 median?  That's pretty amazing.  You have to expect a significant number of books are going to lose money or make very little.  That is an inevitable reality of this type of speculative venture.  But there is a very realistic up side that many are achieving.

I agree that those who choose to respond are likely to be successful, and that this seems a small sample size.  But still, there's plenty to celebrate here.


----------



## MBlack (Mar 12, 2012)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500
> 
> Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


I haven't read all the replies yet but



> average earnings were just $10,000 a year.


I'll take it!! Sounds low only until one realizes that not all authors are attempting to live completely off their writing. It doesn't take into account that writing is usually a slow build thing. 10k is an EXCELLENT early career year's income.



> Half the respondents failed to reach $500 in royalties in 2011~ from the article


Part of that is because some of them only began to pub late in the year. I read the survey on which the article is based, when it was going around last winter, and there was no distinction made, as I recall, between a full year of stats and a partial.


----------



## Ian Marks (Jan 22, 2012)

Yes, but truthfully most self-published books aren't very good.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

We may see a future where there are very few writers making a living with books. Lots of people support themselves in some other way, and write on a part-time basis. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Ian Marks said:


> Yes, but truthfully most self-published books aren't very good.


I can't positively say that _most_ aren't very good, I can only be sure that _some_ -- probably even _many_ -- aren't very good.

But along with the many that are dreck, there are also many that *are* very good.

The same, by the way, may be said about non-self-published books.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I can't positively say that _most_ aren't very good, I can only be sure that _some_ -- probably even _many_ -- aren't very good.


Meet Sturgeon's Revelation.


----------



## pulsemyne (May 7, 2012)

Does the thread title imply that I might one day make a few hundred out of my book? Please god let that be true. At current pace I'll be luck to make 50 dollars let alone 500!


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

It's not surprising. Just because it's now possible to make money self publishing doesn't mean that it's easy. If you get into this emerging caper with the idea that you'll write one or two novels or a handfull of shorts and make a killing then you're either delusional or very talented.

To make a living writing - trad or self published - you need to work bloody hard. Having the talent and the ideas is only part of the story, the rest is all about sweat.


----------



## Lily Mia (Apr 24, 2012)

In regards to most self pub books aren't very good.

Anyone heard about the recent sci-fi blockbusters about a board game and something about Mar's bomb at the cinemas recently? Millions ploughed in, millions lost.

Sometimes even traditional, commercial stuff is not very good.

There is a small nondescript take away near me that produces food that surpasses in quality, price and volume to high end restaurants.

I've read self pub stories over the years that have been so original that in my own opinion they are light years ahead of a lot of tired story formats that are currently doing the rounds.

For everyday purposes including entertainment there is no such thing as perfection. If there was what would the world look like?

There is good and bad everywhere.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

http://gavreads.co.uk/2012/05/thoughts-dont-write-for-the-money/

I would like to hope that when I finish my first novel I will make more than $500 from it. These folks say I wont.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

@WizardWyrm said:


> I would like to hope that when I finish my first novel I will make more than $500 from it. These folks say I wont.


Bet they lean politically to the left, lefties *HATE* anyone who succeeds.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

My policy is if someone isn't paying my rent, I don't have to listen to what they say.  

Listen to yourself and you can't go wrong.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> We may see a future where there are very few writers making a living with books.


I already make a living selling memberships to adult sites on the internet, writing for me is self-expression


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Coupons?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

It's never been easy to make a living as an author. Only a small percentage could. But today more good writers with good stories can make more than ever before.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

I won't write for the money, buuuuuuut I'll take it.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I write for probably a hundred different reasons. Dreaming about hitting a vein of gold adds a little more fun to it. It's a lot like that classic "raising the stakes" move near the end of a story.

If someone wants to write to earn a living and that's 100% of their motivation, I say more power to them. Doesn't make their dreams or work any less valid, to me, than someone who would do it for free. I'd still keep reading so long as I enjoyed the books.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Lily Mia said:


> In regards to most self pub books aren't very good.
> 
> Anyone heard about the recent sci-fi blockbusters about a board game and something about Mar's bomb at the cinemas recently? Millions ploughed in, millions lost.


Usually if it's SF I'm up for it - at least to give it a try. But that movie just looked dumb. Even from the trailers. So yeah, I agree - they make them that way based on a formula that says if you use this and this you get people who like it. The problem is that formulas don't work unless people care about what's happening.

I'm not worried about making money (although I fully intend to) - if you work hard, produce the best product you can over and over again and build relationships with "customers" you've won half the battle. The rest can be improved on with a little attention to marketing.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Most writers don't make money.  Most writers have never made money.

If you are in it for the money, there are loads of easier ways to make money.

If money is your agenda, go make it easier somewhere else.

If you are _lucky_ you will ALSO make money.

You're choice.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2012)

How about we *ALL* make enough money from our writing so that we can keep writing *JUST* for the love of it. That seems like the best outcome.


----------



## Enkel (May 15, 2012)

Shawn Inmon said:


> My full-time job is being a Managing Broker for a real estate office in Washington State.
> 
> Several years ago, the Multiple Listing Service I belong to released a report that said that the average agent in the MLS sold two houses per year and earned $6000. That number was severely skewed because there are many agents who are licensed and belong to the MLS but never, ever do a transaction.
> 
> ...


I would agree with this, except the survey was of 1000+ self selected authors. So the responders were actively calling themselves authors and probably on some forum targeting authors. So, it isn't like they uploaded something and forgot about it.

Another interesting thing is that only 25% (maybe it was 20%) were professionally edited. So, even though they called themselves authors... they weren't spending much money on it.


----------



## Cheryl Douglas (Dec 7, 2011)

Lee Lopez said:


> Don't quit your day job, if you're a indie. Unless you hit the jackpot, like Amanda Hockings, or Bob Mayer, good luck making a living. If you write a book it's not to make money, but to write a good book. It's the creative side of your brain working and chattering away at you. Selling and selling well is a confirmation of your work and imagination. But don't count on making a living unless you hit it like 50 Shades, which was a fluke.


I think it's possible to make a living, without the expectation of becoming the next Amanda Hockings or EL James. I set out to write the best books I was capable of, spent months on this board gaining insight, paid for professional editing, proofreading, cover design, and a few months in, I'm making $3K a month. That may not be the norm, but I think it's important for people to know that it is possible. And yes, I did quit my day job so I could write 6 hours a day, seven days a week. I realize it's not realistic for most people to quit their day jobs to write full-time, but there are people (even newbies like me) who are making it work!


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

sicklove said:


> Bet they lean politically to the left, lefties *HATE* anyone who succeeds.


  That is absurd; however, I will assume you meant it only as a jest.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Looking back at the survey, I have to wonder how many indie writers give up after uploading just one or two e-books. And how many are folks who had a trunk novel or two they've had around for years, popped it up on KDP, then mostly forgot about it. My guess would be there have been quite a few, though I'm not suggesting they are a majority.

Writing can be disheartening for many, especially those with dreams of instant wealth and/or fame. Some will give up after writing a few short stories or a novel. It's always been that way and probably will continue.

The trick is to never give up.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

Ty Johnston said:


> The trick is to never give up.


While encouraging everyone else around you to give up, it would be a tactic to discourage competition.

In the web marketing game, I have known many people to make false statements to dissuade others from taking advantage of a source of traffic or a particular promotion


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

This report isn't surprising in the least. I know there's a lot of success stories on this site, but consider amazon and all those books ranked 100,000 and lower...of which there are more than a few.

Every morning when I complain about only selling one or two books the day prior, my wife is there to (rightly) smack me upside the head and remind me that anything > 0 is a win.


----------



## Steven Lewis (Nov 23, 2010)

Enkel said:


> I would agree with this, except the survey was of 1000+ self selected authors. So the responders were actively calling themselves authors and probably on some forum targeting authors. So, it isn't like they uploaded something and forgot about it.


