# The future of collaboration(s) 20to50K philosphy & the latest Author Earnings



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Yeah, that's a mouth full.

So, I'm a couple days out from my first in a series release.  It's a co-written project with NYT bestseller Russell Blake taking his first stab at developmental editing (and line-copy editing, too).

We followed (are following) the general principles of the 20to50K crowd:  Write a book in a month (or two) get it to market fast.  First three books are coming out in Jan, Feb, and March.

I brought up Author Earnings because there are some nuggets in there that you have to be paying attention to and digging into in order to understand what's been happening with market share.  Amazon's imprints have grown and will continue to grow, and why not?  It's their play ground.  I'm not interested in debating KU vs. Wide here, but rather, just wanting to point out what some of the big names are doing.

So, if you look at Author Earnings, you'll see writers (or teams) like: Michael Anderle, Amanda Lee, and Bella all up in the stratosphere.  I bring them up because of the insane amount of production they are able to put out there. And the collaboration. And in the case of Bella, the likely use of GW.  This is super common in the erom market, but I think the trend is going to be more and more work-man-like writers balking at GW and want co-writing credits.  For the record, I did one GW....oh, this is funny because a couple years ago I got a ton of flak here from romance writers about writing erom, but my work did very well, and I highly recommend it as an experience.  But, I'll never do it again.

This, in my opinion, is how to compete with Amazon Imprints because if you've got a 30 book series that sells millions of copies, Amazon isn't going to turn their internal marketing switch to "off" for you.  Yes, of course, they'd rather be making 50% instead of 30%, who wouldn't?  But they are in the money making business ---  so I can't imagine their internal marketing guys saying, "let's get the bots to ignore Bella Forest."

What's that mean to us little guys?

Well, the 20to50K crowd has some interesting things to say about how to break into this "Amazon markets for you" thing.

Write a series.
Make it deep.
Get it to market fast and regularly.

And that brings me back to Russell Blake and my collaboration with another indie writer, Hunter Ross (who is an established pro but breaking into sci-fi and wants to keep the platforms apart).

By working with a group, it's easier to get product to market faster and more regularly.  With a schedule, and partnerships, you've got a strong incentive not to procrastinate.

Imagine me, a nobody, telling Russell I need a couple more weeks.

Well, don't imagine.  I tried this.  "I need a couple more weeks," I said.
"No, we've got a schedule," he said. "Get back to work."

So, yeah, it's scary at times, but good for me to be pressed and held accountable.  And I don't think this has to be a famous person, but it needs to be, imho, someone with more experience and success who you don't want to let down.

I'm anxiously waiting for someone to write a breakout non-fiction on collaboration.

About a year and a half ago, Callie Oettinger over at Black Irish Books (works with Steve Pressfield and Shawn Coyne) wrote a blog in which myself and another indie said, "Write a book!"  If you don't know, Callie posts every Friday at StevePressfield dot com.  Great stuff on marketing, promotion, and the book business.

Anyway, I suggested to her that she consider writing about collaboration, I mean, she works with Steven and Shawn...

Recently I mentioned to Chris Fox how much I think the indie market needs this book.

So, someone will write it.  I think it's the future wave that is going to shake things up.  Small groups of authors getting together, or one main person building a team.  See what Waterhouse did (Meredith Wild and her team found Audrey Carlan and made that series into a juggernaut).

I'm super happy and excited about how this is turning out.

Btw:  for those that recall my posts on LitRPG, and the decision to unpublish and re-publish.... I'm pulling down those two books at the end of the month.  I already unpublished 7 books this month.  

I see a lot of indies get all wrapped up in marketing, promotion, sales, etc., for a series that is okay (or even ones that hardly sell at all).

I'm happy not worrying about marketing things that did "okay," and instead moving on to bigger and better series where I can focus on what is working and making me money.

It is okay, imho, to un-publish things (and who knows -- maybe go back to them in a few years).

A lot of working traditional writers had 5 or 10 drawer novels in which they cut their teeth before getting published.  I like the lack of gate keepers, but on the other hand, it's amazing to me how many indies get worried that they "aren't selling" when they've written two books.  It's kind of crazy to think that writing a book shouldn't be like music, art, acting in Hollywood, or other things, like playing in the NBA, that take years to master and become successful at doing for a living.


This is a hard business, and I think intern-student-junior collaborator method has a lot of room to grow. I believe we'll see more of these, and I'm hoping for enough success with this new series that it becomes another example of a star reaching down and helping a dedicated up-and-comer.


----------



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

Just FYI, I do not write with a team. I don't use ghost writers either. I do everything myself. I don't have an issue with those co-writing or pooling resources for teams, but I don't want false information out there. I do neither.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Just FYI, I do not write with a team. I don't use ghost writers either. I do everything myself. I don't have an issue with those co-writing or pooling resources for teams, but I don't want false information out there. I do neither.


Yes, of course. I was only including you as being in the stratosphere of indies on the latest Author Earnings report.

I didn't think I implied you were using a GW, if I did, I'm sorry, I had no intention of implying anything except that your production is very high and that it pays off to have a lot of books in a series.

I'm have no information that Bella uses Ghost Writers other than a lot of intelligent people think she (or they) do. That assumption is based upon the vast number of books being produced and also the differences in them.

But, of course, it's only speculation, but one that even Data Guy implies in his latest author earnings report.

As to Michael Anderle, he talks about his collaborations (not using GW, but co-authoring and shared worlds).

Almost nobody can produce the at the levels you do, Amanda, you're a god in that respect.

But, collaborators can equal you in production (of course they would be splitting the revenue).

I think half of a big pie is better than a tiny slice of a small pie, and that was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Scratchy_Bitey (Nov 28, 2013)

Joanna Penn and J Thorn already have a non fiction book out about Collaboration.


----------



## CM Raymond (Jun 28, 2015)

My co-writer and I outlined that book. And then, since we write a lot of non-fic for our day jobs, shelved the idea.

I agree, it should be written. I just don't want to do it right now. 

Maybe Chris would pick up on it, but it should likely be someone who has done a ton of collaboration. I think I remember him saying that co-authoring work wasn't for him (on a podcast or at the 20books Vegas event).

I'm pretty shocked that the Sterling and Stone fellahs haven't written this yet. I wouldn't be surprised if J. Thorn and Co. are working on another one as he and Joanna Penn's book hardly scratches the surface.

Back when our podcast was alive and well, most of the questions we received were around collaboration.

I'm happy to be someone who is getting a smaller piece of a massive pie, but there are naturally plenty of drawbacks... and they don't JUST have pictures of dead presidents on them. However, the pros of collaboration almost always outweigh the cons for me.

Cheers,

CM


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

If I could clone myself, I'd love to try a Bella Forrest type GW pen (not saying hers is GW, just that mine would be). But I only have one of me, and I vastly prefer the writing to the publishing. It's just I'll never write fast enough for the kind of heavy ads to first in series strategy she has going, so I'd have to do it GW.

Hmm, then again, maybe I should have my clone spend all her time advertising my books. I guess she could advertise my books too. I'd love to pass off that task, but I've never found anyone who checked all my boxes. Not since I broke up with my very first ad person.

I think most writers are control freaks--that's part of why creating entire worlds, stories, and characters appeals to us--so most of us aren't all that interested in collaboration. I know I'd struggle to actually co-write something. I'd rather do everything or nothing.


----------



## LindsayBuroker (Oct 13, 2013)

If collaboration is something that appeals to you, go for it! But you certainly don't need to do it to be successful. I saw the list before things got fuzzed out (and then disappeared), and there were some people on there with 2-6 titles too. I'm guessing it took a million dollars grossed in 2017 to make the list (no way to tell what people spent on advertising). You don't _have_ to make that much to be a success.

After you start making enough to have spare money around to invest, there are easier ways to increase your net worth than writing 20 books a year. Nothing wrong with writing a lot, mind you, (I'm not Amanda, but I seem to get something out almost every month myself!), but I'd hate for people to feel they're just screwed if they can't do that.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Seconding what Lindsay says. You don't have to do it.

If it's your thing, go for it.

But do remember in the rush to collaborate that there is a court case going about a form of collaboration. Don't be one of those people. Look for fair terms and an "out" clause in a collaboration. A writer said to me recently: "I can't divorce my wife, because of the books we worked on". I know he was joking, but in a way, a collaboration is more permanent than marriage. Unless you unpublish the book (and both parties agree to do this), you're tied to this person forever. No matter how much you may end up hating each other.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

CM Raymond said:


> I agree, it should be written. I just don't want to do it right now.
> 
> Maybe Chris would pick up on it, but it should likely be someone who has done a ton of collaboration.


Kevin J Anderson (who collaborated on all the Dune books with Frank Herbert's son) wrote a book on collaboration last year. It was exclusive to the NaNoWriMo Storybundle, but I know he was also intending on publishing it as a standalone sometime this year. I don't play well with others so collaboration's not for me, but it was interesting to read the varied forms his collaborations had taken over the years.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

LindsayBuroker said:


> If collaboration is something that appeals to you, go for it! But you certainly don't need to do it to be successful. I saw the list before things got fuzzed out (and then disappeared), and there were some people on there with 2-6 titles too. I'm guessing it took a million dollars grossed in 2017 to make the list (no way to tell what people spent on advertising). You don't _have_ to make that much to be a success.
> 
> After you start making enough to have spare money around to invest, there are easier ways to increase your net worth than writing 20 books a year. Nothing wrong with writing a lot, mind you, (I'm not Amanda, but I seem to get something out almost every month myself!), but I'd hate for people to feel they're just screwed if they can't do that.


Are there really only 50 authors making seven figures? That seems low. IIRC, the 2016 Author Earnings said there were 100 authors making 250k+ so that might be right. Nope, that was 250 romance authors earning 100k+ in 2016. I switched the numbers in my head. I'm not clear on the brackets in their more general chart.

I think traditional collaboration is a great way for two writers to expand their audience quickly. Look at Penelope Ward and Vi Keeland. They're all over each other's ABs, so when one releases, the other gets a boost. (I'm sure there's similar examples in other genres). Of course, with two people, you can get books out faster. It would be a good way to get out more books in a year without actually writing more.

But, still, so much drama to overcome with a traditional collaboration. I think hiring a GW would be easier because then you're the one in control of the manuscript. It's not something I would do for my pen name, but I do see the appeal.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

LindsayBuroker said:


> After you start making enough to have spare money around to invest, there are easier ways to increase your net worth than writing 20 books a year.


Like buying more shares of Amazon stock.


