# Educational data for those considering trad



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I've seen several writers on KB talk about moving to trad if indie gets tougher, so I thought I would offer a little tale.

Kensington Books published The Home in mass market paperback in 2005 (my fourth book with them and the first in a new three-book contract.) It was my lowest-selling paperback ever, and fool that I was, I failed to see I was already in the dreaded death spiral by the time I'd signed that contract (where bookstores order only the number of copies sold of the previous book, guaranteeing you will always sell fewer copies each time, barring a bizarre development.) This was despite my first novel The Red Church having a phenomenal sell-through rate of around 96 percent (meaning almost every copy that hit a store sold, when the industry standard at that time was around 50 percent--I think it's lower now.)

Of course, The Home quickly went out of print and sat there dead for about 5.5 years of the seven years of the license. Kensington did have the right to publish an ebook version at 50/50 split but never did. I patiently waited for the term to expire, then had my agent of record ask for formal reversion (Kensington had an option to print 5,000 more paperbacks to keep the license). Their window to respond passed and I published The Home in October, hitting #49 (briefly) on the Kindle list. About a month after that Kensington's own version of the Home ebook miraculously appears.

(Apparently the "Your reversion is in progress" got altered to "Let's pirate the book" somewhere along the way. Anyway, their copy is down now and it's a pretty clean break, and I have to credit the agent for gently firm handling of it--I know I give agents a hard time but this was sticky--no way in h*ll was I ever dealing with Kensington again but the agent still has to pitch other books to them. Also made sticky because it is under option and a script is actively being shopped, so while unlikely, a film deal could have happened at any time.)

That's not really the point of the story, although it does show the frustrations that can arise when matters are largely out of your control. The real lesson was that in six weeks on my own, I sold more than Kensington did in SEVEN YEARS. More importantly, while my book dropped from the low hundreds to low thousands in rank, the Kensington ebook version hung out in the 300K-400K range for a month. Which of course meant it probably sold two copies a week at a slightly higher price than mine. And that would probably have been The Home's permanent fate if they had acted to keep the license.

I'm not much of a numbers guy, but the simple reality is that Kensington having control of my books for all those years and leaving them dead has probably cost me six figures of income. And they must be wholly unaware that I am a middling indie success, or surely they would have published the ebooks. (They do have a US version of one of mine that sells horribly and I ignore it, and because they have non-exclusive rights outside US/Canada, it has created the odd situation where there are two legal versions of the book on the market--of course, I undercut and outsell them, although that book just sucks.)

So, okay, this isn't pure data, but you won't get many situations where an indie book competes against the exact same trad book. 

My takeaway lesson is the publisher will never care as much as I do. Some publishers will do more than others for some books (almost always decided by the advance, because no one wants to look like they made a poor decision so they throw money at the largest potential mistakes). I would suggest that believing a publisher is going to sell more books, bring you more money, build a better career, and give you more options may be a mistake. If you go that route, good luck to you, and if it is a dream of yours, you should go for it.

But I expect the divide to grow even wider: as tough as it gets for indie books, it will be even tougher for non-blockbuster trad books to get visibility. Remember, you're still going to do all the marketing but your royalty will be down to around 21 percent after agent cut. 

Others have different experiences, but that's mine. I am staying indie until somebody backs a truck of money to my door and lets me negotiate my own deal.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " I failed to see I was already in the dreaded death spiral by the time I'd signed that contract (where bookstores order only the number of copies sold of the previous book, guaranteeing you will always sell fewer copies each time, barring a bizarre development.)"


Interesting system. It seems designed to generate a continual turnover of authors. If an author had a sell-through rate of 80% for each book, then sales of book-5 cannot exceed 50% of sales of book-1.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Great story, Scott. Well, great in that we can learn from it. You have a ton of experience so I always click on a thread to see what you have to offer to the conversation. This story has been told quite a few times lately, of previously tradded books dead in the water getting a new life as self-pubbed. It makes me wonder about all the amazing books out there that languished without ever getting in front of us. 

I've got a question. Do you feel that same way about Amazon imprints? Or do you consider them a class of their own? 

Personally, I know that Amazon Publishing has made my career as successful as it is. Sure my stuff keeps getting better as I learn to hone my craft, and I spend a lot of time marketing to build my platform and gain readers, but without the power of the Great Zon, I'd never have seen the amazing sales I saw this last year. Out of my 6 titles, only 2 are Amazon Pubbed but I'm sure those titles bring the sales to my indie titles too.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Interesting system. It seems designed to generate a continual turnover of authors. If an author had a sell-through rate of 80% for each book, then sales of book-5 cannot exceed 50% of sales of book-1.


In theory, new releases could generate interest, causing new readers to pick up book 1, but not if it's out of print.

I know it doesn't seem fair at all, but I do see the stuffed shelves at the book store, and all the new books coming out each month. It's difficult to physically stock everything there's *some* interest in. Digital, however, is a game-changer. As we've all discovered.

Is it as big a shift as moving from monks writing on scrolls to the printing press? It certainly is a big jump up in ability to meet demand easily.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Yes. They would have to have a feedback mechanism where they kept some of the 20% that did not sell. That might cost money. Im not sure exactly how long a bookstore can hold a book without paying for it. Does the ability to return a book to the publisher have a cutoff date? Anyone know?


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

It used to be 60 to 90 days was all you had for the average mass market paperback. Good sales would trigger re-orders, and sales well above expectations would trigger reprinting of the book. (After all, they only print and ship as many as they expect to sell, based on advance store orders. Again, most of this is determined by the advance--the more the publisher pays, the more the sales force pushes the book, and then there are the afterthought genre books that are largely ordered as lumps--like, "We sold X of that haunted house novel of yours last month so we'll take X of the new one..." where the author truly, truly does not matter. Interchangeable. And quickly, please.)

Of course, my experience is five years out of date and I am sure things have gotten much worse now, because I see only two copies of books by the established authors where I used to see five to ten. Last time I was in a chain store, the book selection had seemingly been cut in half and replaced with beanie babies (and now, I suspect, ebook retail, but I haven't been in a chain store in a couple of years because I have zero reason to go there. Even the ego tug of "Wonder if one of my old books is still stuck in there?" has become boring. Yeah, in the old days we used to move our books around the store so they couldn't find them when the little "Send back" flag came up on the computer.)

If you think of mass market product lines, the entire system is constructed on dynamic rotation of stock. In the 1980's, paperbacks were in every checkout aisle and convenience store and even the trash sold 100,000 copies. Now there really isn't a mass market to speak of. Hardcovers and trade paperbacks get much longer windows, and the returns are different--for mmpb's, stores only need to return the stripped covers for credit. For the rest, they must return the entire books. All done on credit. No bookstore could afford to actually pay wholesale up front. It's ALWAYS been a terrible and tenuous business model, but it was the only way publishers could have a place to sell books.

Kay, yes, I love Amazon because they can do what no one else in the world can do--make you a bestseller in a matter of hours. I am very happy to work with Amazon--but only because I got to negotiate my own deal and didn't have to use an agent. Amazon is now buying entire publishing houses so signing is no longer an automatic--so many other pressures come to bear. While every Amazon title used to be a Kindle Daily Deal at least once, now they have so many that they do them in bundles. Also of particular interest for my genre (and romance writers) is the Dorchester acquisition--they now have hundreds or even thousands of books in my genre that they need to push. Those books will be pushed ahead of me whether I am trad, Zon, or indie, so it really is beyond my control--and falls into the area of "I don't worry about what I can't control." I also suspect they are giving _some_ books--not mine!--preferential algorithm treatment by giving them multipl categories instead of the usual two. I have seen some topping three or more category lists...and that ain't no accident.

Terence, usually the third book is the death knell for the typical author, the point at which you didn't become one of those once-in-a-generation word-of-mouth breakouts and so they move to the next writer. There are only two types of trad writers now--blockbuster bestsellers and those about to be ditched. And, you know, it was ALWAYS the writer's fault, never the publisher's.

And yes, Dalya, it has changed a lot with ebooks, which goes back to my original point--what can trad possibly do that you can't do better (if they aren't going to let you be a bestseller, that is.)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Dalya said:


> In theory, new releases could generate interest, causing new readers to pick up book 1, but not if it's out of print.
> 
> I know it doesn't seem fair at all, but I do see the stuffed shelves at the book store, and all the new books coming out each month. It's difficult to physically stock everything there's *some* interest in. Digital, however, is a game-changer. As we've all discovered.
> 
> Is it as big a shift as moving from monks writing on scrolls to the printing press? It certainly is a big jump up in ability to meet demand easily.


Stuffed shelves? When the few remaining major book retailers have slashed the number of books they carry? How is that stuffed? What percentage of the B&N shelves now even contain books?

Other than that, if I tell my opinion of the trad publishing system, Julie will come yell at me for sure, so I'll shut up.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Interesting system. It seems designed to generate a continual turnover of authors. If an author had a sell-through rate of 80% for each book, then sales of book-5 cannot exceed 50% of sales of book-1.


You are ignoring the fact that if the book sells well, they will order more stock. Their initial order will be based - logically - on the author's previous sales performance, but that is not the end of it. Many books have multiple print runs if the sales support it. I don't see anything unusual or alarming here. It has always been this way.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

I know at least two previously traditionally published authors that are going 100% indie this year (by choice, not because they got dropped) because of these same types of issues. One of them had a new book come out this year with a publisher and it didn't even make it into bookstores. She's a NYT bestseller by the way. The ebook is priced over $10. That book is never going to make its advance. And there is nothing the author can do about it. So yeah, going with a publisher requires some careful thinking.

I have long been frustrated with bookstores. Seriously? Why do they never have book 1 and 2 of a series when book 3 comes out? I can't tell you how many times I've come across an interesting book to find out it was #3 and the rest of the series was no where to be found. Had all three been there, I woulda bought all 3. Instead, I bought none. It's ridiculous.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

But there is no way bookstores could do it any differently. They CAN'T carry all three books of a series unless it is a bestseller series.

In many ways, James Patterson was the perfect achievement of traditional publishing--one brand to push that cranked out a new book every two weeks and dominated the front of the store. Perfect machine of distribution, delivery, and and marketing. And absolutely ruinous.

The story of print publishing is that its crowning achievement is what killed it.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Deanna Chase said:


> I know at least two previously traditionally published authors that are going 100% indie this year (by choice, not because they got dropped) because of these same types of issues. One of them had a new book come out this year with a publisher and it didn't even make it into bookstores. She's a NYT bestseller by the way. The ebook is priced over $10. That book is never going to make its advance. And there is nothing the author can do about it. So yeah, going with a publisher requires some careful thinking.
> 
> I have long been frustrated with bookstores. Seriously? Why do they never have book 1 and 2 of a series when book 3 comes out? I can't tell you how many times I've across an interesting book to find out it was #3 and the rest of the series was no where to be found. Had all three been there, I woulda bought all 3. Instead, I bought none. It's ridiculous.


Book stores are not libraries and have limited shelf space. The early books in the series will have been returned/remaindered to get rid of non-profitable stock and make room for potentially profitable stock.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> u are ignoring the fact that if the book sells well, they will order more stock. Their initial order will be based - logically - on the author's previous sales performance, but that is not the end of it. Many books have multiple print runs if the sales support it. I don't see anything unusual or alarming here. It has always been this way.


Sure. I'm ignoring everything other than what Scott wrote about sell through. I'm not alarmed either.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

scottnicholson said:


> But there is no way bookstores could do it any differently. They CAN'T carry all three books of a series unless it is a bestseller series.
> 
> In many ways, James Patterson was the perfect achievement of traditional publishing--one brand to push that cranked out a new book every two weeks and dominated the front of the store. Perfect machine of distribution, delivery, and and marketing. And absolutely ruinous.
> 
> The story of print publishing is that its crowning achievement is what killed it.


James Patterson books are no longer best seller because James Patterson books are no longer best sellers.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Stuffed shelves? When the few remaining major book retailers have slashed the number of books they carry? How is that stuffed? What percentage of the B&N shelves now even contain books?
> 
> Other than that, if I tell my opinion of the trad publishing system, Julie will come yell at me for sure, so I'll shut up.