The second part is certainly true, as we acknowledge in chapter one about who took the survey. The results will definitely be affected by where people heard about it. I think it would be fairer to say, however, that the respondents were describing themselves as "self-publishers" rather than "authors" in a professional sense. "Self-publishing" and variations on it was the language we used when seeking respondents.

There are some great comments in this thread, but judging the full report on the basis of the media stories and blog posts is like judging a house by looking through the letterbox. There is much in the report about, for instance, the "quality" of self-published books in terms of what sort of help authors were receiving. Those who took what might be argued to be a less "professional" approach -- e.g. the 30% who do their own proofreading -- did less in sales. Those who got more outside assistance saw positive results in their royalties. It did give credibility to an argument that self-publishers who rush to publication without "outside eyes" looking at their books first are being judged for it by readers.

The full report is six chapters -- there's a breakdown of their contents here here, as well as some infographics on about some of the high-level findings here. This is one of them:


----------



## IB (Jan 31, 2012)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> To make a living writing - trad or self published - you need to work bloody hard. Having the talent and the ideas is only part of the story, the rest is all about sweat.


Well put! Quoting myself (sorry!) from my book:

When I meet a newbie screenwriter and the first thing he or she says to me is "I love writing!", I know for a fact that they won't be a successful screenwriter. You write because you're driven to write. Some days you love it, other days you hate it.

(BTW, of the newbies screenwriters I've worked with, that broad and probably unfair generalization hasn't yet failed. None of those writers makes a living as a writer, while some of those whose first words to me about screenwriting were more along the lines of how, where, when, what, have found a career.)


----------



## Steven Lewis (Nov 23, 2010)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> my wife is there to (rightly) smack me upside the head and remind me that anything > 0 is a win.


Mine, too, and I love her for it


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500
> 
> Comprehensive survey of DIY writers suggests that despite a few high-profile successes most authors struggle to sell
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/24/self-published-author-earnings?CMP=twt_fd


This is surprising to you? I heard years ago that the average self published author sells about 75 copies. The advent of ebooks becoming mainstream may have upped that number since, however.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

George Berger said:


> Meet Sturgeon's Revelation.


George Berger: Poster Child of the 90 percent (of Sturgeon's Rule!)  LOL

But I jest...

...I've actually bought and read a George Berger title.

My doctor says my chances of recovery get better every week!

Okay, I jest again...

But joking aside, I did buy one of yours so far, George.  I do have it on my TBR List, but lately I've been on a Max Allan Collins kick. (His new Quarry stuff.)

And, in the spirit of Eric Bogosian in TALK RADIO, who famously delivered the line, "There's nothing more boring than people who love you," I'll deliver the most boring line of this post:

I have enjoyed what I've read so far, which is a nice Look Inside chunk from All the Wrong Reasons. It's well-written.

Now back to being interesting...


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

Victorine said:


> But they are saying $500 a year. Even those that do get advances, you'd have to spread that out over the years they've been published. And add in all those who didn't get advances. I've heard so many authors say they make more indie publishing than traditionally, it's not even funny.


This is what a friend of mine is going through. She got a publishing contract with a publisher and is STILL earning out her advance. It was a bit more than this but still her number one complaint is she made more off her book when it was self-pubbed. It's made me look at it from both perspectives and I feel bad for her because her novel is awesome but she just wasn't the *one* with the spark.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Cheryl Douglas said:


> I think it's possible to make a living, without the expectation of becoming the next Amanda Hockings or EL James.


My goal is to find 5,000 fans who'll buy every book I write; I don't know whether I'll achieve it, but it seems much easier than becoming the next best-seller, and would allow me to live comfortably writing three or four novels a year.

You don't need to sell millions of books to make a living, at least if you choose to live in a cheap area.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

$500 a year? I haven't added it up, but I doubt I have made that much in my entire self-publishing career. I get good reviews, but I am a lousy promoter.


----------



## MrPicture (Apr 25, 2012)

Ha! Not surprising since 11 out of 10 Kindle authors want to write the next Twilight. 

At this very moment, someone is pecking away at their next big thing, "Skylight", about a female masochist who faints at the sight of blood and falls in love with a Sadistic but benevolent Vampire. She says "Bite me!" He says, "No!" 

Now if that premise doesn't sell books, I don't know what will!

My local library asked me to review a novel about vampires. I replied, "I'd rather take cyanide."

So no, I'm not surprised. Of course, I expect to hit it big with my Kindle books


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> My doctor says my chances of recovery get better every week!


Look, look, _that one book_ of mine only nearly killed _one_ person. It's not like I'm a terrorist who's created a novella of mass destruction or anything. And I've learned my lesson about the incredible dangers of dedicating books to living people who I'd like to remain that way.



> George Berger: Poster Child of the 90 percent (of Sturgeon's Rule!)  LOL


You jest, perhaps, but, amusingly, I *do* have ten books out now, you know, and I've broken even on the expenses of exactly... one. I'm not sure that _all_ nine of the others are crap, but it's definitely possible. (For a broad enough definition of 'crap', anyway.) 

And thanks, though, for the kind words, and for having struggled past the horrible covers and atrocious blurbs that plague my books. 

Oh, if I'm going to be a poster boy, can I be the poster boy for not-taking-yourself-too-seriously?


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

I don't think the sample size is problematic. 1000 is a big group. The self-selecting element should raise questions, but give the sample, the trends might be good ballparks nonetheless.

My issue would be the old saw of "correlation does not equal causation." Spending money on covers, professional editors, etc. is not necessarily the cause of increased sales. Instead, these are quite likely to be signs of people who are already successful--already selling plenty of books--who thus have increased resources to put into these areas. So are they successful because they spend money on professional help? Or do they spend money on professional help because they are successful?

That's my take.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> So are they successful because they spend money on professional help? Or do they spend money on professional help because they are successful?


If you're smart enough to write a good book, you're probably smart enough to know your own limitations, which in most cases include editing and covers. You also have to be SERIOUS enough to be willing to allocate resources, however limited yours may be due to circumstances (and we all know the crappy economy is making it tight) to giving your book the best chance of success. Whether the chicken or the egg came first makes no difference. You probably have a healthy mix. But the part that makes them successful is the story. The voice on the page. The rest helps, but ultimately it's window dressing.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> If you're smart enough to write a good book, you're probably smart enough to know your own limitations, which in most cases include editing and covers. You also have to be SERIOUS enough to be willing to allocate resources, however limited yours may be due to circumstances (and we all know the crappy economy is making it tight) to giving your book the best chance of success. Whether the chicken or the egg came first makes no difference. You probably have a healthy mix. But the part that makes them successful is the story. The voice on the page. The rest helps, but ultimately it's window dressing.


On the one hand, this makes sense. On the other, this sounds like a pile of assumptions propped up by a healthy dose of confirmation bias.

The data on success in relation to whether one has been or has sought traditional publishing was especially flag-raising to me. The data presented having sought traditional publishing and been rejected as a minus in one's expected earnings. That just doesn't pass the smell test. Especially in light of your own logic here--submitting to agents and publishers is another sign of your serious commitment to making it as an author.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I don't think the sample size is problematic. 1000 is a big group.


One thousand is fine as a sample size if it is properly constructed. If not properly constructed, results are unreliable. A random sample of 1,000 has a simple margin or error of 3% at 95% confidence. (It gets more complex as we drop the "simple" stuff.)

National polls are very often done with a size around 1,000. If we listen to all the polls in this campaign season, they are often announced as something like, "A random sample of 1,134 registered women voters with a 3% margin of error indicated blah blah blah."


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> --submitting to agents and publishers is another sign of your serious commitment to making it as an author.