----------



## azebra (Jul 30, 2011)

I have some experience in this space. I have a brand (You Say Which Way) that I author, co-author and allow others to write for the series. I do the marketing and a lot of the editing and all the admin.

Pros:
I'm not an Indie on my own, I'm in a collective. I feel stronger marketing the stories because I make a less biased judgement about their value. The quality improves because we pitch in together to critique and re-edit and so forth. And the volume can increase - which means you get greater market visibility faster. 

But you can get a lot out of collaboration without going the whole hog and publishing jointly. That's a great place to start, to build trust, to understand your team's strengths and weaknesses. 

Cons:
I spend a lot of my time on admin and marketing and not much time writing, my own output has declined dramatically. (Sometimes I LOVE this but I only have so much time.)

Some authors don't require a lot time but others do, you can't always tell going in to a collaboration. What you really need is a three to five book deal with each author. Hang on a minute? Isn't this what publishers want? You judge a potential collaborator by their track record - what have they produced and what is their ability to stick with and finish things and can they handle and act on feedback? And other authors have lives too. Complicated lives like mine and they may not stick with the plan. I've been really lucky that within my group I've mostly got people more motivated than me and highly open to trying new stuff but my point is I've become a manager and negotiator. It's all very long term too. 

You split the returns. If you buddy up with authors with lots of output and market appeal you could do well but there is a lot to be said for just doing your own thing. A collaborative may not be economic to market.  

When I started seriously expanding the You Say Which Way team I added an out-clause for everyone and myself. I'd always advise people to do that. Someone might want to get out and you need to know how that can be done.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Out clauses and windfall clauses. Who owns what in derivative rights? In a shared story world, if book one is picked up for a movie or series, are co-authors later in the shared world entitled to compensation? Perhaps you may think we'll of course not but yet an argument could be made a Book 1 is only made more popular the more and more books are added to a series... Etc. 

I made naiive mistakes early in my author career with people who did not see me as a colleague but an intern. Yet I taught them and helped them in their careers... I hear second hand too many slap dash collaboration deals all because it is the buzzword du our like writ to market was last year. I would say get a lawyer to look over all contracts, HAVE a contract and during your elation of feeling like "wow this big name noticed me and wants to work with me squeee" feelings consider how it will feel of this person you admire and look up to devastated you in a professional split up. Not speaking about a specific person here, Russell Blake I've known since 2011 he's very good people, but there are others out there that will smile and play you with pretty compliments and twist a knife in your back the second a better gullible person, I'm sorry, opportunity, comes along.

Finally, in my experience the algorithms in a collaborative effort favor the lager names in the arrangement, not bring up the lower name up. Check for yourself, without looking it up, name three James Patterson collaborators.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

You need to go into it with the right expectations and a good contract and for the right reasons.

A collaboration of equals can be very rewarding. If you collaborate with a big name, you'll probably end up like their ghostwriter writing in their world which they own. Nothing wrong with it, just make sure you check your expectations and your contract and make sure you don't end up resenting time you could spend developing your own body of work.

I spent a long time trying to figure out what GW meant. There is nothing wrong with ghostwriting. I dislike the acronym as if it was some kind of marginally-acceptable kinky stuff. It's not. Only ghostwriting is not what most people would think of as collaboration. Just make sure what you're getting into, whether it's collaboration of equals or something else. Get a good contract.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

You missed one thing in your initial post: Write an engaging story.

Since September I've published five number one bestsellers on Amazon (all in the top 100 overall) the book I'm launching next week I suspect will also hit the same level in a couple of days. So that's six books in five months. (This is all under a pen name btw). I know from a fan that I am now a 'topic of discussion' over at the 20books site, and that I was also one of the 'topics of conversation' at their last convention. Everyone was like 'I'm going to copy what he does and make millions'

Yeah, right. I've been writing for a while (see my tag line). I have a fairly good idea of what sells, and I'm finally learning how to sell it. I work longer hours than I did when I was a consultant (where I made a much higher salary for a lot less effort). Writing and being successful at it is hard work. My day starts at 8am and usually runs to 9 or 10pm. Weekends I at least only work four hour days (usually). 

But all of that doesn't matter if you can't write an engaging story that people want to give you their money for. 
That's both the hardest and most important step of all, and which so many people don't seem to understand. 

Good Luck, it's a tough job.


----------



## SidK (Jul 7, 2015)

John Van Stry said:


> You missed one thing in your initial post: Write an engaging story.
> 
> Since September I've published five number one bestsellers on Amazon (all in the top 100 overall) the book I'm launching next week I suspect will also hit the same level in a couple of days. So that's six books in five months. (This is all under a pen name btw). I know from a fan that I am now a 'topic of discussion' over at the 20books site, and that I was also one of the 'topics of conversation' at their last convention. Everyone was like 'I'm going to copy what he does and make millions'
> 
> Yeah, right. I've been writing for a while (see my tag line). I have a fairly good idea of what sells, and I'm finally learning how to sell it. I work longer hours than I did when I was a consultant (where I made a much higher salary for a lot less effort). Writing and being successful at it is hard work. My day starts at 8am and usually runs to 9 or 10pm. Weekends I at least only work four hour days (usually).


You had books in Top 100 Overall in Amazon and still made less than your day job?!!!?  Is this right? I thought you had to sell thousands of copies a day to get in the Top 100 overall


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> Are there really only 50 authors making seven figures? That seems low. IIRC, the 2016 Author Earnings said there were 100 authors making 250k+ so that might be right. Nope, that was 250 romance authors earning 100k+ in 2016. I switched the numbers in my head. I'm not clear on the brackets in their more general chart.
> 
> I think traditional collaboration is a great way for two writers to expand their audience quickly. Look at Penelope Ward and Vi Keeland. They're all over each other's ABs, so when one releases, the other gets a boost. (I'm sure there's similar examples in other genres). Of course, with two people, you can get books out faster. It would be a good way to get out more books in a year without actually writing more.
> 
> But, still, so much drama to overcome with a traditional collaboration. I think hiring a GW would be easier because then you're the one in control of the manuscript. It's not something I would do for my pen name, but I do see the appeal.


That list didn't say all 50 earn 7 figures.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

SidK said:


> You had books in Top 100 Overall in Amazon and still made less than your day job?!!!?  Is this right? I thought you had to sell thousands of copies a day to get in the Top 100 overall


You can put an erom into the Top 100 at 99 cents, and not make huge money. A thousand books at a third of a dollar is only $300. So, ten thousand books would be $3000. 10 books at 3K is only $30,000.

So, yeah, it's easy to see.

My first (and only) GW erom hit just shy of 200 and ended up becoming one of the authors biggest sellers (most reviews and highest rated as well). This author puts out a lot of books and contracts a lot. She makes nice money, but I have friends in their 20s and 30s in the tech world making more at their day jobs.

Ironically, one of the LitRPG guys regularly puts his books into the Top 100. By regularly, I mean like the last 3 in a row. One of them hit inside the top 60. He made good money, but kept his day job. He writes more for the hobby of it, even though he makes six figures as a writer. He told me, "I make a quarter million at my job...I'm not quitting."

Another example in LitRPG is Travis, who talks about his regular life in public, so I can mention it here. He works as an international tax lawyer. So, even though his books easily go into the Top 100, I mean, he wouldn't even have to advertise other than to post on Facebook, "My book is out" and he'd break the Top 100 in three days. He's not quitting his day job either...


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> I think most writers are control freaks--that's part of why creating entire worlds, stories, and characters appeals to us--so most of us aren't all that interested in collaboration. I know I'd struggle to actually co-write something. I'd rather do everything or nothing.


This is an interesting thing...you recall when you advised me to "follow my heart" so to speak with the un-publishing of that LitRPG, oh...about a year ago?

I was a control freak about that. People were advising me to follow the wave and so forth. Now, business-wise, that was a tough call, but artistic and career wise, it was a good move. And the only person who really understood where I was coming from and who gave me the advice I ended up following was you (and I think my son who also saw the big picture).

Now, to not being a control freak on the creation side, however, I'm able to do. This particular project is my brain child, so that might have something to do with it. The co-writing side adds flair, description, and fills in missing pieces. Russell then advises and fixes ugly prose. He's a stickler for grammar and the things he calls me out for are all helpful in an objective way, not so much "creative" more like, "You used the word 'position' five times in this paragraph, find a new word."

So, from that view, it's been super helpful.

Now, another thing he told me was, "Eventually, you'll want to do all this on your own."

Yeah, probably, but I do enjoy working with others, so even though I want to write things in the future on my own, for sure, I see future collaborations as being something awesome to consider again.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

SidK said:


> You had books in Top 100 Overall in Amazon and still made less than your day job?!!!?  Is this right? I thought you had to sell thousands of copies a day to get in the Top 100 overall


You can also sell 1,000 books over a month at $4.99 and make the same $3500 but never break into the top 100 on Amazon. Or at $9.99 and make $7000. And in both of those scenarios, it is unlikely that money is pure profit either, it's gross revenue before covers, editing, expenses, and taxes. Just $3000 after federal self employment taxes in the US (15.3%) is $2541. That's equivalent to a 40 hour work week in a month at $15.81 an hour.

That was another thing about collaboration that I forgot to mention.... unless it's doubling output it could end up being just as much "work hours" because you have the added communication with a team or partner and splitting the proceeds vs. making the same sales on a project you do yourself to take to market.

I've done boxed sets before and other collaborative type stakes in projects with people I've worked with for years and sometimes it's just a good thing to have an additional revenue stream. But I think if 2018 is pushed as the year to get into a shared world or collaborative project as a movement, more people are going to go into that with the mindset of "this should be less work for me," which is like every darn group project in school. 

"When I die, I want my pallbearers to be all the people I had to do group work with in school, so they can let me down one last time."


----------



## notjohn (Sep 9, 2016)

MichaelRyan said:


> You can put an erom into the Top 100 at 99 cents, and not make huge money. A thousand books at a third of a dollar is only $300. So, ten thousand books would be $3000. 10 books at 3K is only $30,000.


The race to the bottom reaches its perigee: best-selling authors on food stamps!


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

LindsayBuroker said:


> If collaboration is something that appeals to you, go for it! But you certainly don't need to do it to be successful. I saw the list before things got fuzzed out (and then disappeared), and there were some people on there with 2-6 titles too. I'm guessing it took a million dollars grossed in 2017 to make the list (no way to tell what people spent on advertising). You don't _have_ to make that much to be a success.
> 
> After you start making enough to have spare money around to invest, there are easier ways to increase your net worth than writing 20 books a year. Nothing wrong with writing a lot, mind you, (I'm not Amanda, but I seem to get something out almost every month myself!), but I'd hate for people to feel they're just screwed if they can't do that.