We have a nice little sci-fi/fantasy bookstore in my 'hood. It's jammed. Our big chain in Canada is Chapters, and while they do have too many pillows and candles for my taste, they have a lot of books as well. WORSE STILL, Chapters is cutting in on my business by selling the things I make my living off of (and I don't mean books).

My main business is similar to publishing--a games store. In the last 11 years we've been in operation, we've had a sea change in game publishing. Publishers are using a principal that I have given a name too--a name I cannot repeat on the forum, but it hints of reproductive technique. Instead of nursing a few select games through a process and then investing in advertising, they simply toss out as much product as possible and hope something picks up with word-of-mouth. That's not to say the quality of packaging hasn't improved--it really has--but none of the publishers or game designers has a reputation you can hang anything on. The review system is bogus and constantly being gamed. There are few gatekeepers and not enough time in the world for our person in charge of ordering to test everything himself.

Eleven years ago, we were crying for more product. Today we're begging them to slow down. They'll put out an expansion for a game at the same time the first game comes out. People will see the expansion and assume "it must be popular." Customers make all these leaps, reading the clues, because that's how they make decisions.

The whole thing is actually quite depressing. The only thing you can do is stand back and crowdsource your information--let people ask you for something before you order in the first copy.

We used to order at least one copy of EVERY game the trusted publishers put out. Now I see them come in and I think, "Oh, something for next year's clearance sale." About a year ago, we stopped automatically ordering everything, because that was how these companies were making their money--one copy to every client=sold out print run.

(In board games, you cannot send back unsold copies; nor is the industry big enough that they pay for co-op advertising.)

My experiences in that realm of a publishing-adjacent-industry has shaped my strategy for being an ebook publisher. I know that if you build up a good brand name, people will be able to put their trust in you. Even though I have a few pen names, I try to make each of them a solid brand, and I die a little when I discover missed typos.

The challenge for today's consumers is sifting through too much choice.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

yep. it's a system designed for failure. and once you realize that 99% of writers will fail in traditional publishing, and that the death spiral will come no matter what, it's depressing as hell. crash and burn, get up, do it all over again. over and over and over.  and the carrot always reappears, and even though i know it will be rotten, i find myself reaching for it anyway.  i started seriously self publishing a little over a year ago, and i've made more money in a year than i ever made in a year (or two, or three) writing for a traditional publisher, but at the same time there is something that's crushingly depressing in a different way.  maybe every bit as depressing as the death spiral. maybe it's the fact that all i used to do was write. my days were just about creativity. for 25 years. now i actually have very little time to write, because i'm always formatting, uploading, promoting, thinking about what i need to do next that has nothing to do with my WIP. i miss the days when all i thought about was the book i was working on. okay, enough whining from me.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> But there is no way bookstores could do it any differently. They CAN'T carry all three books of a series unless it is a bestseller series.


I know, and I understand the way the business works. I'm suggesting the system is flawed. There has to be a better way. If I were shop owner, you can bet I'd order a few of the previous books when another one in a series comes out because each new book drives sales of the previous ones. But there aren't any to order because all the unsold ones are destroyed, or the publisher chooses not to order another print run even if they sold out because they don't think it's worth it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

There is a better way. Ebooks. The shelf constraint disappears. Forget about authors and consider how much better the eBook system is for consumers. They will vote with their wallets.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Fear not, Anne--and I do mean this kindly--there are three or four years to make good money here in ebooks, and then the goose is pretty much cooked, and we can ALL go back to "just writing," just writing what we love, like we did back before we worried about sending stuff off. I enjoyed writing a whole lot more back before I had to plan a release date while typing chapter one.

Here's another thing many writers like to joyfully ignore--New York doesn't WANT all the good books. They only want ten of them. If the best 100 books ever written in English turned up in New York the same week, 90 would still get rejected.

I now have zero envy and not a whole lot of admiration for someone getting a trad deal, because I know there are so many X factors, engine machinations, timing, and industry politics and gamesmanship behind it all. I am happy for those writers (because I assume they are happy, or they wouldn't take the deal) but I never wish I was in their place and I never assume they are substantially "better" than the thousands of other writers who didn't get the deal. Never. I really like this weird little path. I've paid all my debts and socked away every dime so that when this all goes away, I will just stay on the path.

That's the journey, and that's really all we have. All the rest is headed for OOP one way or another.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> There is a better way. Ebooks. The shelf constraint disappears. Forget about authors and consider how much better the eBook system is for consumers. They will vote with their wallets.


Or you do what I always did: Go home and order the print books on Amazon. It was never because Amazon was cheaper. It was because I could find what I wanted to read. I used to take a list to bookstores and come home with hundreds of dollars of books. About two or three years ago that changed when I realized I usually could only find one or two things on my list of about a dozen or so. I stopped going to bookstores because they never had what I wanted. I'm not an obscure reader. I read romance/fantasy/paranormal/anything people rave about. Still I could never find anything. It's a shame, because I love bookstores. Love browsing. Love the feel of the books. Everything about it.

But in my mind, this is the main reason bookstores are in trouble. They stopped catering to readers. And why they can't afford to stock books. And why print runs are down. Which directly effects authors' careers.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

scottnicholson said:


> Fear not, Anne--and I do mean this kindly--there are three or four years to make good money here in ebooks, and then the goose is pretty much cooked,


i think this is why i feel a dark cloud looming over me even as things are going well. i know it can't last. and i wonder what will be left in five years. i think i miss the security of contracts even though i'm better off right now. in this moment, i'm better off.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Here's another thing many writers like to joyfully ignore--New York doesn't WANT all the good books. They only want ten of them. If the best 100 books ever written in English turned up in New York the same week, 90 would still get rejected


.

Agree. Getting paper to consumers costs money. Consumers have a limit on what they will buy at a price that allows a profit. Hence, there is a limited number of titles that can be produced. It has nothing to do with the quality of the book. It's all money.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Aug 3, 2010)

Great post, as always, Scott.  I always look forward to them.

I guess I'm curious.  Why won't it last?  I read on an iPad with the Amazon app.  I own a Kindle, but I used it once and preferred the iPad.  Always have.  If the future is to go the way of the tablet, won't reading ebooks just go that way as well?  Why are we to assume that people won't keep reading ebooks?  Look, I'm far from a cheerleader--if anything, I'm realistic and sometimes, a cynic--I'm just wondering why the media and so many others are saying it will just dry up.  If we make a name for ourselves through our efforts and have done well, does that just go away?  Why should it go away?

What am I missing?


----------



## David Kazzie (Sep 16, 2010)

I'm one of the folks who Scott may have been referencing -- I've lost faith in self-publishing faster than I lost it in traditional publishing. Having never had a traditional deal, I can only speak to my experience self-publishing -- a crap shoot, a promising start then long slow death spiral, and then a white-knight rescue by KDP Select. Sure, it was fun to be a KDP Select success, but at no time did I think in the eight crappy months before it that SP'ing was better than the years I spent pursuing a traditional deal. In a way, it was worse to watch my book slowly wither and die - many times I wished I'd never self-pubbed at all. 

The solution, as I always hear, is to write faster, write more. Well, I can't. I'm lucky if I can pull off a book a year, and that's one book, no other novellas, shorts, etc., in there. 

So that said (even if he wasn't referencing me  ), I'm very appreciative of Scott posting about his experience, because I always like to learn from others who've gone where I haven't. I also agree with him that the window is closing, although I think it's closing faster than even he thinks.  Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be breakout stories, but I foresee a similiar squeezing of SP authors that you saw with traditional midlisters. 

Heck, I don't even have a traditional deal to accept -- but it would be awfully tempting to take a bird in the hand and stop daydreaming about those elusive birds in the bush. For me, I don't think I would be happy with a career where I wrote a dozen books that each sold 500 copies and never saw it in a bookstore.

Anyway, to each their own...


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

Thank you for posting, Scott! This thread is both fascinating and a bit worrying, seeing as how I've only just gotten started in self publishing and I'm really enjoying it. I'm also curious about why it won't last? Especially the way things have been going. Trad pub definitely seems to be on its way out, so if not self pub, then what? Or is it just that it'll be much harder to make a name in self publishing than it was in the beginning? If so, that makes sense -- it's already hard to break into trad pub, and I expect that eventually self pub will be similar.

I have not had earth-shattering sales so far (and didn't expect to either right out of the gate). I don't write fast either, but I do have a LOT of WIPs in the pipeline, and if I'm allowed to do this for the next 5 or so years, I'm looking to put out about 8-10 books. I think at least one of them will have a good chance at breaking out for me. Any way it goes, I think I'd rather do things my way, on my terms, than wait around begging for a publishing deal that may or may not ever make me successful but will certainly keep me locked down. 

I don't have much interest in seeing my books in bookstores though. Half of my favorite authors are pretty obscure, and even if they are trad pub, I often don't find their books in bookstores either.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

My most recent career was in residential real estate.  During the good times, almost everyone made money...even the agents without a good skill set.  During slow times, many simply gave up and got a "real job."  Good agents with personal discipline went back to basics, worked hard, and did well.  Some called them lucky, but we all should know the luckiest people seem to be the ones who work the hardest.  Many feared advances in technology and increased information from the internet.  Both turned out to be major assets that talented agents used to maximize their client base.  Isn't every business like that?  Nothing is static.  You can fear change, or you can embrace it.  Either way, it's going to come.  We just don't know know in advance exactly what the change will be.  Keep your eyes open though.  Otherwise the day will come when you look around and ask, "What happened?"  The answer you'll hear, "The future got here.  Where were you?"


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

Sapphire, that's a really good and reassuring comparison to the real estate boom. And yes, there are still real estate agents, and they're still making money. My cousin is one of them now.


----------



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

Deanna Chase said:


> It was never because Amazon was cheaper. It was because I could find what I wanted to read.


I wish I could underline this five times.

B.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Deanna Chase said:


> It was never because Amazon was cheaper. It was because I could find what I wanted to read. I used to take a list to bookstores and come home with hundreds of dollars of books.


I fully acknowledge that I was the exact opposite and part of the reason Borders failed. Then again I was also a teenager w/ a limited income. I went to Borders to explicitly find new and good books. Then I would go home to Amazon with my list to shop for better pricing often saving at least $10 on each book.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> But in my mind, this is the main reason bookstores are in trouble. They stopped catering to readers. And why they can't afford to stock books. And why print runs are down. Which directly effects authors' careers.


We may have entered an era where the bookstore system simply can't cater to consumers. The volume of books just doesn't fit into the physical system. The demands and needs of consumers are too many and too varied to be met by the system.

The bookstore shelves have always been the choke point in the system. There isn't enough room. Consumers don't buy enough to finance additional room. Eyeball hours are limited, but the number of books keeps increasing.

Organized markets, including bookstores, facilitate trade. When they don't, something else steps up and does. Bookstores can't do the job anymore. A new technology is stepping up to facilitate the demand for trade. This isn't unique to books. It happens in all industries.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> Why won't it last?
> 
> What am I missing?


Here's why: 54,000 free ebooks a day on Amazon.com.

All the other markets going to freebies in one way or another. All the Amazon associates building their businesses on the flow of free books to get people to buy other things.

Yes, there will be a long tail, if you are one of the generational icons. Dark Side of the Moon has a long tail, Debbie Gibson doesn't. Michael Jackson has a long tail, Jermaine Jackson doesn't. The Night of the Living Dead has a long tail, Saw doesn't. But even then, the tail narrows.

Talk to people in the app world--the 99 cent volume spree was awesome for a while and then it just became annoying and only a very few were actually selling enough to make viable money. Yet how many people now want to pay more than that for an app? No, they want it free.

And here's the kicker. I think the library model is one of the delivery methods of the future. How long will Amazon pay $2 a loan? And why do people need to borrow when they can already get more than they want for free?