In today's world that no longer matters at all. Just keep writing books and promoting yourself, outsmart the next guy.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Totally, Terrence. I'm just saying it's not like they only asked 10 people. It's almost certainly not a completely representative sample--I've spent enough time at the bottom, and observing those around there with me, to know just how many there are--but it's still a big ol' pile of people. I'm willing to treat it as being within the ballpark, with the understanding that more successful people were probably more likely to respond.


----------



## Steven Lewis (Nov 23, 2010)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> ...with the understanding that more successful people were probably more likely to respond.


I'm not sure that's true; it's certainly not something we could prove of course.



Edward W. Robertson said:


> My issue would be the old saw of "correlation does not equal causation."


Very true and that note of caution is sounded loudly in the report. If only good sales flowed automatically from good editing and a good cover! <sigh>


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Steven Lewis said:


> I'm not sure that's true; it's certainly not something we could prove of course.
> 
> ...
> 
> Very true and that note of caution is sounded loudly in the report. If only good sales flowed automatically from good editing and a good cover! <sigh>


That's cool. Don't mean to imply you've drawn any hard and fast conclusions. In fact, I agree that spending money on professional cover artists and editors is probably a contributing factor to success. Just pointing out that while this provides evidence that way, it's not _proof_, if you know what I mean, and we should all be cautious to conclude as much. Sounds like we're on the same page.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

None of this is proof of anything.


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

I don't think those figures are a huge surprise but neither do I think they're completely reflective of an accurate market.  There's a lot of people who just publish pure rubbish simply because they can - writers like that are going to severely skew the odds, as I believe someone mentioned.  However, as most people have said less than 2% of writers make the really big money so it's like trying to catch lightning in a bottle, you simply have to do it because you love it and not because you think it might be a get rich quick scheme.  I consider myself fortunate that I sell fairly consistently, not flying off the shelves obviously but doing ok and with each book  I hope to do a little better.  I've already sold well over the $500 mark but I'm not expecting to become a millionaire any time soon.


----------



## IB (Jan 31, 2012)

traceya said:


> I don't think those figures are a huge surprise but neither do I think they're completely reflective of an accurate market. There's a lot of people who just publish pure rubbish simply because they can - writers like that are going to severely skew the odds, as I believe someone mentioned. However, as most people have said less than 2% of writers make the really big money so it's like trying to catch lightning in a bottle, you simply have to do it because you love it and not because you think it might be a get rich quick scheme. I consider myself fortunate that I sell fairly consistently, not flying off the shelves obviously but doing ok and with each book I hope to do a little better. I've already sold well over the $500 mark but I'm not expecting to become a millionaire any time soon.


Traceya, Great attitude! Keep writing, keep focused, and you may catch lightning in a bottle. Good luck!


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

I think they were jesting?


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

There is another post about this here and the comments after this one are great! http://gavreads.co.uk/2012/05/thoughts-dont-write-for-the-money/

and here http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,115219.0.html


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> If money is your agenda, go make it easier somewhere else.


Why?


----------



## 39179 (Mar 16, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> But isn't that always the case? I think the motivation should never be money but loving what you do. I wouldn't write "young adult" for instance because I don't like it and wouldn't be any good at it. I also wouldn't write "romances" either because that's not what moves me and others do it a lot better than I possibly could. So you've got to find what you love and the appreciate each and every sale. We can not all be best sellers, but we can do our level best and be proud of our work.


Lovely!


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

I have no problem with the numbers. Writing has always been a mostly long odds sort of a career choice. But I think here we've got to look at the bigger picture. Most of these indies (like me) are people that would never have been published at all were it not for the digital revolution and the kindle. So five hundred dollars or however many sales is a plus on nothing.

But there's also a freedom in being able to write and not have to worry about the money side of things. I mean sure, maybe to make a living from your books is a dream, but at the same time, writing full time - that sounds like a job. At the moment I work for a living and write for the passion. But if someday I became humungously successful and didn't need the job, would that really be a good thing? Or would it simply kill the passion?

So my thought is that instead of worrying about how much or how little people make, we should really just celebrate the fact that a whole bunch of people who would never otherwise be published, have got books out and sell a few copies and can be rightfully proud of that.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Cheryl Douglas said:


> I think it's possible to make a living, without the expectation of becoming the next Amanda Hockings or EL James. I set out to write the best books I was capable of, spent months on this board gaining insight, paid for professional editing, proofreading, cover design, and a few months in, I'm making $3K a month. That may not be the norm, but I think it's important for people to know that it is possible. And yes, I did quit my day job so I could write 6 hours a day, seven days a week. I realize it's not realistic for most people to quit their day jobs to write full-time, but there are people (even newbies like me) who are making it work!


This is great. And it seems to confirm that one of the most effective ways to write and earn a reasonable amount of dollars is to write a compelling series. Easier said than done for many of us. 

(See EC scurrying around office looking for hot new series idea only to find a drained pen and a paperclip.)


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

@WizardWyrm said:


> I think they were jesting?


Sicklove was jesting, I believe, with this statement...*"Bet they lean politically to the left, lefties HATE anyone who succeeds."*


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

I write for the money. Seriously.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> I write for the money. Seriously.


You can say that because you're rolling in it! 

Leave some room on the charts for the rest of us, Ryk.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Why?


Because writing is so hard to make a living at. The amount of effort you put in, put into most other jobs, will get you more money, faster.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

$500 a year?

Joking aside, I've been keeping a month-to-month record and although the jury is still out on May, which would complete 12 months since MOST LIKELY debuted...

I've made approximately three times that amount.

Of course, I didn't make most of it from Most Likely and Shada, though they helped. I have some pen name books that drew the bulk of that income.

But as of April 30, I've sold 474 copies of either my own stuff or my pen-name stuff combined. For a total of over $1,400 and with May looking like it'll account for another $200.

So, about $1,600 in my first year, or three times more than the bottom fifty percent?

Not bad, I guess.

But my pen name is outselling me by an embarrassing amount. Like Stephen King did to Richard Bachman, I may eventually have to kill him.  Arrogant prat, outselling the real me... cherry smoothies, anyone?


----------



## GWakeling (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm lucky enough to earn my living as a writer, albeit writing copy for other people. One day, I hope, I might make enough to enjoy only writing my own stuff. In the meantime, writing for others keeps me on my toes.


----------



## Harry Dewulf (Oct 4, 2010)

GWakeling said:


> I'm lucky enough to earn my living as a writer, albeit writing copy for other people. One day, I hope, I might make enough to enjoy only writing my own stuff. In the meantime, writing for others keeps me on my toes.


Probably the simplest route to one day making a living from your own writing. I'm not talking big £££'s, but a living.

I read those figures too. My first thought was: wait-half are making more than $500 a year? Awesome! Look at the average. Who's going to tell me you don't want $4000 a year from something you do in your leisure time?

Fantastic. I should raise my fees.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

I'm an artistic guy. I love to create and basically I don't write for the money. I never did. I write to tell unique stories what no one ever told before. BUT, and here is the tiny but... the people who used to buy my books, buy my arts, buy my services, they used to pay for my work. So, what should I do? Refuse their money? Nah! I won't do that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, folks, there's been a discussion for a day or so about the Guardian article that this blog post cites.  The author of the study has joined in there.  I'm going to merge this with that thread, sorry for any confusion...

Betsy


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

HA! 

All of you are doing it wrong.

I made 50K just last month.

The month before, I made 50J.

The month before that, 50I.

I keep working at it. I figure another year or so I'll have 50 of the whole alphabet and then I'm going to boil me up a big old pot of alphabet soup. Being a writer, it's been years since I've eaten anything...


----------



## Harry Dewulf (Oct 4, 2010)

Steve Vernon said:


> HA!
> 
> All of you are doing it wrong.
> 
> ...


You're silly.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Steve Vernon said:


> HA!
> 
> All of you are doing it wrong.
> 
> ...


Steve...you are a very strange person...

Off to check out your books again. 