No, you don't need to be collaborating to be success, but you almost certainly need production.

The few names with a couple of books were outliers, like Andy Weir. One book and he's a millionaire walking down the red carpet with a supermodel because his movie got nominated for some award and starred Matt Damon.

And, absolutely you don't need a million dollars to be a success. This is one of the reasons I moved to Mexico. If I can net $1000 a month, I can live a very nice life here. At $2000 a month, I'm living well into the middle class. At $5000 a month I'm rich. At $10,000 a month I'd be among the super rich and probably have to hire security guards or pretend I'm poor.

The thing is, just like you can't match Amanda, the vast majority of indies cannot match you.

I send indies to your Pen Name blog post about once a week. It happens when they start crying that they've worked really really hard and have no success and then I check their Amazon and the have 2 books published. And they did it a year apart.

There is some degree of a formula for success in the indie market. Yes, of course, there are outliers and exceptions.

But the most common way to make a living is to produce a series that has some depth, 6-10 books deep (typically).

And to produce it and get it to market reasonable rapidly. This doesn't guarantee success, but it certainly increases the odds exponentially.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> That was another thing about collaboration that I forgot to mention.... unless it's doubling output it could end up being just as much "work hours" because you have the added communication with a team or partner and splitting the proceeds vs. making the same sales on a project you do yourself to take to market.
> 
> "When I die, I want my pallbearers to be all the people I had to do group work with in school, so they can let me down one last time."


This is entirely true. I think in order for a collaboration to work best (not the only way--but imho the best way) is for the partnership to have a "senior" partner, one person who has the leverage and weight to make sure things work as per plan.

I'm extremely fortunate in my case, as I'm working with professionals who are leagues above me. I'm going to do whatever I can to produce and work hard. But, for sure, the risk is always going to be present in any partnership or group where one or more members drop the ball.

I suppose in a "shared" world situation, like with Michael Anderle's writers, this is less of a problem for Michael, on the publishing side. If a writer doesn't produce, he's not lost much of his own time/energy. He can drop that writer and get a new one.

I think he said a couple of weeks ago he'd published 16 books in one month, between his own, his co-written ones, and his shared world ones. Essentially he's a publisher in nearly all of that stuff, not a writer/creator, as nobody could possibly be too involved in 16 books in one month unless they were an AI robot.

I chatted with one of the writers who decided to join the group and she said, "I can't get the exposure on my own work, so the profit sharing is worth it to me." This is because Michael gives co-writing credits, as opposed to hiring GW, which I suppose he could have done just as easily. I guess it's a testament to his genuine desire to help people over just purely being in the game to make money.

That's my take anyway. He seems like a really good guy, although I've never met him, that's my opinion based upon what he's done in the indie world.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Patty Jansen said:


> If you collaborate with a big name, you'll probably end up like their ghostwriter writing in their world which they own. Nothing wrong with it, just make sure you check your expectations and your contract and make sure you don't end up resenting time you could spend developing your own body of work.


Yes, this is true. Russell has talked about this on his Facebook page, RE: writing with Clive Clusser.

In my case, the co-writer, who has a name in the indie world, as chosen to remain hidden, thus new pen name: Hunter Ross.

While Russell is the big name here, editing two unknown pen names, he's the developmental editor, so it's bit different. It remains to be seen what happens, obviously having a known name on the project, even as an editor, helps. No doubt.

As to the world development, I did this before Hunter Ross and Russell attached themselves to the project, so in terms of feeling like it's "my world" I have that. But, that said, I'm trying to build a career and become a successful (ie working for a living) writer, so I don't really care about the kudos as much as the cash.

No matter what happens, I've learned a ton, so it's all good for me. I hope we actually make some money, obviously. If the project is a success, there's no reason we'd not continue the series out longer. Hunter Ross is developing his own standalone (I think...) book, or maybe if that's a success, he'll turn it into a series. In either case, if it's successful, it'll feed back to the Tetra War series, and we'll gain from the exposure.

My desire would be that this series is successful and then I can write another series in the same genre and benefit from the connection. If Hunter Ross is successful, perhaps he'll go back to his original audience and tell them about the pen name. Also, if Russell's readers are curious about his editing, and the series does well, this will also help.

so, all that said, one of my points about collaboration is that it can take many forms.

I think, for instance, that writers like Chris Fox or Joanna Penn, or the 3 guys at SPP, sort of "collaborate" with themselves, in that, if people find one set of books interesting, there will be some cross-over, it might be small, but there's some. Certainly indies who picked up Chris Fox's Write to Market were also interested in Void and other things. I know I did, I can't imagine I'm alone.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

I'm shooting for the Andy Weir success plan, personally.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

SidK said:


> You had books in Top 100 Overall in Amazon and still made less than your day job?!!!?  Is this right? I thought you had to sell thousands of copies a day to get in the Top 100 overall


Last year, I did not make more than my old day job. Understand that my day job was six figures. I was at the top of my field and often hired for the most difficult tasks out there.

This year, -if- I can maintain the sales I've had for the last five months, I will make more than I used to. You can take nothing for granted in this business. Part of what has helped me here is that I brought the work ethic that got me to the top in my old field with me.


----------



## ibizwiz (Dec 25, 2014)

Thanks to M Ryan and all who've commented on a timely (to me) topic. To me, the central problem writing teams face is:

"How to produce quality volumes of stories large numbers of people want to read and do it fast enough to grab sustainable audience share and do it economically enough to make bankable profits after paying an ever-increasing share of revenues for visibility?"

It's at least a year too soon to mouth off about the success of our approach to the problem collaborations face, but all your pro and con comments suggest many are thinking afresh about this conundrum.

I've been a project leader most of my pre-writing career, well used to dealing with all kinds of creative folks, the fast along with the furious. My tech projects succeeded (when they did - many failed) first because they had a strong marketing concept and then, a strong plan, and then, a strong leader.

Given this background, I naturally am leaning to a "directed team" approach, using contract co-writers as opposed to partners. We're starting with a carefully defined "family" of target audiences, a wide-scope story arc, and a flexible contemporary world definition. We see at least a dozen candidates for interlocking series over probably a 4-5 year window. 

This business model, for that's what it is, no matter it "produces" creative products as opposed to craft beers and cheeses, is designed to support these attributes:

- develop younger fiction writers faster, especially female, since our stories delve deeply into female issues, psyches, experiences, and ambitions
- have sufficient volume to support a consulting (career) developmental editor who can help me motivate and guide the writing team 
- put the line editing, copy editing/proofreading, production steps and design work under qualified specialists
- manage wide distribution, including print editions, and platform business development and relationships
- manage streaming rights and production development - many of our series lend themselves to Netflix/AMC/Amazon productions
- develop a central interactive platform for (only) our series, including all blogs and landing pages, and, importantly, quickly developing the ability to sell direct - especially the boxed sets
- also importantly, solve the problem of multi-list building and social media exploitation in a coordinated manner
- most importantly of all, manage the Facebook and other advertising, launches, cross promotion

Oh, and this:
- manage merchandising: our stuff is funny, and that means lots of tees and other goodies.

A few caveats:

The approach outlined above has not, to my knowledge, been fully put into practice, so far. We could well fall on our collective face. 

We're in a niche category, outside the conventional "discovery" channels like Amazon's pop genres or Bookbub's categories. I believe I have defined audiences that will buy our stories, and have devised a strategy to reach them in sufficient numbers. I could well be wrong.

It will take us time to recruit writers to this new concept. But hopefully not too much time. After all, when all the support, production, and marketing tasks are performed by experts, and when the story arc and outlining is already done and double-tested, a serious writer should be capable of averaging 10K a week of edit-ready material. That's a 60-70K novel every two months. We can meet our initial 3-year growth targets with as few as four writing team members.

Technically, our newly formed LLC will be acting as a publisher, but we're only interested in the development of a group of imprints (really micro-brands) exploring my creative vision conceived over thirty years and more. Yeah, an arrogant old SOB, you betcha. We won't be interested in publishing other writers independently.

Meaning we have to find apprentice-level (not necessarily young) writers who are ready to learn how to write to *our* market, sharing a recognizable style, with humor, confidence in letting the many dozens of characters on our long-term story horizon tell their own tale, and who can work to a plan. Very bluntly, they will not control the storylines as they master what we do. This project is about intelligent entertainment for smarter adults, not "art". 

Before reading this thread, I'd long ago decided the contract writers would need contractual protection, and story credits, both as part of the team for a given title and as individuals, eg, on the website and in featured bio-posts. I'd expect our writers typically to learn enough (and earn enough) to confidently go on their own in perhaps 3 to 5 years, with enough knowledge about *all* aspects of e-publishing to run their own writing business successfully -- and a strong CV of their experience to go with it.

In short, we'll be acting more like a film studio than a trad publishing house. Before the mass success of Kindle and its copiers, this business form would have been inconceivable. The investment required would have topped more than a hundred million, and still not have much chance of reaching sustainability.

But thanks to Bezo's vision, we can roll out an international team-enterprise with nearly zero overhead and fielding experts in Europe as well as North America. Thanks to Bezo's relentless global ambitions, we can reach most of the readers we have selected with almost no significant net promotional expense. Thanks to Bezo's compelling hunger for book-buyers to enter Amazon's retailing front door, millions are now reading who might otherwise be inextricably engaged with pop TV programs.

And now, thanks to the many f-ups of Bezos and his Kindle group, we and other literate entrepreneurs have a chance to take away a fat chunk of his market share -- provided we can do it in an economically and artistically viable way.

Both the collaborative and micro-corporate team models can succeed. But in either case, writers will need to modify their immediate goals and ambitions to share in that success.

Most will not. But they too can benefit if teams like ours and the collaboratives make it since as we all should understand by now, only a rising tide can flood a moribund Amazon.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

Michael Anderle doesn't hire ghost writers is because he would have to pay them. Michael is a marketing genius (and I mean that, the man is brilliant) whose goal is to make money. Paying people isn't making money. Sharing credit is making money. 
By sharing his world with others, he's increased his share of the market, and he is able to control the quality while helping others make money too. Win-win situation all the way around, and everyone is happy.

Have I mentioned that he's a marketing genius?

If you study him, and others who have been as successful as him, and then try to emulate what they did right, you have a chance to be successful to. Trying to just copy them however won't work. Emulating is not copying. You have to understand how they got there, it's not just a simple formula.