People much smarter than I am think the ebook hoarder era is over. No need to cram another 10,000 free ebooks on storage somewhere when there's a similar 10,000 free the next day. The value is going to be in curating and weeding out the junk, not in dumping out today's 10,000 free ebooks. Sure, we just got likely the biggest wave of new users the digital revolution will ever see. I don't think they will read as avidly--my wife got one from her dad and she only reads a couple of books a year. My mother-in-law got one but she only reads about six authors, including Patterson Factory Inc. which can pretty much crank them as fast as she can read them (I am curious how she will act when /if she discovers there are a thousand writers similar to Patterson whose books are $10 cheaper). I believe most of this third wave of adopters are more into the tablet than the ebook--and notice Amazon's subtle shift into hyping video for the Fire rather than ebooks.

Also, ad-sponsored books haven't yet made a dent in the landscape (and this is actually one area where I think trad pub may find some value.) But ad-sponsored books will run on volume, in the hundreds of thousands of copies delivered cheap or free, books people actually want. And it's hard to see authors making more than nickels and dimes on these deals, much like the royalty a songwriter gets when their tune is on the radio.

I'd like to be wrong, and hopefully the thread will open opinions and ideas as we all adapt, because no one really knows, and Amazon could tilt the playground tomorrow and send ripples to all markets. But I am building my foundation on the notion that "There is no future in free." It's happening anyway, but right now I am making the vast majority of my sales on three books that have never been free. 2012 was the year of free (actually, only the first six months) and it's past time for something new. Just because it's awesome for Amazon doesn't mean it helps writers build careers.

So, the easy answer is be a generational writer, and then you will survive no matter what. The rest of us will be like those forlorn pen names on the covers of those god-awful 80s horror paperbacks that sold in the millions for a few years. Ruby Jean Jensen, where are you now? Erskine Caldwell, Sidney Sheldon? No long tail there.

Oddly, I find nothing even slightly gloomy about all this. I am just ecstatic I was here when it happened, with a stack of books New York didn't want but readers did. It will be like being at Woodstock--even after it was over, no one really knew what exactly happened.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

scottnicholson said:


> Fear not, Anne--and I do mean this kindly--there are three or four years to make good money here in ebooks, and then the goose is pretty much cooked, and we can ALL go back to "just writing," just writing what we love, like we did back before we worried about sending stuff off. I enjoyed writing a whole lot more back before I had to plan a release date while typing chapter one.
> 
> Here's another thing many writers like to joyfully ignore--New York doesn't WANT all the good books. They only want ten of them. If the best 100 books ever written in English turned up in New York the same week, 90 would still get rejected.
> 
> ...


Scott, your original post in this thread was marvelous. And this bit that you posted later is even better. I'm glad I got a chance to sit down with you before leaving Boone. You are one of the wisest and classiest folks not just in this game, but on planet Earth. Thanks a heap for sharing your knowledge with us all.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Some wonderful thoughts and ideas here. 

I started my small press before the indie boom began and will still have it if the majority of market curls into free and bargain books. Something will still come out of it, and I enjoy being on the forefront of it all, staying nimble, and adjusting. 

I find diversity in all the things is the best course for me, and focus mainly on putting out enough material that I CAN have a couple things free, a couple things short, a couple things long, and couple things under a trashy pen name, and a couple things that I continue to market as my personal brand. 

I still do print runs in Hong Kong for some stuff (I'm about to reprint one of my books) and I still use Lightning Source AND CreateSpace. And I have enough out there that this year I'm going to expand my reach and let one title sit in agents' inboxes as I (cough) submit to trads. I see having a book in the traditional system as another marketing tool. I'm not looking for a bazillion dollars in a deal, just a shot at a book getting the traditional round of reviews and bookstore pitches--ways of marketing I don't have the ability to reach on my own. Even if one of my names, or my real name, gets tied up a few years, I'm still putting out plenty of other things under pen names and with other authors in my press.

This is an amazing time to be a writer. Maybe the best time, ever.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

It will be interesting to see how the ebook market develops. Discoverability is a key issue, especially with all the free and new ebooks available each day. I think there may be two sets of consumers though, the people who were never going to spend money on ebooks anyway, and just gather up the freebies.....and the others who look to freebies as a way to discover new authors and then go on to buy the rest of their books. 

Much like bookstores, we have a level of blockbuster authors, some Indie, some Traditional, who have such a following now that each new release propels them to the top of the lists, and then everyone else, the mid-listers who are trying to get noticed. But, at least with ebooks, we have more time to get noticed.


----------



## Nicole Ciacchella (May 21, 2012)

This has been a really interesting discussion, and I appreciate the insight on the traditional publishing experience.

I have my ups and downs, but I'm ultimately glad I chose to go the self-publishing route. Do I sometimes with I could spend more time just writing and not marketing? You bet--but I figure I'd feel that way even if I were traditionally published, given how much of the marketing they now expect their authors to do.

I also tend to look at these things from a reader point of view. I am a serious reader, someone who goes through upward of 70 books a year. I do sometimes download free books, but only if I'm really interested in them. If I like them, I'll go on to buy other books by the same author. I do have some author whose books I tend to buy automatically--though I'm not cemented there as I will forgo an author's next book if I didn't like the previous one. But I also love to find new authors, and what I love about the digital age is how much more choice I have. There were times when I'd go without reading many books simply because I was so limited by what print had to offer. It's overwhelming at times to have such a long to-read list, but it's better than the days when I had nothing to read because my choices were so limited.

I think the next big thing will be the curators. I see it happening on Goodreads, of which I've been a part since long before I published. I also see it happening with certain book bloggers who've built up a reputation and a loyal following. In fact, these two sources often inform what I ultimately choose to read. I honestly think things will shift from being discovered by the NY gatekeepers making your career to being discovered by the influential book bloggers making your career--and I have to say that this appeals to the democrat in me.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Free was great for a while and it still can give you a boost, but I agree that it is coming to the end of its effectiveness. Where I disagree with Scott is that this means the end of indie publishing and that we all have to go crawl in a cave. 

We adjusted when free came along. We're adjusting again. Such is any life with business in transition as publishing is.

ETA: Would I feel differently if I hadn't sold more books last month that I have ever sold before and am on track to sell more this month than last?

Maybe...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Here's why: 54,000 free ebooks a day on Amazon.com."


That's a lot of books. But do we know how copies have been downloaded? And do we know if those downloads have reduced purchases by existing customers? What has been the growth path of Amazon book sales? Do we have any basis to think Amazon cash book sales have gone down? How many existing book customers have ever downloaded a free book?

Anyone know Amazon KDP revenue for the past five years? Non-KDP book revenue? Profit/loss on KDP? Non-KDP?

There are lots of theories, but very few facts. I sure don't know those answers, and I doubt many outside of Amazon know the answers. Given the lack of facts, we can create scenarios that are positive or negative for eBooks. Think the best, or think the worst. Neither can be supported or refuted without the facts.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2013)

Ah, how I love the smell of roasting an entire industry based on one case.    

Scott had a bad experience with a trade publisher. Many authors do. Many authors also have bad experiences self-publishing. Many do not. The only takeaway from the whole thing: take the chip off your shoulder and take honest stock of your own skills, desires, and resources. If you have the skills, desire, and resources to self-publish effectively then do so. If not, you may want to consider trade publishers (assuming you can actually WRITE, which is not a forgone conclusion for a great many so-called authors).

But I am disappointed in Scott for jumping on the EVIL PUBLISHERS bandwagon and actively discouraging people from considering trade publishing. Scott possesses a skill set that allows him to effectively self-publish. But there are thousands of authors who do not. Telling them to self-publish is like telling an overweight kid who is 5 ft tall and has a heart condition to forgo going to college and instead try out for the NBA based on his ability to master fantasy basketball. It isn't just silly. It is irresponsible.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Ah, how I love the smell of roasting an entire industry based on one case.
> 
> Scott had a bad experience with a trade publisher. Many authors do. Many authors also have bad experiences self-publishing. Many do not. The only takeaway from the whole thing: take the chip off your shoulder and take honest stock of your own skills, desires, and resources. If you have the skills, desire, and resources to self-publish effectively then do so. If not, you may want to consider trade publishers (assuming you can actually WRITE, which is not a forgone conclusion for a great many so-called authors).
> 
> But I am disappointed in Scott for jumping on the EVIL PUBLISHERS bandwagon and actively discouraging people from considering trade publishing. Scott possesses a skill set that allows him to effectively self-publish. But there are thousands of authors who do not. Telling them to self-publish is like telling an overweight kid who is 5 ft tall and has a heart condition to forgo going to college and instead try out for the NBA based on his ability to master fantasy basketball. It isn't just silly. It is irresponsible.


I direct people to Kris Rusch's blog for an honest look at trad publishing. (I use the term largely to annoy you. You do realize that, right?) There are some very ugly sides to it, and saying it's only one person who has had the experience simply isn't true.

As far as telling other people what to do, I don't know that he was. Saying that indie publishing is for some reason going to "come to an end" is hardly telling some fat kid to do it. The fat kid who can't write isn't going to do any better in indie publishing (or in trad), so I'm honestly not sure where you're coming from there.


----------



## Chris A. Jackson (Jun 14, 2011)

> Would I feel differently if I hadn't sold more books last month that I have ever sold before and am on track to sell more this month than last?


Very relevant observation. We have several self-pubbed books, and a series with a small press. Just two months ago, we were discussing the benefits of self-pub with traditional, and leaning toward traditional with regard to getting exposure for titles. Then in mid-November, Kindle sales of one of our self-pubbed titles picked up, sky-rocketed during December, and is still climbing. As of mid-day January 2nd, we've sold nearly the same number of ebooks in two days as we sold in the entire month of November. Let me tell you, we're leaning WAAAY over toward self-publishing on Kindle now. Funny how circumstance shifts perspective.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> I direct people to Kris Rusch's blog for an honest look at trad publishing. (I use the term largely to annoy you. You do realize that, right?) There are some very ugly sides to it, and saying it's only one person who has had the experience simply isn't true.


There is an ugly side to every industry. I've never denied there are some unscrupulous character in trade publishers. But will YOU at least grant that there is also a very ugly side to self publishing and that it also has its share on unscrupulous people?

It's like anything else. There are crooked mechanics. Does that mean someone like me, with zero mechanical aptitude, should simply repair her own car instead of trying to find a reputable mechanic? There are crooked lawyers. Does that mean I should represent myself in court instead of trying to find a good one? There are crooked doctors. Does that mean I need to learn how to self-diagnose and not seek professional help with a medical condition?

My point is the same as it has always been. Cut through the hype and try to take an objective view of the whole. Look at the title of this thread "Educational data for those considering trad." But there is nothing educational here. No statistics. No research. It is one man's story about a bad deal. And Scott himself indicates this is a warning for people who were saying they wanted to get out of self-publishing and find a publisher.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

I get a handful of people a month asking me if they should self-publish or find a publisher. I always start out with the caveat that I am bias toward self-publishing, and then I share my experience, point them to Kris's blog, and then tell them to read everything they can on traditional publishing so they can make an informed decision. Newbies to publishing have no idea there are so many ugly sides to the business. Of course it's work to self-publish professionally. It's also work to figure out how or if you should find an agent or editor and how to navigate those contracts. The problem is, most people think once they have a contract it's easy sailing. It's not. Stories like Scott's help all of us understand what can and does happen quite a bit with a traditional deal.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is an ugly side to every industry. I've never denied there are some unscrupulous character in trade publishers. But will YOU at least grant that there is also a very ugly side to self publishing and that it also has its share on unscrupulous people?
> 
> It's like anything else. There are crooked mechanics. Does that mean someone like me, with zero mechanical aptitude, should simply repair her own car instead of trying to find a reputable mechanic? There are crooked lawyers. Does that mean I should represent myself in court instead of trying to find a good one? There are crooked doctors. Does that mean I need to learn how to self-diagnose and not seek professional help with a medical condition?
> 
> My point is the same as it has always been. Cut through the hype and try to take an objective view of the whole. Look at the title of this thread "Educational data for those considering trad." But there is nothing educational here. No statistics. No research. It is one man's story about a bad deal. And Scott himself indicates this is a warning for people who were saying they wanted to get out of self-publishing and find a publisher.