Betsy


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

I actually found the Guardian article very encouraging. I've only been doing this for a couple of months, and I'm already in the upper 50%? Yeah! *g* 

Upthread folks were discussing why books with professional editors and covers tend to do better than those without. I think there might be another aspect to this: perhaps writers with a more professional attitude to their writing to start with are more likely to hire professional help? Just a thought.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

RuthNestvold said:


> perhaps writers with a more professional attitude to their writing to start with are more likely to hire professional help? Just a thought.


Exactly. Publishing is a business, not a charity. Where a lot of writers get themselves in trouble is when they come into this with a sense of entitlement. The people who constantly look for ways to game the system, who engage in unscrupulous behavior, who throw stuff together and then cry about people judging them or "forget the errors what did you think about the story?" (If I NEVER here that line again, I will die a happy woman)

The only difference between opening up a "digital publishing" business and other businesses is that the overhead is much lower. But all the normal rules of business still apply. You still have to produce a sellable product. You still have to put it in a nice packaging. You still have to identify your target market. You still have to market and establish your brand. You still have to demonstrate some business savvy.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But all the normal rules of business still apply. You still have to produce a sellable product. You still have to put it in a nice packaging. You still have to identify your target market. You still have to market and establish your brand. You still have to demonstrate some business savvy.


What? That's crazy talk. I thought all I had to do was gift 50 copies of my book.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> On the one hand, this makes sense. On the other, this sounds like a pile of assumptions propped up by a healthy dose of confirmation bias.
> 
> The data on success in relation to whether one has been or has sought traditional publishing was especially flag-raising to me. The data presented having sought traditional publishing and been rejected as a minus in one's expected earnings. That just doesn't pass the smell test. Especially in light of your own logic here--submitting to agents and publishers is another sign of your serious commitment to making it as an author.


Meh, we can speculate all we want, but it would take a far deeper probing poll of authors to get a better snapshop of cause and effect here, and we'd probably have to get some psychologists involved in drawing the thing up to determine things like the level of commitment.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

So 50% make _more_ than $500.

Does anyone know the percentage of writers who make _no money at all_ by submitting their book to a traditional publisher, but who actually _lose_ money doing so?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Exactly. Publishing is a business, not a charity. Where a lot of writers get themselves in trouble is when they come into this with a sense of entitlement. The people who constantly look for ways to game the system, who engage in unscrupulous behavior, who throw stuff together and then cry about people judging them or "forget the errors what did you think about the story?" (If I NEVER here that line again, I will die a happy woman)
> 
> The only difference between opening up a "digital publishing" business and other businesses is that the overhead is much lower. But all the normal rules of business still apply. You still have to produce a sellable product. You still have to put it in a nice packaging. You still have to identify your target market. You still have to market and establish your brand. You still have to demonstrate some business savvy.


I think some jumped into it without thinking or having a good strategy or being realistic. Remember all those blogs and media articles about the Wild West and gold in them thar hills and countless ways to game the system.

If you write a story and you want people to buy and read it you can't just throw anything up and expect good results. I've yet to see a crap book sell very much, so readers do decide--just like when they go grocery shopping--you are just another product on the shelf and buyers compare. You can learn a lot at a grocery store.

If you put up a poor story or poorly edited one with a so-so cover and a half-a_ _ blurb how can you ever compete with a very good story with good editing and a great cover and blurb? You can't. The customer will just not buy it and the few that do give out bad reviews.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> So 50% make _more_ than $500.
> 
> Does anyone know the percentage of writers who make _no money at all_ by submitting their book to a traditional publisher, but who actually _lose_ money doing so?


Exactly! I've been hammering this point for over a year. The only way to fairly compare is to judge EVERY manuscript that's submitted to the Traditional machine, not just those that get published!


----------



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

Istvan Szabo said:


> I'm an artistic guy. I love to create and basically I don't write for the money.


The secret to success is right there, Istvan. Write for love. Write for hate. Write because you HAVE to, NEED to. It'll show in the work. Then take the money when/if it comes. But few can map out a successful sales strategy before having something of quality to sell. Just saying'.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Exactly! I've been hammering this point for over a year. The only way to fairly compare is to judge EVERY manuscript that's submitted to the Traditional machine, not just those that get published!


THIS^^ would be a more accurate comparison.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

I've read through the thread now, and I somehow missed any thoughtful discussion about how many books we're talking about to hit a given income level, and how that figures into the average (median), which would then drive the outcomes of the other variables such as cover design, editing and marketing (e.g., do folk who market earn more or do they earn more because the have more titles out, assuming number of titles makes a difference?). There was an allusion to more successful authors hiring help as finances allowed, but that point seems to have been dismissed far too quickly.

It's the same issue I've always had with the monthly threads here where folk would reveal how much they made for the month without revealing across how many books. The number of titles you have for sale can make a difference, right? Or does it? That would have been one of the first things I would have looked at in analyzing any results, which means it would have to have been one of the driving questions in the survey: How many books do you have out? (I would also have looked at individual book performance in addition to an author-aggregate of titles, but that's because the guys who did the survey probably had a different outcome expectation for their data than I would have had, so created their responses to prop that expectation.)

Would the results then have been more along the lines of authors with only 1 or 2 books out make on average (median) less than $500, while those with 3 to 6 books out make $1000, and those with 7+ make 2,000? In other words, would that average (median) slide based on that rather obvious variable? $500 across 20 titles is a far different bar than $500 for a single title. 

Was there a response to clarify if the amount earned was based on a full or partial year? How about seasoned titles versus start-ups? 

All in all, I'm still trying to understand the business value of "interesting" results. Companies such as Gartner and Forrester offer marketing analysis as business intelligence to corporations at a premium price for actionable take-aways. Of course, these companies conduct round tables and highly targeted research to ensure representative samples. The raw data is available so that client corporations can also dice the data to their individual needs, in addition to general but expert analysis being offered. To pay for highly caveated results from a self-selected survey? Well, desperate authors will always pay for what they hope will be the "key" to success. For the more business-minded among us, not so much. Apply the YMMV caveat as appropriate.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> So 50% make _more_ than $500.
> 
> Does anyone know the percentage of writers who make _no money at all_ by submitting their book to a traditional publisher, but who actually _lose_ money doing so?


I would think that the majority of the 50% in the survey have actually lost money considering the cost of services. I would also consider a good % of those earning more than $500 have also lost money.

Those submitting to agents will obviously not make anything if their books are not accepted.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> It's the same issue I've always had with the monthly threads here where folk would reveal how much they made for the month without revealing across how many books. The number of titles you have for sale can make a difference, right?


Yes, we really should set up some formula for determining who on the board has the bragging rights as the most successful author per book. That's important.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Would the results then have been more along the lines of authors with only 1 or 2 books out make on average (median) less than $500, while those with 3 to 6 books out make $1000, and those with 7+ make 2,000? In other words, would that average (median) slide based on that rather obvious variable? $500 across 20 titles is a far different bar than $500 for a single title.


I think it depends on what the purpose of the study is/was. If the study was to determine if more books = more $ then your questions would/should have been answered. I'm not sure if the Taleist survey asked the respondents how many titles they have out.

While reading your post I was struck with a question of my own: "Does it matter? Does it matter if i make $500 on one book or $500 on 3 books?" Other than being able to tell people that definitively you will make more money by writing more books I don't know if it matters.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> So 50% make _more_ than $500.
> 
> Does anyone know the percentage of writers who make _no money at all_ by submitting their book to a traditional publisher, but who actually _lose_ money doing so?


Very good question, Andrew. The old mantra of "money flows TO the author" should always apply in traditional publishing, but then you start factoring in cost of paper, printing supplies, etc. and it can get more expensive than many people realize. Then throw in the years that it eats up, querying agents, agents querying publishers, publishers talking to committees, waiting on contracts, etc, etc,

Frankly, those who make ANY money at all are doing better than 99% of those who attempt to publish through traditional publishing.