Working with another writer who has been successful is a good step, because you'll learn from them what they did, and how they got there. That will make it easier to look at people like Michael and understand just what he's doing. I do think you're on the right track.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

John Van Stry said:


> Michael Anderle doesn't hire ghost writers is because he would have to pay them.


That isn't necessarily true.

For instance, when I ghost wrote an erom, I got paid a fee.

Had I been given a percentage, I'd have made more money.

You're only talking two things: guarantees and timing.

A ghost writer is guaranteed a set fee and a timely payment.
A co-writer is given a percentage, which might end up being zero, and no set payment schedule.

But a Anderle Publishing is still paying the co-writers, they aren't working for free. Unless, I suppose the books don't make any money at all, but the difference between that and what they could have received as a ghost writer is probably only $400-500 bucks.

Essentially a co-writer is taking on part of the risk, but that is a form of payment.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

ibizwiz said:


> Thanks to M Ryan and all who've commented on a timely (to me) topic.
> ....
> 
> But they too can benefit if teams like ours and the collaboratives make it since as we all should understand by now, only a rising tide can flood a moribund Amazon.


You're welcome. I appreciated this insight.

If I was going to build a business like this, I'd do the same as you outline above. I'd build the universe myself, perhaps with one partner, and then hire out the story lines.

It's very similar to the Star Wars and other franchises.

I'm not positive that Bella Forrest is doing something like this, but if I was to bet money on it, that would be my bet.

There is a reason Hollywood keeps pumping out super hero movies.
There's a reason Janet Evanovich didn't stop ten books ago.

Anyway, good luck, I hope to hear more about this.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

ibizwiz said:


> a serious writer should be capable of averaging 10K a week of edit-ready material. That's a 60-70K novel every two months. We can meet our initial 3-year growth targets with as few as four writing team members.


That's slow. 10k a day of edit ready material isn't hard to put out. If I were to set up this sort of business I would want writers to write at my speed. Fast writers are a must when outbuilding these worlds.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

There have been companies that come and gone that have tried to do the whole "team" publishing thing. Ultimately, people figure out they are NOT doing anything new but being a publisher and as such they either start acting like a publisher or get in trouble with keeping the cash flow going (when you do not do things in established ways in publishing it becomes very easy to rob Peter to pay Paul until the music stops and the company goes out of business).

I personally would not allow anyone to be between me and my royalties unless it's money I'm willing to give up if it's embezzled or otherwise mismanaged or the company is a corporation (not LLC) with an extensive track record. Creatives are the last paid when debts are settled. 

There are reasons authors started taking advances...because typically the whole "let's make money together" plan never matches risk and work input as in publishers put in the lesser of the upfront work on a book on the expectation they have more work later in managing the property....when a book fails though a publisher can cut their losses and the author still has the advance.

There was a Washington based company that used to arrange publishing teams and they were a good way to get noticed by Amazon imprints early on. They dissolved I think two years ago putting all those authors in a mess of reconciling the buyouts with their editors and cover artists that we're getting a percentage... 

I really would not recommend in a blanket fashion cowriting to new authors. Their greenness puts them behind the eight ball in negotiating a fair deal in compensation and work balance from a lack of experience. Pretty much any deal you can't walk away from because you need it is almost exactly the kind of deal you will come to regret. And when people make bad business decisions they don't shout it from the rooftops, they quietly slink away and cut their losses. There will always be a disproportionate amount of positive "this is wonderful" in publishing opportunities because no one wants to admit when they messed up and run the risk of legal fallout to defend just speaking the truth. This is why right up the day before a publishing company or promotional company closes their doors, it's almost always something no one saw coming.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## hunterone (Feb 6, 2013)

MichaelRyan said:


> Yeah, that's a mouth full.
> 
> So, I'm a couple days out from my first in a series release. It's a co-written project with NYT bestseller Russell Blake taking his first stab at developmental editing (and line-copy editing, too).
> 
> ...


First off. Russel Blake has time to EDIT other peoples work?

Second. I don't work in a team or use GW and i've put out two full novels a month for the past 2 years and no i didn't see my name up in that authors earnings but maybe my name was blurred 

Third. ( Write a series.
Make it deep.
Get it to market fast and regularly.) This is common knowledge but just because you can do it. It doesn't mean you should or will want to do it. That only works if the series takes off. Often book 4 or 5 is when people go elsewhere unless the stories are contained ( i.e mystery is new each time ) Plus i get BORED real easy of writing the same crap so i cut off my series at 5 even if readers want more.

Fourth. I have no desire to write with others and get into sharing profits and that. Each to their own.

At the end of the day. There is only so much time on this planet. You will one day be dead and none of this will matter. Write what you LOVE. Write what you want to be remembered for. You can chase the money and I have done that but it just leads to chasing more money and more and more. You will never be satisfied, believe me, it never ends. You just want more. I have hit some crazy figures but this year I am dialing back and writing more of the stuff i want to write.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

LindsayBuroker said:


> After you start making enough to have spare money around to invest, there are easier ways to increase your net worth than writing 20 books a year. Nothing wrong with writing a lot, mind you, (I'm not Amanda, but I seem to get something out almost every month myself!), but I'd hate for people to feel they're just screwed if they can't do that.


I'm seconding this ... and see that Patty already has. So, alright, I'm "thirding" it.

I write between 1 and 2 books a year, and my income has been over 60K for three years now. If you enjoy the book a month publishing pace, by all means, go for it. You may not be able to publish that quickly, though--because you have kids, because you need your day job, because of lots of reasons--you can still make a decent income writing much more slowly.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> Out clauses and windfall clauses. Who owns what in derivative rights? In a shared story world, if book one is picked up for a movie or series, are co-authors later in the shared world entitled to compensation? Perhaps you may think we'll of course not but yet an argument could be made a Book 1 is only made more popular the more and more books are added to a series... Etc.
> 
> I made naiive mistakes early in my author career with people who did not see me as a colleague but an intern. Yet I taught them and helped them in their careers... I hear second hand too many slap dash collaboration deals all because it is the buzzword du our like writ to market was last year. I would say get a lawyer to look over all contracts, HAVE a contract and during your elation of feeling like "wow this big name noticed me and wants to work with me squeee" feelings consider how it will feel of this person you admire and look up to devastated you in a professional split up. Not speaking about a specific person here, Russell Blake I've known since 2011 he's very good people, but there are others out there that will smile and play you with pretty compliments and twist a knife in your back the second a better gullible person, I'm sorry, opportunity, comes along.


This was kind of glossed over in this thread and I think it needs to be repeated and emphasized. No matter what you're doing, do it smart and have a contract in place. I'm currently doing business with my best friend in this world, but we have a contract *just in case*. Talk it over, READ IT, red-line it, show it to a lawyer, etc. But get one that protects you and the other parties involved.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

C. Gockel said:


> I'm seconding this ... and see that Patty already has. So, alright, I'm "thirding" it.
> 
> I write between 1 and 2 books a year, and my income has been over 60K for three years now. If you enjoy the book a month publishing pace, by all means, go for it. You may not be able to publish that quickly, though--because you have kids, because you need your day job, because of lots of reasons--you can still make a decent income writing much more slowly.


I third what these two have said and I write a lot of books a year.

There is nothing wrong with writing fast or writing lots of books but it can lead to burn out, health problems and relationship problems, never mind mental problems. And was that really why ANY of us got started writing?

Each person has to decide what matters to them most and live with the consequences.

For every positive there is a negative. For every negative there is a positive.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Lorri Moulton said:


> My business plan has always been 3-5 years. I'm at 1.5 years and slightly ahead of where I expected to be.


Yeah, I had a brilliant "ten year plan" to quit my day job but wound up there in gosh ... two? I guess I still did contract work for a while, so maybe it was a little longer.

I do know people who have suffered serious burnout and health issues. I still have too many stories in my head and not enough time to tell them, and I love what I do. I wake up every morning and I can't believe I'm a writer. No one is a write in real life! I type out my day dreams and people PAY me for it. Geez.


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

John Van Stry said:


> I know from a fan that I am now a 'topic of discussion' over at the 20books site, and that I was also one of the 'topics of conversation' at their last convention. Everyone was like 'I'm going to copy what he does and make millions'


That's interesting. I'm all over the 20Books FB page, and was at the convention, and the only people discussed in both are/were people who are *in* the group and who were actually *at* the convention. There were plenty of examples of 6- and 7-figure authors right there in the flesh that we could point to and talk to, face-to-face. With all of the successful authors there who were more than willing to share information and answer questions, there honestly wasn't time to discuss people who didn't bother to attend.
Except Bella Forrest because of course...Bella Forrest. I think she was discussed for a whole twenty seconds.

_
Edited as I have removed quoted post. Evenstar, Moderator_


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

PamelaKelley said:


> That list didn't say all 50 earn 7 figures.


The list didn't say about about their dollar earnings. Lindsay guessed seven figures.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Hoop said:


> That's interesting. I'm all over the 20Books FB page, and was at the convention, and the only people discussed in both are/were people who are *in* the group and who were actually *at* the convention.


I didn't do the convention, but I'm in that Facebook group, and I'm scratching my head a little, too. May require some searching.

[size=8pt]_
Edited as I have removed quoted post. Evenstar, Moderator[size=8pt]_


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Just a reminder to keep your posts as respectful as possible. I have removed some unnecessary sniping.


----------



## Fleurina (Nov 13, 2017)

> I'm seconding this ... and see that Patty already has. So, alright, I'm "thirding" it.
> 
> I write between 1 and 2 books a year, and my income has been over 60K for three years now. If you enjoy the book a month publishing pace, by all means, go for it. You may not be able to publish that quickly, though--because you have kids, because you need your day job, because of lots of reasons--you can still make a decent income writing much more slowly.


Thanks for posting this, it's refreshing. I would be put in a straitjacket and carted off in a van if I attempted a book a month. I'm aiming for two novels and two non-fiction this year, but, in reality, it will probably be one of each.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

Shelley K said:


> I didn't do the convention, but I'm in that Facebook group, and I'm scratching my head a little, too. May require some searching.
> 
> [size=8pt]_
> Edited as I have removed quoted post. Evenstar, Moderator[size=8pt]
> ...


_

I was at the convention and I don't recall anyone being 'discussed' either. Unless those discussions went on in private, the fan sounds like they got their wires crossed._


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

hunterone said:


> First off. Russel Blake has time to EDIT other peoples work?