Every experience posted here is considered 'educational data' to me. I dissect the thread to see what I can take from it. We are all adults and know there are two sides to every story, so I don't think everyone is going to run off in the sunset saying "Scott said this...so I'm doing it!" Though to be honest, since he has been around the world with both trad and indie, I'd give his opinion a lot more attention than I would someone who has only self-pubbed or only trad-pubbed. He's earned his stripes.

It's all about getting perspective from those who have been there and done that. I hope some authors who have had GREAT experiences with traditional publishing stop by and give their two cents as well. I'm still open to submitting to a Big Six, though I don't see that happening in the future with the commitments I already have. See, he hasn't scared me away.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is an ugly side to every industry. I've never denied there are some unscrupulous character in trade publishers. But will YOU at least grant that there is also a very ugly side to self publishing and that it also has its share on unscrupulous people?
> 
> It's like anything else. There are crooked mechanics. Does that mean someone like me, with zero mechanical aptitude, should simply repair her own car instead of trying to find a reputable mechanic? There are crooked lawyers. Does that mean I should represent myself in court instead of trying to find a good one? There are crooked doctors. Does that mean I need to learn how to self-diagnose and not seek professional help with a medical condition?
> 
> My point is the same as it has always been. Cut through the hype and try to take an objective view of the whole. Look at the title of this thread "Educational data for those considering trad." But there is nothing educational here. No statistics. No research. It is one man's story about a bad deal. And Scott himself indicates this is a warning for people who were saying they wanted to get out of self-publishing and find a publisher.


Heck, I will even admit that trad publishing may be the right route for some people. I don't HATE trad publishing.

But I do look at_ some_ of the people who are so thrilled at getting a trad contract and wonder if they REALLY know what they are getting into. It isn't just the unscrupulous people. It is the whole setup of trad publishing. The way that the "midlist" actually works. (Do they even know what midlist is and why they're it. And the fate of most midlisters?) Do they know the way that distribution actually works and how long that novel is likely to be on the shelf? Do they have any idea the hazards and problems with royalty reports and working with agents?

All too many people go into it with rose colored specs firmly in place--and that includes a lot of indies.

That doesn't mean that no one should do trad publishing, but education is a d*mn good idea. And that is exactly why I say to read Kris Rusch's blog because she knows about as much about both sides as anyone I know of and lost those rose colored glasses a few decades ago. Unlike most people, she's willing and able to tell the truth about the up AND the down side.

The fact is, Julie, that I make enough every month that a publisher would have to come to me with a darn good deal before I'd even consider it. I admit that is ME and not the kid who can't write or someone who would be a likely candidate for the NYT Best Seller list.

ETA: And she doesn't deal in statistics either. There is more to understanding the industry and our place in it than statistics.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " Look at the title of this thread "Educational data for those considering trad." But there is nothing educational here. No statistics. No research. It is one man's story about a bad deal."


I learned a lot from Scott's post. He is providing information from the microeconomic perspective. Statistics and research typically deal with an aggregate set of the micro, and the macroeconomic perspective. Both perspectives are educational.


----------



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

I've had three books trad published, I've also signed contracts for others - and then had them cancelled at the last minute due to various publishing reasons  . 

My experience with trad publishing has been:
1. That it’s all enthusiasm on their side at the beginning, but editors move on and the next one isn’t interested in the previous editor’s projects. 
2.	Distributors handle hundreds of books and yours is unlikely to spark their interest. Friends go to buy your book – but the bookshop doesn’t have it in stock because ‘they are waiting for the distributor’.
3.	If you’re lucky your book will be in the window/next to the till for a few days. It will then disappear into the back of the shop. 
4.	Fifty review issues eagerly requested by magazines and newspapers might result in 5 – 10 actual reviews. 
5.	Publishers expect you to do your own marketing. 
6.	Most books are damp squibs
7.	You don’t have any control over the above.

I have made far more money self-publishing  .


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Okay, thanks for the input. As a first time author who's weighing the pros and cons, here are some of the benefits of trad. Are these legit?

I know I need a professional editor. Yeah, I can afford to hire a freelance, but I don't really know how good of an editor I'm getting. I can send a chapter in and ask for a sample, I can read posts on forums if the editor happens to frequent them, etc...But I'm really taking my best guess. Going trad would mean I'd get an editor assigned that a publisher trusts, let's say TOR. That editor has the blessing of a company that has his/her track record. Besides, just because I can afford an editor, doesn't mean I'm looking forward to convincing the wife to spend the money, because that will entail assuring her that there's a good chance I'll make the money back, an argument I don't really want to make.

Working with an agent and a trad publisher will surely educate me on things about the business I don't even know that I don't know. Maybe reading blogs, articles, and KB forums is all anyone ever needed to know about the business, but I can't read every thread, and who knows what I'm missing in the ones I skip. Getting an agent and publisher puts people in my court who are invested in my success. There's nobody on this board who really gives a crap if I make it or not. But those people will have money riding on it same as me. 

Being accepted by a trad publisher is still the best way to get books on the shelf of B&N. Yeah, self-pubbing can lead to it like it did in Hugh's case, but like you said, 54,000 new free downloads come out every day, and who knows if I have the skill at selecting a cover that's appealing enough and writing a blurb that's enticing enough to draw attention to my book. Going from self-pub to books on shelves in an anomaly, not the norm. No books on shelves excludes you from many awards. Excludes you from a certain level of respect in certain circles. Yeah, people can scoff at that, but the more respect a writer earns in those circles, the more his opportunities grow.

And,of course, there's the "Can I do it?" factor.

Maybe the author makes more money going full bore self-pub from the get go, but maybe the education one gets going trad will help him make more once he sees the error of his ways and decides to switch to self-pub. 

These are the things going through the head of someone who will soon have to make a choice whether to query or not.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Okay, thanks for the input. As a first time author who's weighing the pros and cons, here are some of the benefits of trad. Are these legit?
> 
> I know I need a professional editor. Yeah, I can afford to hire a freelance, but I don't really know how good of an editor I'm getting. I can send a chapter in and ask for a sample, I can read posts on forums if the editor happens to frequent them, etc...But I'm really taking my best guess. Going trad would mean I'd get an editor assigned that a publisher trusts, let's say TOR. That editor has the blessing of a company that has his/her track record. Besides, just because I can afford an editor, doesn't mean I'm looking forward to convincing the wife to spend the money, because that will entail assuring her that there's a good chance I'll make the money back, an argument I don't really want to make.
> 
> ...


Regarding the bolded part: NO, it most certainly will NOT educate you about the business. Or possibly not until it is too late (when what you learn is that they did not have your best interests at heart). _It is up to you to educate yourself_. Don't expect someone else to do it for you, most especially people like agents and publishers who have very different interests than you. You don't think they have your best interest at heart, I hope.

Because they don't. They are not invested in YOUR success. They are invested in THEIRS. Do not assume the two coincide.


----------



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

vrabinec said:


> Working with an agent and a trad publisher will surely educate me on things about the business I don't even know that I don't know.


You could spend up to 20 years learning the ins and outs of trad publishing while waiting to actually find a publisher  
It is 20 years since I first wrote _The Breadwinners_ and after several 'near misses' (and this is going back to the days when one posted the manuscript and waited up to six months - year for a reply) I was excited to be able to e-publish with KDP.

How long are you prepared to spend looking for an agent/publisher?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Regarding the bolded part: NO, it most certainly will NOT. Or possibly not until it is too late (when what you learn is that they did not have your best interests at heart). _It is up to you to educate yourself_.


Well, I'm cretainly trying. But it can't possibly be the same. Look, someone can read books on my profession, they can read forums, etc...But I KNOW there are a million things I picked up by being in it for the last 25 years that they'll NEVER learn trying to learn it on their own. It's impossible. I don't know of many professions that AREN'T like that.



JRTomlin said:


> Don't expect someone else to do it for you, most especially people like agents and publishers who have very different interests than you. You don't think they have your best interest at heart, I hope.
> 
> Because they don't. They are not invested in YOUR success. They are invested in THEIRS. Do not assume the two coincide.


If they decide to represent me and to publish my book, they're not doing it to lose money. They want the book to succeed, and they will do at least a minimum in dressing it up, editing, and presentation to make it sell. Yeah, I get it. There's a point at which they lose interest unless you're selling a ton, and at that point, they don't care. I'm not sure how to recognize that moment, but I'm pretty sure there are subtle signs. And yeah, it's gotta suck to see someone with the rights who's not doing anything with it. But I refuse to believe it's all dark on the trad pub side. You can't tell me there aren't good people over there who do help authors improve in their writing and promotion skills. That sounds too much like one political party accusing the other of being completly evil, with no benevolent qualities. It sounds like a campaign.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> How long are you prepared to spend looking for an agent/publisher?


If that's the route I take (and that's very much up in the air at this point) then I'll give it a year.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Well, I'm cretainly trying. But it can't possibly be the same. Look, someone can read books on my profession, they can read forums, etc...But I KNOW there are a million things I picked up by being in it for the last 25 years that they'll NEVER learn trying to learn it on their own. It's impossible. I don't know of many professions that AREN'T like that."


Agree. But that knowledge usually comes after one is actually working in the profession. Query letters are just applications.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Well, I'm cretainly trying. But it can't possibly be the same. Look, someone can read books on my profession, they can read forums, etc...But I KNOW there are a million things I picked up by being in it for the last 25 years that they'll NEVER learn trying to learn it on their own. It's impossible. I don't know of many professions that AREN'T like that.
> 
> If they decide to represent me and to publish my book, they're not doing it to lose money. They want the book to succeed, and they will do at least a minimum in dressing it up, editing, and presentation to make it sell. Yeah, I get it. There's a point at which they lose interest unless you're selling a ton, and at that point, they don't care. I'm not sure how to recognize that moment, but I'm pretty sure there are subtle signs. And yeah, it's gotta suck to see someone with the rights who's not doing anything with it. But I refuse to believe it's all dark on the trad pub side. You can't tell me there aren't good people over there who do help authors improve in their writing and promotion skills. That sounds too much like one political party accusing the other of being completly evil, with no benevolent qualities. It sounds like a campaign.


It's more than just "they lose interest". I am not saying that it is all a "dark side", but the fact that you apparently believe that the fact that they'll make money means they'll either educate you or espouse your interests is alarming.

I have no campaign. What do I get out of it whichever way you go? It's no porridge of mine. But you very much have those rose colored specs on if you actually believe that they'll put your interests ahead of their own or that they are the same.

ETA: The agent has a choice: negotiate tough for your interests and alienate a publisher they work with every week of the year. Or not and accept poor contract terms for you. Which do they choose? They recommend a high advance contract (that puts money in their pocket right away) with poor terms otherwise or a low advance contract with much better terms otherwise. Which do they choose? I could go on and on, but you won't believe me or say I'm "campaigning". Honestly, why should I care?

There are a handful of agents out there who have the kind of reputation that would indicate they really will go to bat for you. And I mean a TINY handful. As for publishers--they are multinational corporations. Enough said to indicate where THEIR interests lie. Are they the Great Satan? No. They're just profit machines so if pushing your book will be the best profit, then they will. And usually it's not. You're the "throw away" in the mid-list.

Do you learn from the whole submission process? Not in my opinion. Do you learn from working with a good editor? Sure, you learn about editing and writing and it's a great experience. But learning about the business? There you are on your own. _Trust other people to take care of you at your peril._


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> It's more than just "they lose interest". I am not saying that it is all a "dark side", but the fact that you apparently believe that the fact that they'll make money means they'll either educate you or espouse your interests is alarming.


They won't make money if your book sucks. They have a vested interest in trying to make it successful because they earn more money if it's successful. So, they have editors on staff who try to work with the author to improve the book. THAT'S helping the author. It's not self-sacrifice on their part, nor should it be. I wouldn't expect them to do it at their own expense just to help me, but they make more money by making the author a better author. They make more money by making the author better at presenting himself to the public. I don't care that their motives are financial, I care that they DO put forth the effort, and the author benefits. Because, if THEY make more money on my book by doing something to it, then wouldn't it stand to reason that I'LL make more money by making that change? Yeah, maybe had I know to make that change on my own, I could've made more going self-pubb'd, but how many things will I never learn because I go self-pubb'd? Or how many things will I learn twenty years later through trial and error? 