I am bemused at these posts that point out that indie publishing isn't some kind of sure-fire get-rich-scheme. Did anyone here think that it is?

You have a good chance of making more than $500 (a month) if you put out a good book that is well presented, do your best to promote it and then put out another one and another one.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Because writing is so hard to make a living at. The amount of effort you put in, put into most other jobs, will get you more money, faster.


Why equate a desire to make money with a desire to make a living writing? It's quite reasonable to write to make sufficient money to pay the mortgage and nothing more. And it's too hard? Says who? Some things that are hard for one person are easier for another.

History is full of people who took a more difficult path when they could have looked for an easier one. It's also full of people who do not evaluate themselves based on the average. They rise above averages.

Jobs are hardly easy to get today. That applies to both full and part time. I'd have to applaud anyone who undertakes any productive effort to support themselves.

In terms of alternate employment, one also has to consider opportunity costs. We have no reason to presume someone who writes from 11pm to 1am every night can secure alternate employment for those three hours each night.

Quit because it's hard? Risky? Not approved by other authors? No.

So for the folks writing to make money, I applaud your efforts and wish you the best.



> Exactly! I've been hammering this point for over a year. The only way to fairly compare is to judge EVERY manuscript that's submitted to the Traditional machine, not just those that get published!


Correct. There are two systems. We can contrast the performance of all the books that enter each system. A book enters one system with a query to an agent or publisher. It enters the other when the author hits the KDP UPLOAD button.



> I've read through the thread now, and I somehow missed any thoughtful discussion about how many books we're talking about to hit a given income level,...


I'd welcome data based on books rather than authors. A data set built that way could also summarize by author.



> I am bemused at these posts that point out that indie publishing isn't some kind of sure-fire get-rich-scheme. Did anyone here think that it is?


I'm still looking for the posts and articles that say it is. They seem to be refuted a lot. I just can't find them.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

Shawn Inmon said:


> My full-time job is being a Managing Broker for a real estate office in Washington State.
> 
> Several years ago, the Multiple Listing Service I belong to released a report that said that the average agent in the MLS sold two houses per year and earned $6000. That number was severely skewed because there are many agents who are licensed and belong to the MLS but never, ever do a transaction.
> 
> ...


The median, as opposed to the average, would be a better gauge. The middle number of all those on the site.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> While reading your post I was struck with a question of my own: "Does it matter? Does it matter if i make $500 on one book or $500 on 3 books?"


From a cost/profit perspective it does. Too many authors still don't factor in their costs when looking at their Amazon payments. I've had more than one conversation with authors bragging about how they made more money self-publishing than trad publishing, but once you factor in all of the costs (editing, proofreading, cover art, formatting, marketing, yada yada) they actually either broke even or lost money compared to their trad books.

So if we are looking at that $500 number as gross profits from Amazon, for example, and it costs you $200 to produce a book, it becomes an issue. If you make $500 on one book, then your net profit is $300. If you make $500 on three books at $200 each, then you lost $100.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Yes, we really should set up some formula for determining who on the board has the bragging rights as the most successful author per book. That's important.


Not sure about most successful author per book, but from the 'successful indies only' thread, I suspect that even with ten books and a total of 150 sales in two years, I don't win(?) as the least successful. Surprisingly. Now, if I hadn't published that one book that's sold 110 copies, it might be a different story, as nine books and forty sales might make me a contender.


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> (If I NEVER here that line again, I will die a happy woman)


Julie, I have a feeling something else would come along to make you equally annoyed


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> From a cost/profit perspective it does. Too many authors still don't factor in their costs when looking at their Amazon payments. I've had more than one conversation with authors bragging about how they made more money self-publishing than trad publishing, but once you factor in all of the costs (editing, proofreading, cover art, formatting, marketing, yada yada) they actually either broke even or lost money compared to their trad books.
> 
> So if we are looking at that $500 number as gross profits from Amazon, for example, and it costs you $200 to produce a book, it becomes an issue. If you make $500 on one book, then your net profit is $300. If you make $500 on three books at $200 each, then you lost $100.


True. But outside of bragging rights and taxes for me specifically. I don't think it matters.

From a business perspective I can look at my results (let's say I'm in the 3:$500 gross camp) to look for ways to make my company profitable. What do I do to make my company profitable? Cut costs down to $160 per book? So that if books continue to average $166 per year I'm at least close to breaking even? But if I release 3 the first year and lose $100, do I make assumptions that those 3 books will continue to average $166 the following year so that I then made $400 profit over 2 years? And I release another 3 books in year two based on the data from year 1, lose $100 on the 2nd 3 books and the company overall has now profited $300. This, of course, all assumes that the gross income on these stays the same. But what if of the 1st three books, Book A made $498 and Books B&C made $1 each? So in year 2 I write 2 sequels to Book A can I make the assumption that at the end of year 2 I will have brought in $1502.00 for the year?

On the flip side, if I'm spending $700 per book to release and only bringing in $160 on a steady average then I better start looking at my expenses.

This started to become rambling. I think my point is that knowing whether the companies gross profits are based on 1 book or 3 books doesn't make much of a difference overall, to the general population.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

Rachel Schurig said:


> *****, I have a feeling something else would come along to make you equally annoyed


A valid point.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Well, I certainly fall into that category.  I wish I was making thousands a month and could quit my day job and just write.  I wish it every day.  But most months if I get $100 or $200 from Kindle royalties, that's a good month.  Still, I don't consider myself struggling, really.  I am just building to that moment when the royalties are such I can do this full time.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm still looking for the posts and articles that say it is. They seem to be refuted a lot. I just can't find them.


I've never seen the posts and articles that say it's a great get-rich scheme either, but as you say, they get refuted a lot. Such as in this thread. 

Edit: I've made (what I consider) a pretty darn good profit on some of my novels. On others I've barely broken even. In a business like publishing, those are the breaks. Anyone who thinks you're likely to do well on all your novels hasn't been at this long.

Now let's all put our heads together and think of a new sentence to annoy Julie with. She is much to cheerful.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

None of this is very surprising.

_*Seven out of 10 new employer firms survive at least 2 years, half at least 5 years, a third at least 10 years, and a quarter stay in business 15 years or more.* Census data report that 69 percent of new employer establishments born to new firms in 2000 survived at least 2 years, and 51 percent survived 5 or more years. Survival rates were similar across states and major industries. Bureau of Labour Statistics data on establishment age show that 49 percent of establishments survive 5 years or more; 34 percent survive 10 years or more; and 26 percent survive 15 years or more._

Source: U.S Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, Business Dynamics Statistics; U.S. Dept of Labour, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED.

But more importantly, does Taleist plan to open up their data set? I appreciate them sending contributors complimentary copies of their report, but as an academically-trained meatball head, I cannot trust anything that has not been independently verified.










Not even Einstein gets a pass.

B.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I've never seen the posts and articles that say it's a great get-rich scheme either, but as you say, they get refuted a lot. Such as in this thread.


It is a great get-rich scheme. This comment does not necessarily reflect the views of the owner and management of this comment. Comment only applies to those who actually got rich quick. See my *ss for terms and conditions. Other restrictions may apply.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> From a cost/profit perspective it does. Too many authors still don't factor in their costs when looking at their Amazon payments. I've had more than one conversation with authors bragging about how they made more money self-publishing than trad publishing, but once you factor in all of the costs (editing, proofreading, cover art, formatting, marketing, yada yada) they actually either broke even or lost money compared to their trad books.
> 
> So if we are looking at that $500 number as gross profits from Amazon, for example, and it costs you $200 to produce a book, it becomes an issue. If you make $500 on one book, then your net profit is $300. If you make $500 on three books at $200 each, then you lost $100.