He's sort of a machine. I think he can get by with 4 hours sleep.

I'm sort of the opposite. What this collaboration has forced upon me is a stronger work ethic. It's not that I'm lazy, but rather I find after 3500 words in a day my mind shuts down. I'm trying to accept that it's a muscle and can be worked into shape. I still find I need 8 hours of sleep, but maybe that can be adjusted.

I wasn't sure about collaboration at first, but I'm finding it's working out really well.

The nice thing for me is I can't lose here. Even if I never saw a penny, the experience is invaluable. Not everyone is going to be in that position, however. I realize this is a bit of an anomaly.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

P.J. Post said:


> Ghost writer and co-author relationships are similar,
> 
> On a different note, writing collaboratives, just like writing to market strategies, improve your individual chances of success not at all.


I'm confused why you'd think ghost writing and co-authoring are similar?
I ghost wrote.
I am co-writing.
They are nothing at all alike.

GW = one person has total control.
CW = joint venture
GW = fixed payment
CW = shared revenue
GW = no credit, no ability to market off the success if there is some
CW = shared credit, ability to swap lists, share customer base, and link to shared books online
GW = limited fixed rate of pay
CW = percentage of royalty, no limit to income stream
GW = no percentage later if there are secondary or foreign rights
CW = shared secondary rights

I can't come up with one single thing (or than "you're writing") that is similar between ghost writing an co-writing.

Next, you don't think collaboration improves ones chances of success?

This seems a little crazy to me. And entirely false, at least from my perspective. Basically you're claiming I'm not better off working with Russell and learning from him and benefiting from his expertise and market position. You're claiming I'd have the same chance of success on my own? That seems so obviously wrong, that maybe you mean something else?

Clearly you don't mean I'm not benefiting from this?

And the second you admit I'm benefiting, your claim is proved wrong.

Maybe you mean something different.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Russel Blake is a smart guy, and I almost wonder if one of the assignments he gave you was, "Create a slightly edgy post and put it on Kboards to start some Buzz."

I think the chatter is getting really silly at this point, though.

Does collaboration work? Yes! Does writing alone work? Yes! 
Is collaboration the future? Yes, but it's also the past. It's been done before, is done now, will be done again.
Is working alone the future? See answer above.
Is writing a heck of a lot the future? See answer above ... but it may not be necessary for you. It didn't take me 20 books to reach 50K, nor did it take as many for a lot of authors out there.


----------



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

While I get the appeal of co-written books, it's not something I'm really interested in at this point. I know nothing about the OP's arrangement so I'm not talking about that specifically, but I've seen a few troubling things with co-written books of late.
1. It's most often a big author with a smaller author. This makes sense in theory BUT the bigger author most often benefits more from the partnership. You can argue back and forth whether this is fair. I can find arguments for both sides. Still, there are a lot of co-writers doing a lot of work and getting relatively nothing while the bigger author cleans up. People need to keep their eyes open and actually study their particular situation with honest eyes. What actually happens is not always the same thing as what authors think is going to happen. Just keep that in mind and don't stick with a situation that is not working simply because you thought it would and refuse to admit you made a mistake.
2. The unfortunate thing that has come out thanks to high profile collaborations making news is smaller authors with no following trying to use and abuse other authors for their financial gain. I've seen it at least three times this month alone. I mean ... seriously. If an author has no following and offers a cover and editing for a book while someone else does all the work of writing the book and the first author owns copyright and fifty percent of the royalties, what exactly is the co-writer getting? There's no proven sales history. There's nothing to sell that partnership. I think that will get more and more prevalent because people can't seem to help themselves from wanting something for essentially nothing. The sad thing is authors are actually falling for that sort of collaboration.
3. Eventually the new "thing" will be collaborations falling apart because that always happens. People will fight. Those who were smart enough to set up contracts beforehand will survive but damage will be done regardless as insults and stories get thrown far and wide. This will not happen to all collaborations but, let's be honest, look at this thread. No one gets along all the time. We're going to see a lot of wars and that will further fracture the indie community. It's an inevitability.
So, are collaborations the future? I'm certain, in the future, so people will collaborate. It will work for some and not others. Will single authors still be fine? Yes. Just like always, some will make it and some won't. The publishing world isn't really going to change all that much no matter what. Certain small things will change but the big things will stay the same.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2018)

C. Gockel said:


> It didn't take me 20 books to reach 50K, nor did it take as many for a lot of authors out there.


This ^

I made 6-figures with only a handful of books out in 2015 and 2016. Last year wasn't so flash because of life - I stopped writing, didn't do any advertising and only released 1 book last year. I still made 50k and again, I don't have anywhere near 20 books out, I haven't even cracked double digits yet.

For some people, writing lots and regular releases works for them. For some people, collaborations will work. Personally I don't play well with others and the "book a month" is a hamster wheel I have no intention of getting on. I write slow, I release slow, my readers read slow... in that they savour my books and often go back to them again and again to re-read . That works for me, gives me a sustainable income, and provides me a good work/life balance. I'm doing better following Patty's advice, than following the 20 books to 50k advice.

Everyone has to find the method, production schedule, and audience that works for them. Fast releases, pricing at 99 cents, KU and obsessing over Amazon rank is only ONE path. Writers need to know that success comes in many different guises. There are plenty of authors doing well and making full time incomes who have Amazon ranks that are sneered at on the kboards.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

I can't think of any arguments that a bigger well known author who has established a world/brand shouldn't get a lot more of the royalties than the smaller author collaborating with them. The smaller author would not have the opportunity or visibility if not for the larger author. ?? 

I was kind of wondering when Michael Anderle and his business model were going to come under scrutiny though. Seems like anyone successful in this business eventually does.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> I can't think of any arguments that a bigger well known author who has established a world/brand shouldn't get a lot more of the royalties than the smaller author collaborating with them. The smaller author would not have the opportunity or visibility if not for the larger author. ??
> 
> I was kind of wondering when Michael Anderle and his business model were going to come under scrutiny though. Seems like anyone successful in this business eventually does.


There are a few problems with that 20books site as I see it. It's like a feeding frenzy of newbies all waving at any successful author to try and gain attention. The site, and conferences seem to be set up as a backdrop for some to scoop up the 'talented' few who can write well and fast, and brings them into the collective world that appears to be making a few bigger names a lot of money and ranking for doing relatively little writing work.

Then you have the ethos of not plugging your own 'something' and yet there are a few who have made big money by plugging facebook and AMS ad books, as well as a few other things. Certain people only pop up to plug their own books with posts that claim to be this is how it's done with no email list, when in fact it's done from the big boys sharing the book at launch to their lists. Then there was the whole free books for email sign up, again all for the top authors in the collective, and asked to be shared.

That's not to say you can't learn anything there, you can, and it can be a friendly place, but it's far from what it was when it was started, and has become just a marketing tool for some.

I have no problem with people making money, or newbies trying to catch the golden touch, but it's gone too far away from what it originally was with too many newbie posts now.


----------



## Seneca42 (Dec 11, 2016)

Atlantisatheart said:


> The site, and conferences seem to be set up as a backdrop for some to scoop up the 'talented' few who can write well and fast, and brings them into the collective world that *appears* to be making *a few* bigger names a lot of money and ranking for doing relatively little writing work.


#truth


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Tilly said:


> Everyone has to find the method, production schedule, and audience that works for them. Fast releases, pricing at 99 cents, KU and obsessing over Amazon rank is only ONE path. Writers need to know that success comes in many different guises. There are plenty of authors doing well and making full time incomes who have Amazon ranks that are sneered at on the kboards.


I have terrible ranks on Amazon. I stopped checking though, because my income has increased even though my ranking has dropped.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

C. Gockel said:


> I have terrible ranks on Amazon. I stopped checking though, because my income has increased even though my ranking has dropped.


Yep, I consistently rank in the top 100 of a genre, but I sell at a higher price point and make double the money as a friend who ranks higher than me. It's a flawed system, I know that if I wanted to shift more books all I need to do is to drop the price and the rank will increase, but why would I do that?


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> Russel Blake is a smart guy, and I almost wonder if one of the assignments he gave you was, "Create a slightly edgy post and put it on Kboards to start some Buzz."
> 
> I think the chatter is getting really silly at this point, though.
> 
> ...


The conversation isn't just about collaboration, per se.

One of the things that stood out in the Author Earnings report was the growth of the Amazon Imprints in market share.
This seemed to have come (is coming from) the indie market.

If Amazon can push two genre series that are otherwise equal, why wouldn't they push the imprint over the indie?

I have a friend in the ticket reselling business.
Sidebar: He just bought a house due to the World Series finally coming to Los Angeles.

Now, he started this business in 1982. Actually, I was his partner in his first adventure, we had 91 World Series tickets for the games that would be played at Angel Stadium, if only the Angels could not drop a 2-0 lead in the ALCS. They, of course, became the first team in history to lose games 3, 4, and 5 in an ALCS.

But I digress. Over the years the stadiums began noticing the fact that ticket resellers were making money off the playoffs and big weekend match ups, like when the Yankees came to Anaheim over the weekend.

So, they fought back. Dynamic pricing. Closing down season ticket accounts. Raising playoff ticket prices to seemingly outrageous prices.

And then Ticketmaster and Stub-hub got in the game, the permutations were all over the place.

The business people at Amazon are looking at the numbers the same as anyone.

Michael Anderle's vampire series became like the Dodgers or the Yankees or the Red Sox going on a rampage. So, what? They back a winner, of course.

It's a classic tipping point thing. Doesn't matter if there are other good vampire in space books, Amazon isn't going to show customers a book that has 5 or even 100 reviews with little sales momentum if they can instead show a customer a book with 1000 reviews that is in the charts. They understand buyers. Buyers want winners. Buyers want to see the #1 tags. Buyers want to see lots of reviews. Buyers want to see a series that is deep.

So how does a single author get the "tipping point" to work for them.

Well, write The Martian or Wool....but that's a tall order.
Or, write 20 books a year....but that's a tall order.

Some people can do these things, some can't. Some don't want to.

I'm not evangelizing collaboration, I'm just pointing out that the landscape that is already favoring long series is going to (probably) continue to do so, and probably at an even more drastic ratio. And I think Amazon imprints is one of the reasons, it only makes sense that Zon will continue to aggressively market it's own line of stuff. Why wouldn't it?

So, unless you can get to market these long series in a timely manner, or you've written an outlier stand-alone, then one option to consider is building a partnership or team or something to get more exposure. This only works if the sum of all the parts is greater, but there are lots of examples of this being the case.