JRTomlin said:


> I have no campaign. What do I get out of it whichever way you go? It's no porridge of mine. But you very much have those rose colored specs on if you actually believe that they'll put your interests ahead of their own.


I never said I expect anyone to put my interests ahead of their own. The book is the product being sold. It's a collaboration. Both of us have a vested interest in making it better because both of us will make more money the better it is.


JRTomlin said:


> ETA: The agent has a choice: negotiate tough for your interests and alienate a publisher they work with every week of the year. Or not and accept poor contract terms for you. Which do they choose? They recommend a high advance contract with poor terms otherwise or a low advance contract with much better terms otherwise. Which do they choose?


Doesn't the agent make a percentage of the money the writer makes? Wouldn't it make sense to try to get as much money for the writer as possible? Yeah, I'm sure they don't want to alienate publishers by going over the top with demands, but I wouldn't ask them to do that anyway. 


JRTomlin said:


> They're just profit machines so if pushing your book will be the best profit, then they will. And usually it's not.


But, again, they make more money the better the book is. Yeah, I get that there are costs involved in promotion, and they may not want to spend the money. But then, I'm pretty stingy with a buck myself, so I don't know how much I'd spend on my own promotion if I go self-pub. It's a delicate balance. I wouldn't ask anyone to go broke promoting my book, and I understand that publishers may not be willing to promote a book like it needs to get the visibility necessary for its success. That's already been established here as one of the drawbacks of going trad.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> They won't make money if your book sucks. They have a vested interest in trying to make it successful because they earn more money if it's successful. So, they have editors on staff who try to work with the author to improve the book. THAT'S helping the author. It's not self-sacrifice on their part, nor should it be. I wouldn't expect them to do it at their own expense just to help me, but they make more money by making the author a better author. They make more money by making the author better at presenting himself to the public. I don't care that their motives are financial, I care that they DO put forth the effort, and the author benefits. Because, if THEY make more money on my book by doing something to it, then wouldn't it stand to reason that I'LL make more money by making that change? Yeah, maybe had I know to make that change on my own, I could've made more going self-pubb'd, but how many things will I never learn because I go self-pubb'd? Or how many things will I learn twenty years later through trial and error? I never said I expect anyone to put my interests ahead of their own. The book is the product being sold. It's a collaboration. Both of us have a vested interest in making it better because both of us will make more money the better it is.*Doesn't the agent make a percentage of the money the writer makes? Wouldn't it make sense to try to get as much money for the writer as possible? Yeah, I'm sure they don't want to alienate publishers by going over the top with demands, but I wouldn't ask them to do that anyway.* But, again, they make more money the better the book is. Yeah, I get that there are costs involved in promotion, and they may not want to spend the money. But then, I'm pretty stingy with a buck myself, so I don't know how much I'd spend on my own promotion if I go self-pub. It's a delicate balance. I wouldn't ask anyone to go broke promoting my book, and I understand that publishers may not be willing to promote a book like it needs to get the visibility necessary for its success. That's already been established here as one of the drawbacks of going trad.


Look, you will do whatever you want. I get nothing out of trying to educate you. If you haven't read KK Rusch's blog, I suggest you do so--and I mean her entire blog. I'll address the bolded part and then I'm done since you don't believe a word I say anyway. I'm tired of pissing into the wind.

I am not talking about "over the top" but refusing to accept non-compete clauses and the like that are typical but against the author's interests. (Both KKR and Passive Guy have good discussions of contract terms that are dangerous to your professional health) This can turn into tough negotiation with people that the agent depends upon for their income. And you are saying that agents should turn down sure money_ now_ for 'maybe' money from negotiating better terms. Really? Well, don't count on it. Sure the publisher will assign an editor--maybe the one who worked to buy the book or maybe that one is already gone. Will the new editor like your book? Maybe. Maybe not. Their best editor? Probably not but any good enough to work at a Big 5 is interesting and educational to work with. But it will not teach you the publishing business.

Anyway, I'm done. Good luck to you whatever you decide--in spite of the fact that you obviously think I'm a bald faced liar.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Scott, your post was awesome. Good stuff in here. I've never wanted a traditional publishing contract. I got in on the non-fiction internet boom when it was just taking off so I saw the potential of digital products immediately. Sure, I have days where it seems hopeless - but it's not about publishing. Not really. It's other stuff or maybe I'm just in a bad moon.

I'm actually having a pretty good time self-publishing fiction and I think the real estate post really hit the ball out of the park. You have to look ahead, you have think about how YOU control your future, you have to take risks, and you have to invest_ more than time _into this business.

Some people don't like all that.

I get it, just thinking about one book at a time has it's perks. I really can't relate to them, to be honest. But I see why some people can. I like interacting with the readers, finding new ways to promote myself, and all that junk.

There's always another way to do things. So if I were a writer who hated self-promotion and marketing and longed for being left alone to write, I'd find a way to make that happen. Maybe I'd write ten novellas all in a row, hold off on publication, set up a monthly publication schedule over the course of a year, set up tours, pre-write a bunch of blog posts, set up monthly ad campaigns, and then automate everything in advance to run without me thinking about it.

Then I'd have that whole year to concentrate on only my one book. Or whatever. Yeah, you'd be dead tired and broke for a year - but if _your deal _was that you don't want to think about that stuff, you just want to write one book at a time, then that's one solution. Go give it a try.

_But wait _- I hear the buts coming...

"That's not what I meant! I meant that I want someone _else _to do it for me!"

Right. I get it. Hire someone then.

"But I don't have any money because I'm not selling books!"

Right. So do it yourself.

You have two options. Pick one. _This is called a reality check_. If you're struggling it means you have to work harder. If you feel working harder is not worth the rewards you're getting back, then maybe you do something else with your time that does feel worth it.

My point is - if you're a self-publisher and you're not happy with how things are shaking out, you only have yourself to blame. Fix it. Change it. Do something different.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Anyway, I'm done. Good luck to you whatever you decide--in spite of the fact that you obviously think I'm a bald faced liar.


WTF? Where are you getting this?

Here's the first thing I wrote on this thread:

_Okay, thanks for the input. As a first time author who's weighing the pros and cons, here are some of the benefits of trad. Are these legit?_

I'm asking. And I'm expressing things as I see them. Not calling anyone a liar. I don't know where you're reading that into what I've said.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Whether low or high, the advance is still something he can take to the bank. From a quick search online, it seems the average advance is around $5000.
> 
> That would be $5000 in hand, upfront.
> 
> ...


Well, I agree that both have pros and cons. But he can't take _his share_ of that $5000 to the bank right away (and I wouldn't count of $5000 since a lot are as low as $2000), but let's go with that. So after the agent cut it is $4250, except that you don't see that. You see either 1/2 or 1/3 depending on the contract your agent negotiated. Hopefully, they got you half on signing and half on acceptance but one heck are 1/3 signing, 1/3 acceptance and 1/3 on publication which means that you won't see that last $1400 for at least a year or two. But maybe you really want that book on the B&N bookshelf for a couple of months, then it's worth it.

We all have to make our own decisions. Mine won't be there at B&N and if that's a goal, then trad is the way to go. And there is that slight one in a million chance that novel will be a break out and you'll get a better advance next time or a somewhat better chance that at least you'll sell through and have a chance at another contract though probably not much better--maybe worse. But doing it so someone will educate him about publishing--well... Whatever.

Now my self-published novels pay for the editing, covers and the groceries and mortgage without taking out an agent split, so obviously I'm biased.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2013)

I would agree that the Big Six aren't really going to "teach" you much at all. For the most part, the author will have very little real involvement in the production of the book. And a lot of authors are happy with that.

Smaller publishers and university presses are more inclined to solicit active involvement from the author. I work very closely with my authors. They get to offer feedback at every stage of the process. I don't just tell them what I am doing. I also explain why I am doing it. Of course, if they don't want to be involved that's fine, too. A couple of them are very hands off. Other than reviewing the final proof, they don't really want to be involved in all the behind-the-scenes stuff. Others treat it like a classroom environment and send me dozens of emails to pick my brain. You do have a more collaborative environment with smaller presses than the Big Six. But the smaller presses will also tend to offer small advances and have shorter print runs. The Big Six can move more overall volume, but tends toward more mainstream titles. Small presses move less volume, but are more likely to publish niche and specialized or experimental work.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

i haven't written off traditional pubs, and i actually think they might be the place to be again in a few years. i'm still pubbed by a trad pub, but i'm surprised that their entire focus is on print, and almost 100% of their push is to indies and libraries. nothing really beyond that, but once they shift gears, things could really change. or not.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> WTF? Where are you getting this?
> 
> Here's the first thing I wrote on this thread:
> 
> ...


The "thanks" was quite expressly not addressed to me but this was:

T_hat sounds too much like one political party accusing the other of being completly evil, with no benevolent qualities. It sounds like a campaign._

That sounds very much like calling me a liar. Anyway, like I said, I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> The "thanks" was quite expressly not addressed to me but this was:
> 
> T_hat sounds too much like one political party accusing the other of being completly evil, with no benevolent qualities. It sounds like a campaign._
> 
> That sounds very much like calling me a liar. Anyway, like I said, I wish you the best of luck.


Well, considering you earlier said _Heck, I will even admit that trad publishing may be the right route for some people._, it would be pretty stupid to accuse you of accusing them of being completely evil. But there ARE people out there who come off that way. Again, not calling YOU a liar, but anyone who claims that trad pud is all bad, yeah.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Although my experience with trad publishers wasn't exactly the same as Scott's - I had two big sellers, the first (The Silk Code, 1999) and fifth (The Plot to Save Socrates, 2006) of my novels published by Tor - and scholarly nonfiction is an entirely different ballgame - I think Scott is 100% right in his analysis of traditional vs. indie publishing.

In the month of December, I sold more e-copies of The Silk Code and The Plot to Save Socrates than I sold of the two from 2007-2011, which is when I got the rights back.

I also agree with Scott on the dangers of free copies.  I've decided I am never going to offer any of my books for free, at any time, for any reason, and I'll live with the consequences.

From an evolution of media perspective, I think the Kindle ebook revolution is at least as profound as the advent of the pocketbook (mass market paperback) in the 1930s, which made the book purchase competitive with a movie theater ticket.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

I courted NY Publishing for a couple of years, almost getting contracts. Publishers took my manuscript, mulled it over for eight months, before expressing doubt and ultimately rejecting it. I think a large part of that rejection was the fact that I was a foreigner. I live in Amsterdam, how was I going to do promotion? How would they sell my suspense? If I had written in Dutch and it had sold in the Netherlands, well, maybe, but I write in English so no Dutch publisher would touch me.

Meanwhile, I worked night shifts as a security officer, spending 7 hours out of my 8-hour shift writing and editing my work, without a necessity to put it all to profit. Still, people would ask me what I was doing all night, and when I told them I was writing, people wanted to hear the pitch and when they heard the pitch they wanted to read the book. And I'd have to say, sorry, I haven't been published yet.

Another thing that held me back is the experience of coming into a series at book 3 and finding book 1 to be OOP, and having to look in secondhand shops if they had a copy. And that irritated me. I wanted people to be able to buy the whole series. Now, in a year, in five years and in ten years. And I realized that would become a problem with trade publishing. So I was working on a stand-alone novel, to flog that to the publishers, but I just got tired and disgusted pandering to publishing houses that acted like they were doing me this tremendous favour publishing me. And I'd would still have to do the lion's share of the promotion and work my ass off to sell the book.