Another vagueness in this "survey." What period are we talking about? Books ­- certainly ebooks - aren't perishable goods with a built-in sell-by date. How do they determine what the books are going to make in the future? It might well be that (taking your last example) there is indeed a $100 loss the first year, but that the second year those books are in the black.

Alternatively: the writer/publisher could decide to promote them more. Or the books could be slowly gaining a following.

None of which is even remotely possible if those same books get rejected by traditional publishers&#8230; and then the author does nothing.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> None of which is even remotely possible if those same books get rejected by traditional publishers&#8230; and then the author does nothing.


Or if they go out of print. Of course. Amazon may have to purge the system at some point, and who knows what the cutoff will be for sales in order for them to decide to pull them down. Or, do they do that already? Anyone know if books that aren't seeling anything get pulled down at some point? Is that in the fine print? I'm too lazy to go look it up myself.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Or if they go out of print. Of course. Amazon may have to purge the system at some point, and who knows what the cutoff will be for sales in order for them to decide to pull them down. Or, do they do that already? Anyone know if books that aren't seeling anything get pulled down at some point? Is that in the fine print? I'm too lazy to go look it up myself.


Amazon won't pull any book listings. I have two out of print paperback editions and they won't pull the listing down because a vendor may choose to list it as a used book.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Or if they go out of print. Of course. Amazon may have to purge the system at some point, and who knows what the cutoff will be for sales in order for them to decide to pull them down.


I'm a little skeptical that Amazon would force Kindle titles out of print. I mean, I _could_ see them doing so in order to "improve the customer experience", or if they at some point decided to close down orphaned KDP accounts - ones that haven't been logged in to in over a year, or whatever, but I don't think that's likely, and I think they'd take a lot of flak for doing so. Ebooks are forever, dontcha know... plus their business model is kind of built around the long tail, after all.

I would not be at all surprised to see some other retailers delist ebooks en masse, though. Like, Apple deciding to drop any title that hasn't sold a copy in twelve months, say.


----------



## Pamela Kay Noble Brown (Mar 3, 2011)

heavycat said:


> It should be simplicity itself at this point for an author to find their audience. We have search engines that index the entire web. Why is this still so difficult? Think of how this one missing element would re-energize the economy.


I knowwwwww. Why, why, why?

And for those flukes, somebody mentioned Shades of Gray, anybody know how they marketed? Twitter, Goodreads, FB? I'd be curious to know.

Also talk about reverse psychology. I regularly watch the Wendy Williams show. For the past few weeks she has been going on and on about how she started reading 50 Shades of Gray because everybody was talking about it and she hates to feel left out of anything. So she said she got it and it was not nearly as good as she'd expected. She said she was mad that she even started it because she's they type of person that HAS to finish once she starts something. And she said she was really struggling to slough through it, but had invested too much time. Now she felt compelled to keep reading convinced the moment she quit, something interesting might happen on the next page.

So even though Wendy Williams was sitting there ragging on the book everyday and about how annoyed she was with the book, I was sitting there marveling like wow...mentions everyday by talk show host Wendy Williams is still so much exposure that the author doesn't have to pay for. I can't imagine an author buying two or three 10 minute ads daily. Good for the author. Good or bad people are talking about it.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

George Berger said:


> I'm a little skeptical that Amazon would force Kindle titles out of print. I mean, I _could_ see them doing so in order to "improve the customer experience", or if they at some point decided to close down orphaned KDP accounts - ones that haven't been logged in to in over a year, or whatever, but I don't think that's likely, and I think they'd take a lot of flak for doing so. Ebooks are forever, dontcha know... plus their business model is kind of built around the long tail, after all.
> 
> I would not be at all surprised to see some other retailers delist ebooks en masse, though. Like, Apple deciding to drop any title that hasn't sold a copy in twelve months, say.


It's gotta eat up bandwidth, though, right? To have all those links to all those books. Maybe my computer hardware notions are outdated, I'm definitely a dinosaur when it comes to that stuff.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> It's gotta eat up bandwidth, though, right? To have all those links to all those books. Maybe my computer hardware notions are outdated, I'm definitely a dinosaur when it comes to that stuff.


Storing novels doesn't really cost much bandwidth. It costs memory on a server somewhere and in a world in which you can buy gigabites of computer memory for a few bucks, the chances that Amazon is going to worry about the few kb for a novel seems vanishingly small. Sure it could happen someday, but I wouldn't hold my breath and if they did it would be for books that had never been downloaded or hadn't been downloaded in years. No doubt there are some of those lurking on Amazon.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Pamela Kay Noble Brown said:


> And for those flukes, somebody mentioned Shades of Gray, anybody know how they marketed? Twitter, Goodreads, FB? I'd be curious to know.


IIRC, it picked up momentum as a highly-rated title in the fanfic community, in its original incarnation, which is not a particularly viable trick to emulate, for most of us. 



vrabinec said:


> It's gotta eat up bandwidth, though, right? To have all those links to all those books. Maybe my computer hardware notions are outdated, I'm definitely a dinosaur when it comes to that stuff.


Bandwidth, storage space, CPU cycles to index everything... all of which are increasingly cheap, really. In perspective, the complete product set for Amazon is probably quite a bit smaller, in terms of objects and gigabytes of space consumed, than the complete contents of Wikipedia...


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

Well, my dream has always been an architect.

I"ve been collecting really neat odds and ends from junk yards and garage sales over the years. When ever I describe them to my friends and relatives, they just ooh and ahh because the pieces would really be beautiful if I would just sit down and fit them together.

Well, I finally did that last summer. Found a vacant lot in a run-down part of Oakland and just spent days and days putting those beautiful pieces today. Some of them I had to rearrange several times before I was satisfied. Boy, it was a lot of hard work. But I just didn't want to take the time to take a course or read some how-to books, or join an architects forum. That would have taken away from my creative time.

I got it done and I was so proud that I had put together this beautiful building practically for peanuts spread over several years.

A lot of people kept walking by my creation because it was on a busy street. I kept lowering the price (after all, I was an unknown architect) until finally the price hit 99 cents. Then a lot of folks started taking a good look. So I figured I would get more traffic and I offered it for free. Boy, that got a lot of traffic. A lot of folks went through the first three rooms and one sweet couple went through every room.

So I jacked the price back up to 99 cents. I had to finally give up after 4 months.

You know, this architect business just doesn't pay. A friend told me that I should try putting up some Kindle books and offer them for 99 cents. I mean, $500 a year really sounds good to me.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Decon said:


> I would think that the majority of the 50% in the survey have actually lost money considering the cost of services. I would also consider a good % of those earning more than $500 have also lost money.


I guess I was assuming that the $500 statistic was what they'd earned AFTER they'd already accounted for their expenses. But maybe I was reading too much into that? (FWIW, that's how I would have reported it. I don't consider myself to ahve "earned" any money until my editing, formatting, and cover art are paid for on each book. And I'm thrilled to report that I broke even on expenses for the new book that just released last week in 3 days. And I've already earned more than 3 times that $500 figure for this book in the less than 2 weeks it's been out.)


----------



## Ashlynn_Monroe (May 24, 2012)

I don't think too many authors start out writing "just for the money" I'd write for free **SHHHH** don't tell my publishers!  I think anyone starting out writing should hold onto the day job until they have a few royalty checks in the bank, but depending on the book's subject matter and cover you can make some money.  In this business there's so many things that can go wrong I fear for people who believe they can just rush off and be a millonare with a few books.  Heck, I've over 50 ebooks with a dozen publisher and even a self published book and I have a day job.  I judge my success by reviews and repeat readership.  My new dishwasher, bought with royalties, is sweet, but I'm not making millions LOL!  I like have a publisher who has my back, but I've also had publishers burn me.  I think self publishing is gaining credibility and some of my favorite books are indies.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

The numbers aren't surprising. A colleague of mine spoke to Smashword's owner last year, as part of research for a presentation we were doing on self-publishing. He told her that 90% of their listed titles don't sell at all.