And I'm sure lots of horror stories, as well.
But, there's 1000s of solo indies who make no money in either case, so maybe there's nothing to lose for a lot of people.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## CM Raymond (Jun 28, 2015)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Kevin J Anderson (who collaborated on all the Dune books with Frank Herbert's son) wrote a book on collaboration last year. It was exclusive to the NaNoWriMo Storybundle, but I know he was also intending on publishing it as a standalone sometime this year. I don't play well with others so collaboration's not for me, but it was interesting to read the varied forms his collaborations had taken over the years.


Very cool. I didn't know about this.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

Hmmm, lots of negativity about Michael Anderle's collaborations. Of course, negativity on KBoards is what got the 20Booksto50K group started, so it seems it's the same old same old. What I will say is that a benefit of those collaborations and a general benefit I haven't seen mentioned is that the income has allowed the collaborators to become full time writers. While the series remains successful that income will give those writers the freedom to focus on their careers, regardless of whether the cache of association with the Anderle brand works for them.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Abderian said:


> Hmmm, lots of negativity about Michael Anderle's collaborations. Of course, negativity on KBoards is what got the 20Booksto50K group started, so it seems it's the same old same old. What I will say is that a benefit of those collaborations and a general benefit I haven't seen mentioned is that the income has allowed the collaborators to become full time writers. While the series remains successful that income will give those writers the freedom to focus on their careers, regardless of whether the cache of association with the Anderle brand works for them.


I actually think working as a ghost writer is a great way to learn to write, especially if it comes with a plot. You get to see in the mind of a successful author, and how they set up a story. It's a paid apprenticeship, if you will.

The only thing I don't like is the "This is the way" that seems to be proselytized.

The truth is there is no "Way."

ETA: And there isn't a spoon either.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

C. Gockel said:


> I actually think working as a ghost writer is a great way to learn to write, especially if it comes with a plot. You get to see in the mind of a successful author, and how they set up a story. It's a paid apprenticeship, if you will.
> 
> The only thing I don't like is the "This is the way" that seems to be proselytized.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I can hardly believe I'm not still a newbie writer, but when I was, I spent a lot of time trying to find the way to succeed. Now I realise I have to find my way to succeed. 
Re GW vs collaborating, I agree that GW is a great introduction, but Michael Anderle's collaborators are already good writers. Also, their incomes from collaborating far exceed what a GW would earn from each book. I don't think in this case the two are comparable.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Yeah, I could see a future where most of the big bestsellers are actually put together and put out by teams.


This makes me so sad. It's like watching the book stuffing, click farming scammers take over Amazon. Nothing I can do, nothing I want to get involved in, nothing about actually being a writer. And look at people who are all over this collaboration stuff. I get that people are excited over whatever the latest "thing" is to be a publishing success, but not everyone wants to live on that monster rollercoaster.

Personally, I'm going with the C. Gockel school of writing success, and with Patty's advice thrown in, as well as a few other people I admire who are doing what they love without glitter in their eyes. They seem to have a more realistic view of how you can actually write good stories and still be successful. It may not be a quick path, but it's a sustainable path.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

In my opinion, collaboration opens up a lot of opportunities. 

New authors can gain visibility, and leverage it to build their own audiences. 

Veteran authors whose books aren't getting traction can reach new readers, and hopefully breathe new life into their backlists.

Successful authors can leverage their time, which is otherwise impossible to scale.

Most importantly, customers get more products to buy.

Will some authors take advantage of other authors via collaborative arrangements? Of course. But if all parties are smart and wary and come to the table with realistic expectations, and they proceed voluntarily, where is the harm?


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> This makes me so sad. It's like watching the book stuffing, click farming scammers take over Amazon. Nothing I can do, nothing I want to get involved in, nothing about actually being a writer. And look at people who are all over this collaboration stuff. I get that people are excited over whatever the latest "thing" is to be a publishing success, but not everyone wants to live on that monster rollercoaster.
> 
> Personally, I'm going with the C. Gockel school of writing success, and with Patty's advice thrown in, as well as a few other people I admire who are doing what they love without glitter in their eyes. They seem to have a more realistic view of how you can actually write good stories and still be successful. It may not be a quick path, but it's a sustainable path.


100%^^ Totally agree with this. 

I can see how it's tempting to try all the latest "techniques" in an effort to jump-start your sales. If you're trying something new, keep your eyes open and be honest with yourself when deciding how to move forward. Sure, there are lots of ways to get a temporary boost in sales, but is what you're doing something that you can replicate with predictable results? Or is it a short-term boost? Either one can be valuable, but if you're looking at building a fan base and maintaining consistent sales to have a sustainable income, you have to understand the difference. Is pouring money into the latest fad something that is growing your fan base and enhancing your brand, or is it only giving you short-term exposure in a group of 20 other authors? Is co-writing a series with a successful author doing anything to sell your backlist, or are you more of a side kick in the relationship? Are you happy selling 20K books in a week because of a collaboration, and then returning to selling nothing when the hype cools off?
You have to decide what is a priority to you. Asking yourself hard questions is key.

Personally, I know I've diverted a lot of time and money on things that were not necessarily strengthening my personal brand. I assessed what was going on, where I wanted my career to go, and I've implemented changes to make that happen. My priority is a consistent minimal income, so there's one way I know to achieve that; a consistent release schedule. I've cut out a lot of time-suck and have committed to what I think of as the Amanda Lee model: make writing the priority every day, write darn good books, keep my hungry fans happy by publishing regularly, rinse and repeat. She doesn't do a lot, if any, (correct me if I'm wrong) marketing...she just writes the next book. And the next one. And the next one. <shrug> I've been around awhile and it's pretty much the prime method I've observed to be a consistent factor for successful authors. Of course, we all write at varying speeds, but YKWIM


----------



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

I do a few AMS ads and have actually built a pixel for Facebook ads that I'm testing right now. The testing for the Facebook ads is ridiculously small right now, though. I also tried a BookBub ad (not the feature deal, but an ad) a couple of weeks ago and might do one of those again down the road. I keep my advertising to about 1K a month.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

she-la-ti-da said:


> This makes me so sad. It's like watching the book stuffing, click farming scammers take over Amazon. Nothing I can do, nothing I want to get involved in, nothing about actually being a writer. And look at people who are all over this collaboration stuff. I get that people are excited over whatever the latest "thing" is to be a publishing success, but not everyone wants to live on that monster rollercoaster.
> 
> Personally, I'm going with the C. Gockel school of writing success, and with Patty's advice thrown in, as well as a few other people I admire who are doing what they love without glitter in their eyes. They seem to have a more realistic view of how you can actually write good stories and still be successful. It may not be a quick path, but it's a sustainable path.


It's not popular or hip to be a steady writer building a lifelong career. Much more sexy to talk about the latest fads or the flash in the pans or how to make a bucket of dough fast by any means necessary.

I'll take sustainable over the long term, mostly because I know I'll write until I'm no longer capable of writing. I don't write to make a quick buck and I don't write planning to retire from it in a few years. Writing is what I do and who I am. Indie publishing has added a fantastic wrinkle to the writing life and I love it. I'm one of many prawns hereabouts, but I know I'm paying bills with my writing income. My income has grown year after year, and it'll continue to do so as long as I keep writing and publishing and loving what I do. I know many others are doing the same. As has been said elsewhere, there are many paths up the mountain.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

I'm also on the Patty and Gockel side of things, even if I'm not successful in that arena. (That's an objective disclaimer. I know what I don't make.) I'm hard headed enough that I haven't quit, and studious enough to keep learning marketing from a variety of sources.

Like all publisher, collaborations want to maximize success while minimizing risk, and risk is where any genre gets interesting. I happen to find all those blank spaces on the map far more interesting than yet another genre filler, so I'll always make a mess of any rational marketing plan by going for what's interesting to me.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Douglas Milewski said:


> Like all publisher, collaborations want to maximize success while minimizing risk, and risk is where any genre gets interesting. I happen to find all those blank spaces on the map far more interesting than yet another genre filler, so I'll always make a mess of any rational marketing plan by going for what's interesting to me.


Depends on the collaboration too. I don't know that one can call an anthology a collaboration, but I've had fun getting into a few that aren't genres that I've dabbled much in yet. Getting into an anthology is a good way to diversify and try writing in a genre you might not have tried before. And there are opportunities to get into indie anthologies if you keep your eyes and options open.


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

Jim Johnson said:


> It's not popular or hip to be a steady writer building a lifelong career. Much more sexy to talk about the latest fads or the flash in the pans or how to make a bucket of dough fast by any means necessary.
> 
> I'll take sustainable over the long term, mostly because I know I'll write until I'm no longer capable of writing. I don't write to make a quick buck and I don't write planning to retire from it in a few years. Writing is what I do and who I am. Indie publishing has added a fantastic wrinkle to the writing life and I love it. I'm one of many prawns hereabouts, but I know I'm paying bills with my writing income. My income has grown year after year, and it'll continue to do so as long as I keep writing and publishing and loving what I do. I know many others are doing the same. As has been said elsewhere, there are many paths up the mountain.


That's not a binary choice, though. Fast and steady aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

Jim Johnson said:


> It's not popular or hip to be a steady writer building a lifelong career. Much more sexy to talk about the latest fads or the flash in the pans or how to make a bucket of dough fast by any means necessary.
> 
> I'll take sustainable over the long term, mostly because I know I'll write until I'm no longer capable of writing. I don't write to make a quick buck and I don't write planning to retire from it in a few years. Writing is what I do and who I am. Indie publishing has added a fantastic wrinkle to the writing life and I love it. I'm one of many prawns hereabouts, but I know I'm paying bills with my writing income. My income has grown year after year, and it'll continue to do so as long as I keep writing and publishing and loving what I do. I know many others are doing the same. As has been said elsewhere, there are many paths up the mountain.


Here, here, Jim! You're not alone! I'd collaborate on a project or two for fun but mostly I run solo because I have a vision for my work. It would sure be nice to make a living from my writing someday and I have a 5 year plan I'm following to do just that. Things aren't that bad, though. I was able to afford a nice new tablet with my royalty money from last month. It was a boost to the ole self-esteem and progress from the pennies I started making a year ago. Slow, steady growth adds up over time. This thread has been interesting to read because everyone does it differently here, and it's neat seeing people follow their passion without gatekeepers standing in the way, regardless of how it's done.


----------



## ET (Oct 23, 2014)

I was going to post these points but Tilly beat me to them. I'll explore them from a slightly different set of angles.