And, in the end, I'm not that much concerned with 'living from my royalties'. The extra cash is nice, but the most important part for me is that if someone asks if they can read my work, I can point to Amazon, Kobo, iTunes, B&N, whatever, and say, "There you go, download my books and let me know if you liked them." And if it all falls down in five or six years, I don't think I will care all that much, because I will have my books and the worldwide rights to them and I'll just flog them through my own webshop or whatever, as long as people will want to read them. Right now, I get emails from complete strangers, telling me they enjoyed my work. And that means more to me than the validation of a publishing company that's only interested in me if I can make them enough money.

Thanks of the article, Scott.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But I am disappointed in Scott for jumping on the EVIL PUBLISHERS bandwagon and actively discouraging people from considering trade publishing. Scott possesses a skill set that allows him to effectively self-publish. But there are thousands of authors who do not. Telling them to self-publish is like telling an overweight kid who is 5 ft tall and has a heart condition to forgo going to college and instead try out for the NBA based on his ability to master fantasy basketball. It isn't just silly. It is irresponsible.


Did he edit that part out of the original post before I read it? Or was it someplace else on the thread?

The version I read of the post shows his experience with trad publishing and his view. I find it hard to be disappointed in him for that.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Well, considering you earlier said _Heck, I will even admit that trad publishing may be the right route for some people._, it would be pretty stupid to accuse you of accusing them of being completely evil. But there ARE people out there who come off that way. Again, not calling YOU a liar, but anyone who claims that trad pud is all bad, yeah.


Sorry, then. I thought you meant that I was taking that position since you quoted me in that post. Sure. You're right that there are people who do say all trad publishing is the EVUUULLL.

The fact that I don't think it's right for me or that there are cons doesn't mean that the pros aren't there. It depends on what your goals are and where you are in your own journey.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

A publisher has multiple products in the market, and he has limited resources. He is no different from any producer with multiple products. He has to decide how much he is going to devote to each existing product, finding new products, and expanding or maintaining his enterprise. 

He has to come up with a priority list, and determine which products will provide the most payout for his investment. They are not all equal. 

His business is making a profit from many books. Our business is making a profit from a few books. They are different businesses.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

When it comes to my own work I'm a control freak. Relinquishing that is something I'd never do lightly.

These days it seems to me that hopping on board with a traditional publisher is, for most authors, a lot like rowing a boat out to get on the Titanic. You know the ship is going down, and someone will probably steal your boat. There are always exceptions; one frequent KBer in particular comes readily to mind.

Obviously traditional publishing isn't completely going away, but where once it gave midlisters a decent income it has now become hostile to them. I think any indie who sees enough success to attract their attention needs a darn good lawyer to load up their contract with escape clauses should the book languish in the publisher's care (or lack thereof). Frankly I suspect this will become more common as publishers look for new ways to attract talent on the cheap now that they've gutted their midlist, but maybe I'm attributing more common sense to them than is warranted. After all, common sense says you don't eat the seed corn.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

Thanks for sharing your experience, Scott. I'll add mine (admittedly limited).

After years of courting agents and editors with several different novels, my novel _Yseult_ was published in translation in Germany in 2009, followed by translations into Dutch and Italian. (The thing I heard most often about Yseult from English language editors and agents was that they weren't interested in Arthurian fiction.) My German publisher was incredibly enthusiastic, and I was treated much better than a lot of authors I know, including some advertising and a visit to the Leipzig Book Fair. At the same time, some things were making me nervous. Friends in the bookstore business told me my novel was being pushed as YA and as romance. That made no sense to me at all, except from the publishing standpoint that those are hot genres where the sales are. But Yseult has some fairly graphic sex scenes (not exactly YA). It does not end HEA, and there are very detailed descriptions of battles (not romance).

The book sold pretty well, actually earning out its advance within a year. But about six months after publication, the communication with my editor had dried up. Expectation is a powerful thing, and apparently they'd been expecting Yseult to be a bestseller. Despite 5,000 copies sold, they dropped me. When I got the rights back to the original English, I self-published.

Yseult hasn't sold 5,000 copies this year, but I'm making more per copy at 3.29 per ebook than I did at 19.95 Euros for the German hardcover. I have control over the cover art, and I can market the book to people who are more likely to enjoy it.

And the best thing of all is that I'm loving writing again. I've only been at this self-pub adventure for a year, so my experience is limited. At the moment, though, I have no interest in going back to traditional publishing, and that despite all the marketing involved in epublishing.

Just one more data point to throw into the pot.


----------



## James Bruno (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm one of the KBers who's moaned in Writers Cafe about going trad. I've had three (good) agents. The latest is a biggie in the business. But when, after a year, he was unable to snag a firm offer from a publisher, I canceled my contract and self-pubbed all three of my books. All three flew up the Kindle bestseller lists and I pulled in a five-figure income in 2011, less in 2012. I received good media exposure. I love the control over content and cover design, the quickness of publication, seeing virtual real-time accounting, not to mention 70% royalties flowing straight into my bank account. But my book sales dropped precipitously after spring of 2012. Amazon's constant screwing around with the enigmatic algorithms and the constant shifts in the self-pub business drive me (as they do others) to distraction. I, like Scott, wonder if some of us had hit pay dirt in the Klondike, only to see bust times from now on. Meanwhile, my agent tells me the door is always open to return (he represents Stieg Larsson and other successful authors). My next novel, a thriller set in Cuba, is due out in a few weeks. I could give it to my agent, or I could proceed with self-publishing.

What brings me back to the decision to stick with self-publishing is reading the blogs of veterans like Kathryn Rusch and the postings of other veterans like Scott. I've always approached writing as a business as well as a creative endeavor. Many of us who capitalized on the initial ebook boom have managed to position ourselves favorably in the marketplace, having achieved Kindle bestseller status, gotten some public exposure and gained something of a readership following. This was impossible for most of us pre-ebook. So, what we need to do is to continue to move product, i.e., books, continue our marketing efforts and thereby continue to build market share. This may be harder for those who've joined self-publishing late in the game. The upshot for me is that the gloom and doom Scott has predicted for the future isn't justified. There will always be a marketplace for books and more readers to buy them primarily in digital form. So what if a tsunami of crapola hits the market? If you're positioned well and you produce top-notch, professionally designed literature, you can do well, or even superbly. It's a fast-evolving business. It's incumbent upon us to be constantly ahead of the curve.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I hope I never said "Don't trad pub."

I think I pretty clearly said that if that is your goal, you should pursue it. And you should pursue it with all your heart regardless of what anyone, especially me, says. If you are willing to turn much of your career over to other people, well, that is GREAT for some people. Although if you cling to the fantasy of a world where you can "Just write," ask the big indie successes or even trad successes how that plays out.

I was sharing MY experience. I get dumber every day, but I also get happier every day. And my experience says, unless you are a bestseller, you are not going to get a magic carpet ride. You are going to get squeezed and then you are going to get dumped when something better comes along or when your sales "don't meet expectations." And you're likely going to be without even the benefit of your own life's work--it will belong to someone else.

Line up the indie successes and see what they have done--Boyd Morrison (already done and kicked back out to indie), Amanda Hocking (I am sure she is doing well but she's sure not dominating the ebook charts anymore), John Locke (ha ha--the great myth repeated here often of "I did it by BLOGGING!"). Okay, so say you sign a deal today--you have a deadline for say, December 2013, editing and sales stuff goes on for six months, your book comes out in mid-2014...and what happens when BN is bankrupt and gone, as it almost surely will be? And your ebook is ranked 350,000 at $9.99 and you can do nothing? What good did that do you? How many times have I been to a convention where they are holding a benefit auction for some ailing legend who has neither health insurance, a book contract, or even control of their own literary estate?

I don't know what is going to happen (I think I made that clear, too.) I just know what I am going to do--rely n myself--and I encourage each and every person to follow their dreams. If you want a trad deal, I will send you all the good karma you want. If I knew of a firsthand story where a trad-published friend of mine is happy and committed and living happily ever after, I would share that, too, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM left to go indie, and are spending most of their energy trying to get their old books back. (Edited--I just remembered--Jonathan Maberry is happy with Big Six, although he is also self-pubbing now, so there's that, although he is a bestseller and thus in the camp of those who should trad pub.) I am not pulling for New York to collapse or agents to starve to death or BN stockholders to weep. But I am not chaining myself to them, either, because I think their ship is sinking.

I apologize if I made anyone angry or upset, or if that came off as doom and gloom. Advice is worth about what you pay for it, which is why many consultants are leeching money away from publishers with "Let me transmediate your vertical integration for the Digital Era!" I think we're all very fortunate. I wish everyone all success. And, you know what, you're going to make it no matter what I say or don't say!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " There will always be a marketplace for books and more readers to buy them primarily in digital form. "


Agree. That's what we see in most markets. Where there are willing suppliers and consumers, they will get together, and someone will make a buck getting them together. However, the market doesn't give a hoot exactly who is supplying the product. All current players could drop out and new authors would take their place. The people who can deal with the market environment will prosper. Those who can't will make money doing something else. The market will select for the people who can live in it.

Things change in every market everyday. Nobody expects things to stay the same. Everybody is looking over his shoulder to get an idea what the other guy is doing. This is normal stuff. Expect more. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

My experience (with Hodder and with Harper Collins) is that you are signed up with good intentions. Meetings with editors are always positive and full of enthusiasm and optimism.

But once that meeting is over it becomes a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'. You and your book slide back to the bottom of the pile and the next excited author is wheeled in.  I never felt there was anything underhand or deceitful going on; I did feel that the staff - even high ranking editors - were overwhelmed with work. They're engaged in a 24/7 offensive of churning out as many books as possible in the hope that a handful of them stick to the commercial wall.

I believe the figures are something like 3% of titles account for all profits. Publishers might have your best interests at heart on a person to person basis, but delivering on their/your hopes is simply impossible; at the time we were with them around 2,500 new books a week were being published (UK only), all of them seeking reviews, shelf space, buyers.

The publishing industry is no different from other segments of the entertainment business. How many musicians are out there trying to make the charts? How many artists, film-makers?

A tiny percentage hit the heights due to talent plus luck. But the public's attention span now is almost certainly shorter than it's ever been. Getting close to the top and staying there are two separate challenges. My bet would always be on the skilled writer who goes it alone, whose career is never 'out of sight, out of mind', who can throw everything he or she has at making it. The less you need to rely on others, the better your chance, the less frustrated you'll be, and that should result in a generally happier life.

Good luck and thanks Scott for the opening post.

Joe


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

"... and we can ALL go back to "just writing," just writing what we love, like we did back before we worried about sending stuff off."  I like this.  This is what I'm doing.  I'll finish what I'm working on now, then take my time with the next one.  And I'm writing in whatever genre I damn well please.  No more pressure to produce one, just like the other one, so that I'll be a contender, not that I was.  Thank goodness I don't have to do this for a living.


----------



## Soothesayer (Oct 19, 2012)

scottnicholson said:


> Here's why: 54,000 free ebooks a day on Amazon.com.
> 
> All the other markets going to freebies in one way or another. All the Amazon associates building their businesses on the flow of free books to get people to buy other things.
> 
> ...


I think this post is without a doubt the most fatalistic, depressing thing I have ever read. Way to discourage new writers!

(sigh)


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Thanks for your educational posts Scott. So much is in a state of flux its difficult to know for sure how things will go in the future. It has never been easy for authors except maybe 2010-2011. One thing is certain and that will be continued changes.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

This is really a great thread, full of waves of emotions regarding our fears, hopes, and experiences.
It's *always* been hard to make a living as a writer. Most writers, even fairly successful ones, have (had) day jobs or occassionally go (went) hungry, have (had) patrons, or go (went) deeply in debt.

The great thing about ebooks is so many authors will have a few great years, even fooling themselves into thinking they can make a living writing. Unless, like Scott said, you bank those good years, so you can live off the interest, it's not realistic.

This is true for athletes, actors and actresses, playwrights, scriptwriters, musicians, dancers, artists, and anyone involved in creative art endeavors that rely on the adoration of their fans. Fans (in our case readers) can be fickle, and move on eventually.

In writers' cases, we're luckier than most as we can create an innumerable amount of the same product to sell. Plus, our writing isn't dependent on our physical looks or prowess, and since minds are usually the last thing to go, we have a longer time period in which to find our audience.