And none of this is really new. In fact, it's more of the same from the old days, despite better technology and publishing options. A very small percentage of print authors made a lot of money, and the rest struggled to pay their bills 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and it's still this way for trad. print publishing. I think self-publishing and e-publishing has created high expectations, or perhaps unrealistic expectations for some who are new to publishing. All the hype about Hocking, Locke, Konrath, and others has inspired many, and so it should. But inspiration, and reality, and deluding oneself are three different things. Sadly, I've heard of more than one writer who is counting on writing income to live on in their retirement years. Risky indeed!


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> All in all, I'm still trying to understand the business value of "interesting" results. Companies such as Gartner and Forrester offer marketing analysis as business intelligence to corporations at a premium price for actionable take-aways. Of course, these companies conduct round tables and highly targeted research to ensure representative samples. The raw data is available so that client corporations can also dice the data to their individual needs, in addition to general but expert analysis being offered. To pay for highly caveated results from a self-selected survey? Well, desperate authors will always pay for what they hope will be the "key" to success. For the more business-minded among us, not so much. Apply the YMMV caveat as appropriate.


I don't really see the point of the survey, myself. You're right about the number of titles. Too many people put out one or two things and then spend all their energy marketing those in the hopes that one will break out. It rarely works that way. Volume helps immensely. Then at least all that marketing offers people things to buy beyond one title.

I know people making a living off their ebooks without ever having a breakout hit. They have several titles selling enough to add up to a decent income. I'm almost at that point now without ever having anything remotely resembling a bestseller.

The "half of" also doesn't alarm me. I'm betting there's probably a big percentage of self-pubbed authors that never sell a single copy after family and friends, let alone $500 a year. So what? MOST people who submit both short and long fiction to publications, agents and editors don't get published. A huge percentage never see their name in print, even for free. But that "most" includes the people who write one thing and send it out a few times before giving up. Most people who do anything won't succeed at it, but if you looked only at the ones who worked like mad toward that goal and filtered out the rest, the numbers would be different.

Data can be skewed however you want to make a point, then twisted back the other way to make another.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Oh joy. The "I don't care about money, I'm an artist" bit has reared it's head again.

But maybe that's an untapped market, so...


Hey Everyone! I'm launching a new business! It's called:

DONTGIVEACRAP PRESS!

I'm looking to hire 20 editors and proofreaders! Job Requirements: Ya gotta LOVE editing/proofing.

I'm also looking to hire 10 cover artists! Job Requirements: Ya gotta LOVE doing cover art!

I'm also looking for 50 sales professionals (one in every state)! Job Requirements: Ya gotta LOVE sales!

Finally, I want to publish 104 titles a year, so I'm looking for LOTS of manuscripts. Requirements: Ya gotta LOVE writing.

Dontgiveacrap Press will publish anything I read a few pages of and decide isn't too bad. As publisher of Dontgiveacrap Press, what I say goes, in that respect.

With an initial output of two titles a week, our 20 editors and 10 cover artists will be expected to put in 60+ hours a week, minimum, without overtime.

Our 50 sales pros will be expected to visit every bookstore, trade show, and garage sale in their state, and put in whatever hours are required to do so. No mercy for our Texas rep, just because he has more ground to cover than our Delaware rep. Suck it up, man!

And as for our writers, we're not interested in one-hit wonder types. I want at least two novels a year out of 52 writers, and we'll grow from there.

As for the delicate issue of pay:

Editors will be paid: in job satisfaction. You will know that every book you work on has been edited into pristine shape!

Artists will be paid: in great PR for your art career! Your covers will grace some of the best-edited books in the Indie Novel world!

Sales professionals will be paid: In the joy of human contact. (I don't believe in commissions. Pay just makes starving salespeople lazy.)

Writers ... won't be paid in any way, shape, or form. They're already too willing to starve to death for their art, so why even pretend? You'll surrender all rights to your works to me indefinitely, forever, world without end, Amen. And be grateful if I even notify you that I've accepted one of your books for publication and connect with Hollywood to make movies out of your literary swill.

So send in your resumes and manuscripts and let's get this thing started! Because at Dontgiveacrap Press, we REALLY live up to our name!

Dontgiveacrap Press: A Publishing House for Real Artists Who Don't Care About Money. Or Living.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I've never seen the posts and articles that say it's a great get-rich scheme either, but as you say, they get refuted a lot. Such as in this thread.


There are no direct threads or quotes where people say it's a get-rich-quick scheme, rather it's implied in threads where people express surprise that most indie publishers make very little money and that only a very, very few make a motza lots.

No one should be surprised that half indie writers make less than $500 per year (or whatever the stat was), and yet threads like this excite considerable debate.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't see that very many people are surprised. I haven't seen much debate in this thread, but mostly, "well, yeah, and?"

I mean, it's no news is it? Some of us make more, some quite a bit more. A lot make less. Probably the people who post on this board tend at least slightly to be on the high end of the spectrum, but not all by any means. Of course, I'm not sure what you 
consider a "motza". Is that like a Jewish dumpling?   

Anyway, do "most indies" put out multiple novels? Have professional covers? Have their novels edited? Really work and spend money on advertising and promotion? Unless they do, the comparison isn't really very valid. For a large part, we're comparing apples and oranges here.

CraigInTwinCities, unfortunately you'd still find authors who'd take you up on that. I know some. I'm not so sure that any other would be quite so stupid though.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

DontGiveACrap Press reminds me of a guy I knew who had a fleet of honey trucks for pumping out septic tanks or any other particularly aromatic gunk. He made a very good living. I can only assume he loved all that crap.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> CraigInTwinCities, unfortunately you'd still find authors who'd take you up on that. I know some. I'm not so sure that any other would be quite so stupid though.


Alas, all he would have to do is change the name to something trendy, offer great "exposure" and add something about a "new publishing paradigm" and he would be flooded with submissions. 

And if you or I called him out on it, we would be attacked as being "unsupportive of indies"


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

CraiginTwinCities - Beautiful!


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Dontgiveacrap Press: A Publishing House for Real Artists Who Don't Care About Money. Or Living.


But ... but ... art is about pain ... art is about suffering ... we are not supposed to sell out to the MAN! Money merely cheapens our art!

*bowing*

Thank you, thank you. Now I will go back to eating Ramen Noodles, drinking unfiltered tap water, and polishing my soap box for the next open mic reading at the bar down the road.


----------



## IB (Jan 31, 2012)

I know I get negative feedback around here from quoting famous writers, but I couldn't help posting this quote.

“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” – Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

IB said:


> I know I get negative feedback around here from quoting famous writers, but I couldn't help posting this quote.
> 
> "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." - Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)


Huh. And here I thought that was Lucy Van Pelt.

(I love PEANUTS)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Alas, all he would have to do is change the name to something trendy, offer great "exposure" and add something about a "new publishing paradigm" and he would be flooded with submissions.
> 
> And if you or I called him out on it, we would be attacked as being "unsupportive of indies"


You, miss Julie, are unsupportive of parody. And satire! Oops... indie parody and indie satire!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Oh, I forgot to mention this in my original post:

All profits and proceeds from Dontgiveacrap Press will be donated to the Craig Hansen Foundation.

The Craig Hansen Foundation supports indie author Craig Hansen, solely and exclusively. Because... yeah, it's an act of charity to set up dummy corps that don't pay anyone but me.

Yeah... that's the ticket! (Apologies to Jon Lovitz for endlessly stealing that line from him... he's therefore now an honorary Founding Donor to The Craig Hansen Foundation.) 

  

And, taking a note from Julie's advice, Dontgiveacrap Press is heretofor to be known (under a DBA) as: Hunger Games Publishing! (Because iffa I gots no money, I gets hungry!)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Am I in danger of anyone taking this seriously yet? I may need to unpublish my email addys, LOL...  Ahh, satire... it's not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

For some reason, when I first looked, I read "the Craig Ferguson Foundation."