As Joanna Penn said not long ago, "If your strategy for getting ahead in the crowded marketplace is to simply write more books, then you're just going to exhaust yourself." [paraphrase] Even Chris Fox, pioneer of the 5,000K per hour method, has admitted to a bit of fatigue of late, if you follow his YouTube videos.

I'm not picking on Chris Fox. Quite the contrary, his advice is very helpful, and Chris is generous to a fault with other writers. But his advice is often misinterpreted. His "Write to Market" book of a few years ago spawned a wave of writers who copied him verbatim, writing military SF/space opera, simply because that was the genre that Chris chose in his book.

Likewise, with collaboration. I've followed the collaboration between Lindsay Buroker, Zach Bohannin, J. Thorn, and JF Penn. This seems to be a unique case of four writers who are evenly matched and like-minded.

Another unique case is that of the Sterling and Stone guys: Sean, Johnny, and Dave. They seem to be beating the drums most loudly for collaboration nowadays, and they're selling collaborative packages called "Stories to Go", whereby the up-and-coming writer can collaborate with them--for a price. But between the three of them, they are indeed prolific.

I describe these situations as "unique" because most writers *don't* play well with others. If we did, we'd probably be working in the marketing department of ACME Widgets, or in some other field where teamwork is essential and rewarded. Most people who are drawn to writing are introverts who don't work well with bosses, teams, and committees.

On that point: I spent 20 years in the corporate world, where everything was a committee or a team project. I didn't enjoy that, and I wouldn't want to bring this most odious aspect of corporate life into writing.

On the subject of partnerships: Be careful. I've known numerous entrepreneurs who have been involved in partnerships. Almost to a person, the experience has been negative. A business partner is simultaneously an employee whom you can't fire, and a boss whom you can't walk away from. I've known people who've been involved in years-long lawsuits with business partners.

In some fields, partnerships may be necessary. (Apple would never have come to pass without Jobs *and* Wozniak.) But I don't think it's yet been demonstrated that this inherently conflict-laden arrangement is necessary for writing fiction.

Finally, back to Chris Fox: He briefly addressed the collaboration fad in one of his recent YouTube videos. While he saw the production advantages, he said that he simply wouldn't be interested in collaboration from a creative perspective.

I think *most* writers feel this way.



Tilly said:


> This ^
> 
> I made 6-figures with only a handful of books out in 2015 and 2016. Last year wasn't so flash because of life - I stopped writing, didn't do any advertising and only released 1 book last year. I still made 50k and again, I don't have anywhere near 20 books out, I haven't even cracked double digits yet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Justin Jordan said:


> That's not a binary choice, though. Fast and steady aren't mutually exclusive.


No, not at all. Nora Roberts is a good example of a writer who writes fast and steady year after year. I applaud the writers who can sustain a fast, steady pace for 5, 10 15+ years. I don't think indie publishing (at least in the 2010-2011 boom start) is mature enough to know who the writers are who are writing at a fast, sustained pace, but there are some out there working it day in and out.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

she-la-ti-da said:


> This makes me so sad. It's like watching the book stuffing, click farming scammers take over Amazon.


I don't think these collaborations are like click farming, book scamming, though. I think they are a legit endeavor. If you can get behind the core of another person's story, and are just bringing it to life, I would see this as very exciting challenge and a learning experience.



she-la-ti-da said:


> Personally, I'm going with the C. Gockel school of writing success, and with Patty's advice thrown in, as well as a few other people I admire who are doing what they love without glitter in their eyes. They seem to have a more realistic view of how you can actually write good stories and still be successful. It may not be a quick path, but it's a sustainable path.


Thank you for the props, but again, I see the collaborations and ghost writing as paid apprenticeships. I don't think they are a very quick way to success ... maybe to a livable income faster, but not to independence, which is my goal.

*Also, just a reminder, "Taking over Amazon" doesn't mean much. I've been "pushed out" of the rankings by KU authors ... but it hasn't made any difference in my earnings trajectory. I've recently learned I make as much as some bigger Amazon stars without as much advertising (which is a PITA.) Don't judge success by the charts. *


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2018)

ET said:


> Another unique case is that of the Sterling and Stone guys: Sean, Johnny, and Dave. They seem to be beating the drums most loudly for collaboration nowadays, and they're selling collaborative packages called "Stories to Go", whereby the up-and-coming writer can collaborate with them--for a price. But between the three of them, they are indeed prolific.


I'm glad someone brought this up. I had a poke around their website at Xmas time but didn't see any discussion here. I'm not sure if it needs its own thread or not. Here is the site:
https://storiestogo.io/
Prices range from $3,000-5,500 for which you get a cover, a plot outline and editing (there are other extras depending on what package you chose). I'm curious to know if anyone has gone down this path and how the experience went? Is this another viable option for those wanting to produce more or for targeting a new genre, with an outline provided for you that hits the tropes/reader expectations?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

For 3-5k you can get a decently ghostwritten book, not just an idea, outline, and a cover from a premade cover site (yes, a bunch of their covers were 60 dollar premades before they snapped them up to offer as part of these packages).  I think those packages are way overpriced for what you get, but that's my opinion. I'm sure they think they are giving people value. But ideas are a dime a dozen, it's the story that matters and for 5k you'll still be doing most of the work, the most important part of the work, which to me defies Yog's Law which is money should flow to the writer.

I think collaboration, shared pen names, and ghostwritten books are all legit things when the terms are fair and people know exactly what they are getting and what to expect. But if anyone is promising you success in exchange for your $$, my advice is to think long and hard about paying them anything, because nobody can promise that. No one.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Tilly said:


> I'm glad someone brought this up. I had a poke around their website at Xmas time but didn't see any discussion here. I'm not sure if it needs its own thread or not. Here is the site:
> https://storiestogo.io/
> Prices range from $3,000-5,500 for which you get a cover, a plot outline and editing (there are other extras depending on what package you chose). I'm curious to know if anyone has gone down this path and how the experience went? Is this another viable option for those wanting to produce more or for targeting a new genre, with an outline provided for you that hits the tropes/reader expectations?


For that amount of money, I'd want them to write it, edit it, put a platinum quality cover on it, and hand it back to me with a bow. Outrageous.


----------



## 91831 (Jul 18, 2016)

Atlantisatheart said:


> For that amount of money, I'd want them to write it, edit it, put a platinum quality cover on it, and hand it back to me with a bow. Outrageous.


I just looked - there's higher prices than that! They go upwards of $10k! Have smelling salts ready for their trilogy or series packages!


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

I mean, I'll plot your novel like five hundred dollars.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Dang. I'll package your book for only 2k. I mean, not really, but I certainly could


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I'm being misquoted here a lot. I'm not against collaboration. Not at all. At some point, I might even do it.

But.

For crying out loud, when you get into this latest fad (because it's a fad), do it for the right reasons: that it's a fun project, that you like your collaborator and share their vision (or that you're writing fan fiction in their cool world) and that you're genuinely interested in the project.

And don't do it without a really good contract and very clear rules and guidelines. That is all.


----------



## Overrated (Mar 20, 2015)

This has been an interesting thread to watch. As I said earlier, contract the daylights out of any collaboration. But Patty brings up a good point.

Don't go into it unless you are excited about it, and the person you'll be working with. Both of the authors that I cowrite with - and it's a true cowriting relationship for both - are people I really like. I like who they are personally. I like how they conduct themselves professionally. They have ethics, standards, and morals. They want us both to be happy in the cowriting gig. In both, although one has more history than the other, we work through any bumps in the road. Mostly so they don't get to be bigger bumps in the road. 

If you don't like the person, their work ethic, their professional ethics, and the stories - why bother? It's work. Just like any other relationship - it's work. 

Had you asked me two years ago if I'd be cowriting, I would have rolled my eyes and said No way! But both of these opportunities happened organically, and kind of fell into my lap. After evaluation, they were both good moves for me professionally.

This is like a marriage. You have to treat it as such. And you have to choose your partner carefully. Because marriage can end, but it's messy as can be.


----------



## KevinH (Jun 29, 2013)

This has been an interesting thread for me because I actually wrote an article on my blog a few years back about how to make $50K/year as a writer, and it was predicated on the notion that you could put out 20 books, with each of them selling an average of 3 per day at $2.99. (The math isn't exact, but comes close enough.)

The point, however, wasn't that you have to grind out a score of books in order to be successful. It was meant to show that you don't have to be a bestseller with _any_ of your books in order to earn a comfortable living. (Not to imply that selling 3 per day is going to be a cakewalk...)


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Patty Jansen said:


> For crying out loud, when you get into this latest fad (because it's a fad), do it for the right reasons: that it's a fun project, that you like your collaborator and share their vision (or that you're writing fan fiction in their cool world) and that you're genuinely interested in the project.
> 
> And don't do it without a really good contract and very clear rules and guidelines. That is all.


YES! Always write for love! if you don't write for love, what is the point? There are other "work-at-home" gigs that pay more reliably if you know how to code and/or can write tech or marketing material.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

KevinH said:


> This has been an interesting thread for me because I actually wrote an article on my blog a few years back about how to make $50K/year as a writer, and it was predicated on the notion that you could put out 20 books, with each of them selling an average of 3 per day at $2.99. (The math isn't exact, but comes close enough.)
> 
> The point, however, wasn't that you have to grind out a score of books in order to be successful. It was meant to show that you don't have to be a bestseller with _any_ of your books in order to earn a comfortable living. (Not to imply that selling 3 per day is going to be a cakewalk...)


I wrote one years ago that basically set out what Kindle world became, and obviously, indies are following the kindle worlds plan. Perhaps we should put our heads together and come up with the next big thing!


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

When I first started at Kboards, there were lots of threads I came on as a greenhorn and was like "Nu-huh!" to the people with decades of experience in publishing, "this (unicorn of an idea) is DIFFERENT!"

Sadly, I was wrong. Things are NOT different just because we now have mass digital distribution. The only thing has changed is the reach of individuals in the publishing world. But bad contracts, slippery terms, and disproportionate work amounts are intrinsic to our industry. We put on blinders saying it's only about the money today when deals are made between indies with zero consideration to the value of the IP in 15 years, 20 years from now. Here are some hypotheticals to think about:

Newbie Author gets an offer from Established Author to write 3 books in a storyworld Established Author owns and will run. "Don't worry," says Established Author, "I will pay for the editing, covers and publish and manage advertising, all you have to do is WRITE." Newbie Author goes "Where do I sign up?" Established Author goes "Oh, well, you know, this is going to be a huge deal... I need to make sure people are serious about this, so there's a small startup fee of $500 BUT you will get that back FIRST in the royalties, you can't lose!" Newbie Author goes "Oh, that's so reasonable! Totally! But I don't know, $500?" Established Author goes "I know it's a lot, but listen I really like you and I really want to work with YOU. I can't really hold this spot for long, so if this isn't right for you right now.... I understand. I'll let the others who want your spot know." Newbie Author "No! No! I'll find the money, don't worry! I am serious, I want to do this!"