Of course, there are a few outliers who will get big enough advances and bank them, or self publish and have a large enough reader base to make a consistent living. We can all aim for this level of success, but don't forget that writing is a labor of love, too.

I love writing books. I'm flattered I have readers that love my work. I'm even flattered that I have people who passionately dislike my work (or me.)

I just met my agent in person over Christmas break. There are big plans in place for the angel series. What it made me realize is how little control I have over any part of the process, except writing. Anything I can do is considered grass roots to these people, and they're correct.

I hope every writer here can enjoy the thrill of knowing they created something for others to enjoy. Every book is a lottery ticket, a chance for each of us to live a dream. And if your dream does come true, enjoy it, bank it, and appreciate it while it lasts.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

And we can go back to the "good old days" when all we did was write...

and then spend hours and hours polishing query letters and more hours and hours scouring the agent lists to decide who to send the query letters to and then more hours obsessively checking our emails to see if perchance one of those agents has actually responded. And once they respond, months waiting for them to make a decision. And obsessively checking to see if the editors our agent sent the manuscript to has responded to the agent and the agent has contacted us. And then going over the royalty statement which makes no sense at all to figure out 1. why we made no money and 2. why the royalty statement makes no sense.

During which time said agent is patting us on the head like a child and saying, "There, there, don't worry your pretty little head about the complicated stuff" since all we want to do is write and not actually manage our own affairs.

There WAS no time when all writers did was write.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Aug 3, 2010)

Thanks for your input and clarification of my question, Scott. It's appreciated.

I decided to ask my Facebook fans to weigh in on this. They are all readers--and not just e-readers, as I found out. Nearly 700 replied. I found their responses fascinating--and not wholly what I expected. If you'd like--and for what it's worth--you can find their responses here. The post is on the upper right side of the page for now (Facebook won't let me link directly to it): https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Smith/192103440816063

I thought it was good to have their perspectives since they buy books.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Christopher Smith said:


> Thanks for your input and clarification of my question, Scott. It's appreciated.
> 
> I decided to ask my Facebook fans to weigh in on this. They are all readers--and not just e-readers, as I found out. Nearly 700 replied. I found their responses fascinating--and not wholly what I expected. If you'd like--and for what it's worth--you can find their responses here. The post is on the upper right side of the page for now (Facebook won't let me link directly to it): https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Smith/192103440816063
> 
> I thought it was good to have their perspectives since they buy books.


OMG!!! You have a TON of FB followers!


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Forgive me for making another real estate comparison.  I was in that business over 26 years so was there through several cycles.  New agents flooded into the market during boom times.  Many succeeded in spite of themselves.  They were the first to disappear during the down years.  A few of the old-timers disappeared with them, saying it was the end of the real estate business as we knew it.  So, there were fewer agents working when business came back, and they sold more houses and made more money because of it.  It happened over and over again.  Now, substitute 'authors' for real estate agents and substitute 'books' for houses.  One thing though.  A few were foolish enough to discount their services to the point of being unprofitable.  The talented ones didn't need to do that, and didn't.  None of us were crazy enough to provide our services for free.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Sapphire, I'm curious re the real estate agent vs. author analogy, most authors are not taking down their eBooks after publication. They may decide to stop publishing after one book or three books but they leave those books up there on the off chance of even making a dime. The Kindle store continues to populate not only with new authors but with backlists. It's different than a real estate agent who packs up, leaves and is gone forever. That author and their works will always be there making the pool of books that much larger with no further effort. How do you ride out something like that?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Entry and exit from real estate is similar to what we see in many industries.  But the opportunity cost of maintaining an occupation that doesn't put food on the table is very high. The opportunity cost of writing a few hours per day, while making a living some other way, is very low.


----------



## Sally Dubats (Jan 9, 2012)

Hi, All!

I had the same problem with Kensington. They would not give me written notice of reversion of rights, and I waited for the time period to run out, and sent a certified letter stating that I owned the rights per the contract. Kensington would not even get back to my agent who does a ton of work with them. This is also interesting. Kensington changed the name of my book, gave it a new cover, re-released it, and didn't tell me or my agent. I found out from a book store owner! So, my poor fans thought I had a new book out, I didn't know what was going on, and my agent was never informed. There are still two covers to that book out there! I'm currently in the process of getting it e-pubbed -- so that will make three covers since I do not have the rights to the artwork. Maybe I'll just use this note for the book description. Ha!

Have a great day -- good luck!

Sally


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm new at writing to publish.  Therefore, I'll share my thoughts but would suggest you not give them too much weight.  The books may stay there forever, but that discouraged author probably doesn't add to their book shelf.  As to time and opportunity cost, you have a point.  However, when enthusiasm wanes, everything else goes with it.  I have to believe most will find another hobby once they discover this is not a get rich quick scheme.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Sapphire, I'm curious re the real estate agent vs. author analogy, most authors are not taking down their eBooks after publication. They may decide to stop publishing after one book or three books but they leave those books up there on the off chance of even making a dime. The Kindle store continues to populate not only with new authors but with backlists. It's different than a real estate agent who packs up, leaves and is gone forever. That author and their works will always be there making the pool of books that much larger with no further effort. How do you ride out something like that?


What difference do the novels at the bottom of the list make? No one (and I sincerely believe that is not hyperbole) looks at the novels that are at the bottom of the pile. In effect, they aren't there or might as well not be.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'd normally agree with you about people giving up. But that doesn't seem to be what we see. Even before ebooks, authors spent years submitting to agents and editors. They wrote one unpublished book after another. Successful authors bragged about how long they toiled before getting on a shelf. 

So something beyond the normal economic forces appears to be at work. If I knew what it was, I would weave it into a standard economic pattern. But I don't know. I simply observe. So I can believe my own theories about rational economic actors moving on, or I can believe my own lying eyes. The eyes have it.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Aug 3, 2010)

David sent them to me, Hugh.


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

Interesting thread.

I think Scott and others are 100% correct that free books are ultimately harmful to the ebook market. But I'm feeling very optimistic about both the ebook market and the self-publishing industry as a whole.

First, ebooks as a whole. I don't think anyone will seriously argue that paper books will stage a resurgence. I know too many people (myself included) who swore we'd never give up our traditional books and now we're equally as adament that you'd have to pry our nook/kindle/whatever out of our cold, dead hands. The fact that dedicated ereader sales have stagnated/gone down means nothing - people are simply reading their ebooks on more versatile (tablets) or more portable (phones) hardware. But the ebook _format _ will continue to gain in popularity.

As regarding free ebooks, I'm not really worried about them for one major reason. I don't think they'll be around much longer.

Amazon is not stupid.

Amazon does not care about self-published authors. Don't get me wrong - it's not like they're prejudiced against us or anything but the fact is that they are interested in making money/building their business. Allowing authors to self-publish their own books helped them - they made 30% and drew customers to their site. Allowing self-published authors to offer their books for free cost them a small amount (computer costs) but still helped them overall (by drawing customers).

But now they're at the top of the heap. It's time for them to start cashing in.

I predict that Amazon is going to make changes that will substantially decrease the availability of free books (which they could do easily).

What that would mean to self-published authors is a whole topic in itself.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I think Amazon will allow the first in a series to go free, even if they limit others. It makes sense. If they're hooked, they buy the rest in the series, and if the author keeps writing books in the same genre, they go on to buy those, too. They may add a caveat like: it can only go free when the rest of the series is finished, and is up for sale.

I can see that having my first free generates sales on the following books.


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I think Amazon will allow the first in a series to go free, even if they limit others. It makes sense. If they're hooked, they buy the rest in the series, and if the author keeps writing books in the same genre, they go on to buy those, too. They may add a caveat like: it can only go free when the rest of the series is finished, and is up for sale.
> 
> I can see that having my first free generates sales on the following books.


Amazon could limit/eliminate free books in many different ways so this is certainly a possibility. But how would doing this benefit _Amazon_?

I'm not saying that to pick on you or anyone in particular. But it would make more sense to set a minimum price (for the sake of argument, say $2.99) and let people in Select run occasional sales (but not free) for first in series or whatever.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> And we can go back to the "good old days" when all we did was write...
> 
> and then spend hours and hours polishing query letters and more hours and hours scouring the agent lists to decide who to send the query letters to and then more hours obsessively checking our emails to see if perchance one of those agents has actually responded. And once they respond, months waiting for them to make a decision. And obsessively checking to see if the editors our agent sent the manuscript to has responded to the agent and the agent has contacted us. And then going over the royalty statement which makes no sense at all to figure out 1. why we made no money and 2. why the royalty statement makes no sense.
> 
> ...


Actually, the above does not reflect my experience. I wrote a book, sent out a hundred query letters, got one agent. He sent the book out to about five houses. One accepted, wanting a rewrite. I rewrote the book. Then the publisher wanted two more, a series. I received a contract, had a schedule, a year to write each. And all I did was write (when I wasn't going to work, or 'being' with my family). I did not feel patronized by my agent. Anyway, I go back to my default description of what I and many others now do. I would not call myself an Indie Writer. I think 'self-published' describes it better, as I'm doing, or at least contracting out, all the things that agents and editors/houses did in the past. And if you go back far enough, yes, I believe there was a time when all that writers did was 'write.' The lucky ones, anyway.


----------



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

For those determined to go the trad route they can simplify their lives by using this query tracker website .

http://querytracker.net/


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

James Bruno said:


> Meanwhile, my agent tells me the door is always open to return (*he represents Stieg Larsson* and other successful authors).


He represents a dead man?


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

KVWitten said:


> Amazon could limit/eliminate free books in many different ways so this is certainly a possibility. *But how would doing this benefit Amazon?*
> 
> I'm not saying that to pick on you or anyone in particular. But it would make more sense to set a minimum price (for the sake of argument, say $2.99) and let people in Select run occasional sales (but not free) for first in series or whatever.


I think Jeff Bezos is familiar with the concept of loss leaders.


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

AmsterdamAssassin said:


> I think Jeff Bezos is familiar with the concept of loss leaders.


Yeah, I would agree with you. 

But a loss leader doesn't have to be _free_.

Granted, Amazon could encourage more free books (after all, they have thousands of authors willing to give their books away in the hopes of gaining traction). And giving away free books doesn't really cost them much and it does bring customers onto their site.

But they could achieve the same purpose (bring customers to their site) by offering a low (but not free) price. *And* they could make money.

And making money is every (publicly-traded) company's ultimate objective.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

KVWitten said:


> Yeah, I would agree with you.
> 
> But a loss leader doesn't have to be _free_.


If the lowest price is 99c, that's fine too. But if you put your loss leaders out at 99c in a sea of free books, you won't sell many. If the sea of free books dries up, then 99c books become attractive.

Or readers are just going to lean back and read the free books they've been downloading for years.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2013)

I don't actually think free books are an issue, because free books cater to a specific demographic. These are the folks that would be visiting the used book store or library or buying stacks of romance novels for 25 cents each at flea markets in the pre-ebook days. These folks have always been there, and always will be.

The reason why free and 99 cent books worked _at first_ was because of the perception of value. Before the flood of free and 99 cent books, customers who regularly bought ebooks were accustomed to paying $5-$10 for an ebook from a small press, and up to $15 from a major house. (I know people don't remember this, but there was an ebook market before Amazon lol). The perceived value of ebooks by the ebook buying community was high. Also, at the beginning of the free/99 cent trend, most consumers were still unaware of indies. If a book was on sale at Amazon, they assumed it was from a publisher. So you had this expectation of a deal at work. The mentality was "WOW! I can get all of these books for almost nothing!" with the expectation of the same quality as what they were already buying.

But then the backlash hit. A handful of authors who produced quality work benefited from those low cost books because they met the expectations of the reader, and those readers became fans. But the majority of those books produced venomous threads on the Amazon forums about self published books. The initial rush of free and cheap books coincides with the early public condemnation of poor quality self published books.