Now _that_ I might be willing to write for.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Oh joy. The "I don't care about money, I'm an artist" bit has reared it's head again.
> 
> But maybe that's an untapped market, so...
> 
> ...


As a former Director of Marketing, I volunteer my services. We should target the untapped enclave in the Pu-tung neighboirhood, in Shang-hai - pop. about 4 million, and if they can;t read the books, they'll plaster it on walls to keep the cool in and the crap out. I mean, why else did the Chinese invent paper for. For inveterate entrepeneurs from the Brave New Owlrd.

Edward C. Patterson

PS: (The Koreans invented paper and printing also - but I'm not peddling anything in Pyong-yong nowadays).


----------



## parKb5 (Jan 4, 2011)

The thing I find most shocking is that this thread is only a day old and is on page 9!


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Am I in danger of anyone taking this seriously yet? I may need to unpublish my email addys, LOL...  Ahh, satire... it's not for the faint of heart.


I ordered a cherry smoothie from your new firm and the smoothie isn't here yet.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I don't see that very many people are surprised. I haven't seen much debate in this thread, but mostly, "well, yeah, and?"
> 
> I mean, it's no news is it? Some of us make more, some quite a bit more. A lot make less. Probably the people who post on this board tend at least slightly to be on the high end of the spectrum, but not all by any means. Of course, I'm not sure what you
> consider a "motza". Is that like a Jewish dumpling?
> ...


9 pages of discussion is quite a bit for an accepted paradigm, and a motza is slang here in the land of Oz, meaning a considerable amount (of course, I may have spelt it incorrectly, or it may even be exclusive to the tiny part of Melbourne in which I grew up).


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Motza / matzah = a Jewish flatbread (no yeast) popular during Passover season especially.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Motza / matzah = a Jewish flatbread (no yeast) popular during Passover season especially.


Okay, I've changed it. Now I'm off to Acland St (StKilda, Melbourne) where there were once many fine Jewish cake shops. Hopefully, gentrification hasn't killed them off.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2012)

I'm glad to see I'm actually in the 50% making some money. Not enough to let my books pay all our bills yet, but probably gonna bring in about $10,000 this hear. Hoping that will increase with two more books out by January. For me, I write because I want to, but I also want to write for a living, so the ultimate goal is to be good enough that folks want to keep paying for the stories I'm telling.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

*Real Artists Sign with Dontgiveacrap Press DBA Hunger Games Publishing!*

Are you a real artist?

No, I mean a _real_ artist.

The kind who enjoys starving for their freedom of expression, and perhaps even willing to die for it?

Then send your manuscripts ASAP to Hunger Games Publishing. Our nationwide sales force (soon to go global) will make sure your book sells as many copies as humanly possible, takes full advantage of all subsidiary rights, and becomes a movie and worldwide moneymaking phenomenon.

But don't worry; we'll protect your artistic integrity throughout your career. Our iron-clad contract guarantees you'll never see one red cent of all that largess. Nope, you'll remain exactly as you are now, a virtuous artist slowly withering away for the sake of creating pure, unadulterated art.

Best of all, you have a home for the rest of your natural life at Hunger Games Publishing, though we can't guarantee it'll be a long one. Because we are as passionate about your artistic integrity as you are.

Hunger Games Publishing: the last contact you'll ever sign.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> *Real Artists Sign with Dontgiveacrap Press DBA Hunger Games Publishing!*
> 
> Are you a real artist?
> 
> ...


So you're just a traditional publisher minus the advance?


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> *Real Artists Sign with Dontgiveacrap Press DBA Hunger Games Publishing!*
> 
> Are you a real artist?
> 
> ...


I see what you're trying to do here, but the big rule of satire is that it must be mimick reality. Unfortunately, this is too much like many real business plans I've seen to be considered satirical.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Mr. Hansen,

Can HGP stop the corporate spam Amazon pushes into my bank account each month? I bought soap last month. It can't go on like this.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Motza / matzah = a Jewish flatbread (no yeast) popular during Passover season especially.


I thought it was the balls in the soup?


----------



## parKb5 (Jan 4, 2011)

Does Hunger Games Press put out the "I Am Number Four" series of books?

If not maybe you should hire James Frey. I heard about this and got this off of wiki.

_In 2009, Frey formed "Full Fathom Five," a young adult novel publishing company that aimed to create highly commercial, high concept novels like Twilight. In November 2010, controversy arose when an MFA student who had been in talks to create content for the company released her extremely limiting contract online. The contract allows Frey license to remove an author from a project at any time, does not require him to give the author credit for their work, and only pays a standard advance of $250. A New York Magazine article entitled, "James Frey's Fiction Factory," gave more details about the company, including information about the highly successful "Lorien Legacies" series, a collaboration between author Jobie Hughes and Frey. The article details how Frey removed Hughes from the project, allegedly during a screaming match between the two authors. In the article, Frey is accused of abusing and using MFA students as cheap labor to churn out commercial young adult books._

Which is worse? Not getting paid for your work or not getting the credit for it?


----------



## jlmarten (May 9, 2012)

Shawn Inmon said:


> My full-time job is being a Managing Broker for a real estate office in Washington State.
> 
> Several years ago, the Multiple Listing Service I belong to released a report that said that the average agent in the MLS sold two houses per year and earned $6000. That number was severely skewed because there are many agents who are licensed and belong to the MLS but never, ever do a transaction.
> 
> ...


I think you make a good point, Shawn. Statistics being what they are, they should not always be taken at face value - especially when used in articles to shore up a particular POV. It seems that in most industries the ol' 80/20 rule applies. Twenty percent do most of the work and 80% sit around on their thumbs. The 20% make 80% of the income, etc.

As I work toward completing my first novel, one over-arching thought goes though my mind, and it isn't "I can't wait to get done so I can make a boat load of money." It's that I want to (I have to) do this. It will be a bonus if others find it worth their time to read.

This thread reminded me of something C.S. Lewis once wrote. I went and looked it up so I wouldn't misquote. He said "I am sure that some are born to write as trees are born to bear leaves: for these, writing is a necessary mode of their own development. If the impulse to write survives the hope of success, then one is among these. If not, then the impulse was at best only pardonable vanity, and it will certainly disappear when the hope is withdrawn."


----------



## IB (Jan 31, 2012)

jlmarten said:


> This thread reminded me of something C.S. Lewis once wrote. I went and looked it up so I wouldn't misquote. He said "I am sure that some are born to write as trees are born to bear leaves: for these, writing is a necessary mode of their own development. If the impulse to write survives the hope of success, then one is among these. If not, then the impulse was at best only pardonable vanity, and it will certainly disappear when the hope is withdrawn."


Excellent. That quote reflects the experience I mentioned above with new screenwriters, harsh as my statement was.  IMHO, if a writer says, I have to do this, that means he or she will move past the "love" phase.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

parKb5 said:


> Which is worse? Not getting paid for your work or not getting the credit for it?


If allowed to pick a third option, I would say that the worst would be signing such an agreement in the first place.


----------



## R. Garcia (Apr 9, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Just a quibble the math geek inside me won't let pass.
> 
> $500 is the median. . .it's the number in the middle. Half make more than that, half make less. (Or did in 2011.) It is NOT the average.
> 
> The very first paragraph of the article says the average is $10,000.


This is true. The earnings vs authors plot is a power curve. The very few authors earning astronomical figures skew the average upward (10,000). This is why the midpoint (the median) is more representative of what a self-published author makes (500). But this is old news. Everyone knows that the vast majority of authors (traditional or self-published) will not do well enough say to quit their day jobs (which I often find is everyone's dream).


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> I thought it was the balls in the soup?


The dumplings in the soup are made from matzah, but many things can be made from matzah.

Passover matzah look like giant Saltine crackers, BTW.


----------