This is a combination of a number of things that have been shared with me privately that I have given my personal opinion on. But let's play, HOW WILL THIS GO!

Outcome possibility A: everyone wins! yep, there was a smart contract at the beginning that specifically outlined what happens to every derivative right including film, videogames, new formats we have yet to dream up, audiobook, print, hardcover, braille, large print, dramatic arts, if a screenplay is getting shopped, if an agent is coming in etc. Both Newbie Author and Established Author high five each other when they go to writer conferences as being the smartest people in the room, everyone told them it couldn't be done, but they DID IT.

B: There was a lot of money made but Newbie Author realizes Established Author kept coming up with expenses with why he or she couldn't get paid.

C: There was NOT an ironclad contract, and litigation broke out over later rights to the property.

D: Newbie Author completes his or her commitment to the project, walks away, breaks out on the NEXT project they do alone. Established Author starts running around in writer groups claiming credit for teaching that Newbie Author all that he knows. Newbie Author is stewing, because in their opinion, Established Author taught them everything NOT TO DO. Newbie Author doesn't want to speak the truth and come off as a jerk or risk legal ramifications. Takes the high road. Whole new generation of Newbie Authors are now lined up to work with Established Author.

E: The project fails. Established Author tells Newbie Author "you just weren't good enough." Newbie Author now has no confidence to even keep going.

and so on.

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

This is why I am hesitant on collaboration that is NOT developed from a previous business relationship. Are there authors I would work with? You betcha, because I've done promotions or other things with them for years, known them professionally for YEARS, chatted with them on the phone etc. And we all know there are authors I would never work with.... in the first place or again.

Yeah, again. When I was a newbie author, I, too, believed people who seemed more advanced than me that I had to "pay my dues" and work for them for FREE and learn the ins and outs. I suppose that's better than paying for the privilege, but I paid later on. I know the PAIN of someone who is top 100 in the whole store who when things don't work out, sabotages your marketing efforts and makes sure to tell you that your writing isn't up to par. It's crushing. I moved sideways into author marketing, but I didn't write for 3 years.

If you are in a collaborative situation and feel it's Outcome A above, hold onto it. I have a woman I've known in this business for 6+ years that is my ride or die friend. She's the person I have down if anything happens to me, hubby needs to call her and she will walk him through what to do with the books. And I'm that person for her. It was accidental we started working together, and neither of us made the other feel "now or never, I can get someone to replace you" on any project. I would say that's a huge red flag if you are in a situation and you feel replaceable.

If you are getting angry that some of us are pointing out the pitfalls of collaborations and how often they go badly, I am so sorry. Because it makes me wonder if deep down you know you have some of this negative side going on in your situation and you don't know what to do about it. My suggestion is to always walk away as professionally as possible and cut your losses. It's hard to do, but please know that many of us have been there and done that, you aren't alone.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Some posters have asked questions about entering certain ventures with certain parties offering partnering services. Some established writers have suggested it might not be a good idea. I merely want to add that due diligence is always prudent. The questioners should look into previous ventures by any parties offering services. It may turn out, for example, that said parties have long histories of offering similar services. Indeed, offering such services may even be their primary source of income. 

Just so we're clear: I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I'm just saying that it's wise to look at more than the offer. You have to look at the whole picture, which includes the solidity of the success claims and past businesses. People tend to forget that writers' biggest market after readers is other writers.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Wow, I hadn't realized what deep feelings this topic would bring up.

For the record:  Nothing about Michael Anderle's 20to50K "formula" is really new other than indie publishing allows it to be done faster (and with more money to the artist if it works).

Janet Evanovich is on like #24 of the Stephanie Plum series.
Sadly, we'll never get to  "Z is for...." but when Sue Grafton wrote A is for Alibi, she was starting with the exact same philosophy back in 1982 as Michael did with Death Becomes Her a couple years ago.

It is a formula, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Jim Butcher outlined 20 Harry Dresden books and those of us that are fans eagerly await the next installment.
This "formula" is ages old in publishing, it's just the platform allows someone to enter market without an agent or publisher.

For better or worse...

We adjust to the market if we're business people and writers.  In her newsletter today Lindsay Buroker apologized to non-KU fans with the explanation that if she doesn't release in Kindle Unlimited, the release will be buried.  I think this is just a reality of today's landscape, yet there's people all over the place denouncing Amazon as Satan....

In business you accept the reality of the reality and plan accordingly.

Now, interesting to me:  About a year and a half ago I got into a discussion with Sean (SPP) when they were offering those "boot camps."

My opinion was that they were funneling fish into a trap.  He disagreed obviously, but assuming the info in this thread is accurate, I was right to be alarmed and disappointed.  It's shameful, really, but there you go.

I agree with the advice above from people who say you should collaborate with friends and/or business people you totally trust.  I am in that position, and I think both Russell and I are old school enough (and old enough) to understand the potential conflicts and dangers.

I can attest that he's given me more than my share of the value here.  I cannot lose here because I have the information in my brain, but I realize that a lot of people who are new and have the "doe in the headlights" can end up entering bad deals.

I like the post that said something like: "Adults in voluntary exchanges..."  That's a good model.  Pay attention to what you're agreeing too and then do your best to hold up your end of the deal.

We launched today, so the clock is ticking to see how it does.  If the deal arrangement works, we'll all three be looking for new ways to expand our networks and reach into the market.  Hunter Ross is releasing his first science fiction book (solo one I mean) in a couple of months.

Russell has stated he might be willing to do more of this if it works.

I certainly have benefited from having outside enforced deadlines and creative feedback from others who see things I miss.

And, yes, of course:  There are many ways to peel an apple.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## SidK (Jul 7, 2015)

MichaelRyan said:


> A thousand books at a third of a dollar is only $300. So, ten thousand books would be $3000. 10 books at 3K is only $30,000.





Elizabeth Ann West said:


> You can also sell 1,000 books over a month at $4.99 and make the same $3500 but never break into the top 100 on Amazon. Or at $9.99 and make $7000. And in both of those scenarios, it is unlikely that money is pure profit either, it's gross revenue before covers, editing, expenses, and taxes. Just $3000 after federal self employment taxes in the US (15.3%) is $2541. That's equivalent to a 40 hour work week in a month at $15.81 an hour.


Yes, but there would be a long tail for books that made Top 100. None of my books have ever made even Top 1000 yet I have had tails of drip-drip-drip sales lasting more than a year.



John Van Stry said:


> Last year, I did not make more than my old day job. Understand that my day job was six figures. I was at the top of my field and often hired for the most difficult tasks out there.
> 
> This year, -if- I can maintain the sales I've had for the last five months, I will make more than I used to. You can take nothing for granted in this business. Part of what has helped me here is that I brought the work ethic that got me to the top in my old field with me.


That makes sense, for a moment there I was worried that there had been some unexpected drop in authors' incomes if one could not make more than one's day job even by breaking Top 100 regularly. Let us hope, independent authors will start joining the ranks of highly paid professionals. (One can always dream )


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

Jim Johnson said:


> No, not at all. Nora Roberts is a good example of a writer who writes fast and steady year after year. I applaud the writers who can sustain a fast, steady pace for 5, 10 15+ years. I don't think indie publishing (at least in the 2010-2011 boom start) is mature enough to know who the writers are who are writing at a fast, sustained pace, but there are some out there working it day in and out.


That's how it should be done.

None of this Tomfoolery so you can piggyback on the efforts of others. It's a joke.

The funny thing is....

The fast writers don't usually write books about writing. The fast writers usually don't tell others. The fast writers usually don't boast about it. They are too busy writing and they care very little about how others view them.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

C. Gockel said:


> Russel Blake is a smart guy, and I almost wonder if one of the assignments he gave you was, "Create a slightly edgy post and put it on Kboards to start some Buzz."
> 
> I think the chatter is getting really silly at this point, though.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. It doesn't take 20 books to hit 50k


Amanda M. Lee said:


> While I get the appeal of co-written books, it's not something I'm really interested in at this point. I know nothing about the OP's arrangement so I'm not talking about that specifically, but I've seen a few troubling things with co-written books of late.
> 1. It's most often a big author with a smaller author. This makes sense in theory BUT the bigger author most often benefits more from the partnership. You can argue back and forth whether this is fair. I can find arguments for both sides. Still, there are a lot of co-writers doing a lot of work and getting relatively nothing while the bigger author cleans up. People need to keep their eyes open and actually study their particular situation with honest eyes. What actually happens is not always the same thing as what authors think is going to happen. Just keep that in mind and don't stick with a situation that is not working simply because you thought it would and refuse to admit you made a mistake.
> 2. The unfortunate thing that has come out thanks to high profile collaborations making news is smaller authors with no following trying to use and abuse other authors for their financial gain. I've seen it at least three times this month alone. I mean ... seriously. If an author has no following and offers a cover and editing for a book while someone else does all the work of writing the book and the first author owns copyright and fifty percent of the royalties, what exactly is the co-writer getting? There's no proven sales history. There's nothing to sell that partnership. I think that will get more and more prevalent because people can't seem to help themselves from wanting something for essentially nothing. The sad thing is authors are actually falling for that sort of collaboration.
> 3. Eventually the new "thing" will be collaborations falling apart because that always happens. People will fight. Those who were smart enough to set up contracts beforehand will survive but damage will be done regardless as insults and stories get thrown far and wide. This will not happen to all collaborations but, let's be honest, look at this thread. No one gets along all the time. We're going to see a lot of wars and that will further fracture the indie community. It's an inevitability.
> So, are collaborations the future? I'm certain, in the future, so people will collaborate. It will work for some and not others. Will single authors still be fine? Yes. Just like always, some will make it and some won't. The publishing world isn't really going to change all that much no matter what. Certain small things will change but the big things will stay the same.


You hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Collaboration isn't anything new. Collaborations go way back. There were more than a few authors who were the pen-names of writing teams. There were also shared worlds and anthologies based on themes. Collaborations can take on any number for forms depending on the goals of the project.

To summarize, collaborations aren't new, they aren't special, and they aren't going away.


----------