Essentially, a handful of high quality writers benefits from the initial rush without much marketing savvy because the benefited from preconceived notions in the mind of the buying public. Over the last couple of years, those early buyers have become more discerning regarding how they buy. Because their notions have changed due to heightened awareness of the existence of indies (for good and bad) they no longer jump at the low price books because they no longer assume those books are of the same production value as trade books. What this means is that new authors need to have more marketing savvy than their predecessors did.

The demographics have reset themselves. The free demographic is still there. But the bargain shoppers who initially bought 99 cent and free books because they thought they had the same production value as other books have gone back to their normal purchase patterns (waiting for sales on the popular books or books from established brands). Now in order for an indie to reach them, the indie first needs to convince the bargain shopper that the book is worth MORE than 99 cents in order to push them to buy it for the lower price. In short, you need to market as if the book sells for $5.99 in order to convince the bargain shopper to buy it on sale at a lower price.

Meanwhile, the core book buying demographic, who buys books based on word-of-mouth or general interest without regard to price, is still doing what they have always done. They didn't flock to the free and 99 cent books because they didn't want to read them. They never abandoned their core interests and favorite brands, but instead kept buying the higher priced books.

The reason why the free/99 cent book offer no longer drives future sales is that consumer sentiments have reset back to what they were before the initial wave. The reason why authors are seeing less success is because the initial wave was are artificial bubble to begin with pushed by the bargain shopper demographic's initial rush to buy books at a deal. Once that honeymoon ended and they went back to their normal purchase patterns, the situation normalized.

So the problem is not free books. The problem is that indies need to relearn the "old fashion" marketing techniques that they never thought they needed.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> And then going over the royalty statement which makes no sense at all to figure out 1. why we made no money and 2. why the royalty statement makes no sense.


Even when you do make money, the royalty statement is prone to being in error and less than comprehensible. You have to read it over very carefully, make sure any deductions are consistent with your contract, that you are getting the correct royalty amount for each category (hardcover, paperback, ebook, translation, etc), and then prepared for arguing like cats and dogs. In many cases that I know, don't expect your agent to be any help, and be prepared to hire an attorney.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> So the problem is not free books. The problem is that indies need to relearn the "old fashion" marketing techniques that they never thought they needed.


Is it really "marketing techniques", or more a matter of trying to write a better book each time you sit down to write? Because as far as I can see, marketing consists of either buying add space someplace where a few readers hand out (but probably ignore the ads, as most of us do in the internet) or trying to get a plug on a review site (most of which have indicated their disdain for indie authors due to the quality of the writing). I mean, if you're marketting an HR program or something, you can show up at HR conferences, and send out e-mails to HR directors and that sort of thing. If you're marketting a widget, that's another form of marketting. But readers are buried in their little holes at home. And the only place they really go to look for a book is the marketplace, either B&N or Amazon, and then there's the review sites, which, again, hate indies. So, it seems like the "old fashioned" marketing strategy would be to write something that catches the eye of someone in the market, and that would entail polishing up your blurb, your prose so that the "look inside" feature pleases the reader, and finding an eyecatching cover.


----------



## James Bruno (Mar 15, 2011)

> then there's the review sites, which, again, hate indies.


This isn't my experience at all. But you're right about needing to write a better book. Also, very importantly, serious writers must invest extra in ensuring their books' formatting and cover designs are on a par with those from the established publishing houses. Same goes for author pages and websites. If your "platform" appears the least bit underdeveloped or amateurish, you send out red flags to the reading public that you're not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

KVWitten said:


> Amazon could limit/eliminate free books in many different ways so this is certainly a possibility. But how would doing this benefit _Amazon_?
> 
> I'm not saying that to pick on you or anyone in particular. But it would make more sense to set a minimum price (for the sake of argument, say $2.99) and let people in Select run occasional sales (but not free) for first in series or whatever.


Well, how could free books hurt Amazon? That is the answer Amazon is interested in, too. They also have the data to back an answer to that question. If they feel free ebooks are cutting into their sales, they will get rid of them in a heart beat.

Several bloggers that promote free ebooks have mentioned that Amazon has asked them to cut back on the number of free books they promote. This is the first indication to us that Amazon does feel it may be having a direct impact on their sales.

All I can do is compare my own data from my books. Giving the first away free, increases sales on book 2. Book 2 to book 3 is a 100 sell through. If Amazon can see a clear benefit, I think they will keep the option in certain cases. It's entirely at their discretion at this point.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Well, how could free books hurt Amazon? That is the answer Amazon is interested in, too. They also have the data to back an answer to that question. If they feel free ebooks are cutting into their sales, they will get rid of them in a heart beat."


Amazon has the data. We don't. They know. We don't. Anyone think Amazon is paying attention to stern warnings from independent authors? Why not? Maybe they know something the authors do not? Maybe they have plans and programs they haven't shared?


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Is it really "marketing techniques", or more a matter of trying to write a better book each time you sit down to write?


In the fluffy bunny universe, the cream rises to the top and only the best written books sell. In the real world, branding is often more important than quality. We all joke about the celebrity bios and cookie-cutter books on the bestsellers list, but there is a reason those books are there. They aren't the best written (or even competently written in some cases). But they had market muscle behind them. I have seen too many great books wallow in obscurity while horribly written books make it to the top of the bestseller's list.

Is a cup of Starbuck's coffee REALLY worth $5? No, but they built a strong brand that allows them to charge that fee. It isn't even good coffee. There is this little coffee shop in my local mall that makes amazing coffee, but they can't charge $5 for a cup because they don't have the market muscle to build a brand like that. They have much better coffee than Starbucks, but Starbucks sells more for a higher price because of marketing.

Books are products like everything else, and if you don't market them to the right people they won't sell regardless of how well written they are.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In the fluffy bunny universe, the cream rises to the top and only the best written books sell. In the real world, branding is often more important than quality. We all joke about the celebrity bios and cookie-cutter books on the bestsellers list, but there is a reason those books are there. They aren't the best written (or even competently written in some cases). But they had market muscle behind them. I have seen too many great books wallow in obscurity while horribly written books make it to the top of the bestseller's list.
> 
> Is a cup of Starbuck's coffee REALLY worth $5? No, but they built a strong brand that allows them to charge that fee. It isn't even good coffee. There is this little coffee shop in my local mall that makes amazing coffee, but they can't charge $5 for a cup because they don't have the market muscle to build a brand like that. They have much better coffee than Starbucks, but Starbucks sells more for a higher price because of marketing.
> 
> Books are products like everything else, and if you don't market them to the right people they won't sell regardless of how well written they are.


What Julie said is true. BTW, my fluffy white bunny, "Snowflake", bites. That's reality.
I just had an in-person meeting with my agent. Anything I do is grassroots. And while nice, doesn't really matter to them.
With the movie in development, the large outside interests involved in the project, and the amount of money they can throw at the marketing of everything... well, it's a whole new level. 
Building your brand is extremely important so those at the top can have something to run with. You and your books are intellectual property. Define yourself, have a clear vision of what sets your books apart from the others in your genre.

Of course, there will always be breakout books, but they're not the norm.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Is a cup of Starbuck's coffee REALLY worth $5?"


It's worth $5 to millions of people who buy it everyday.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Well, how could free books hurt Amazon? That is the answer Amazon is interested in, too. They also have the data to back an answer to that question. If they feel free ebooks are cutting into their sales, they will get rid of them in a heart beat.
> 
> Several bloggers that promote free ebooks have mentioned that Amazon has asked them to cut back on the number of free books they promote. This is the first indication to us that Amazon does feel it may be having a direct impact on their sales.
> 
> All I can do is compare my own data from my books. Giving the first away free, increases sales on book 2. Book 2 to book 3 is a 100 sell through. If Amazon can see a clear benefit, I think they will keep the option in certain cases. It's entirely at their discretion at this point.


I am not sure if Amazon forcing (more than asking from what I gather) a reduction in the promotion of free e-books means that Amazon believes they're having an impact on sales is open to question. That might be the reason or there might be others. I tend toward not because I don't think Amazon would play around about it with bloggers. I believe the SECOND Amazon saw data that its bottom line was hurt by free--_they would end it_.

At the moment, I feel confident that Amazon sees benefit.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Books are products like everything else, and if you don't market them to the right people they won't sell regardless of how well written they are.


Agree completely - I see marketing is the final part of the writing process.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

PaulLev said:


> Agree completely - I see marketing is the final part of the writing process.


But, again, marketing to the majority of readers is impossible IMO. I don't know what the numbers are, but let's say 80% of the readers out there buy books the same way, the old fashioned way. They either see the book at Costco or Sam's when they're doing their grocery shopping (no way to market THERE), they may get off their butt and go to B&N and peruse the rack (no way to market THERE), they may go on Amazon.com and peruse the new releases or top 100 (no way to market THERE that I know of, since I don't see any ads pop up in the searches). That leaves a small number who visit places like this, places like review sites, places like Goodreads. Yeah, you can buy advertising there, but that's more of a decision about whether or not to spend the money. So the only real strategizing left that I see is stuff like blog hopping, facebook, twitter, and other things which never really seem to reach too many people until AFTER you've actually got a lot of readers. The best marketing I can think of after the cover and blurb thing is to write a good book and engage the reader you actually DO snare (which should be hard since we love nothing more than to talk about what we've written), and get THEN excited enough about your work and yourself to suggest your books to their friends. Word of mouth. I'm not even sure I'd call that marketing.

And I missing a whole aspect of marketing here? Something you guys know of that isn't included in my diatribe above?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> But, again, marketing to the majority of readers is impossible IMO. I don't know what the numbers are, but let's say 80% of the readers out there buy books the same way, the old fashioned way. They either see the book at Costco or Sam's when they're doing their grocery shopping (no way to market THERE), they may get off their butt and go to B&N and peruse the rack (no way to market THERE), they may go on Amazon.com and peruse the new releases or top 100 (no way to market THERE that I know of, since I don't see any ads pop up in the searches). That leaves a small number who visit places like this, places like review sites, places like Goodreads. Yeah, you can buy advertising there, but that's more of a decision about whether or not to spend the money. So the only real strategizing left that I see is stuff like blog hopping, facebook, twitter, and other things which never really seem to reach too many people until AFTER you've actually got a lot of readers. The best marketing I can think of after the cover and blurb thing is to write a good book and engage the reader you actually DO snare (which should be hard since we love nothing more than to talk about what we've written), and get THEN excited enough about your work and yourself to suggest your books to their friends. Word of mouth. I'm not even sure I'd call that marketing.
> 
> And I missing a whole aspect of marketing here? Something you guys know of that isn't included in my diatribe above?


Email marketing works to them as has been proven. It does take spending money but in a way I agree with you because before you can do that wherever or however you decide, you have to have to good book out there.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " I tend toward not because I don't think Amazon would play around about it with bloggers. I believe the SECOND Amazon saw data that its bottom line was hurt by free--they would end it."


I suspect the effect of freebie downloads on total sales varies with the number of downloads. Under this speculation, freebies are a positive pressure on cash sales up to an inflection point where additional freebies become a negative pressure. Think of it like half a sine wave with the X-axis measuring total freebies, and the Y-axis measuring total cash sales. Amazon's task would be keeping freebie numbers at a point where they exert the maximum positive pressure on cash sales. It's not a question of having or not having them. It becomes a balancing act. I'd further suspect that is exactly what they are doing right now.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> It's not a question of having or not having them. It becomes a balancing act. I'd further suspect that is exactly what they are doing right now.


Yes, by limiting how many freebies the "big guys" promote in their newsletters and FB pages.

RE: vrabinec 


> And I missing a whole aspect of marketing here? Something you guys know of that isn't included in my diatribe above?


Yes, you are. You have to know your audience first. You have to deliver a product that your audience wants. And then you have to reach your audience. This is a process, like any other process, that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. And the fact that you think people who visit Goodreads are a small number is mind-blowing.

WHO is your audience? Is it the casual reader who reads one book a year? Or is it the passionate readers who reads one book a week? Goodreads caters to the latter so if you're looking for passionate readers, guess where you're gonna find them?



> Word of mouth. I'm not even sure I'd call that marketing.


Then, no offense vrabinec, but you have no idea what marketing is.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Email marketing works to them as has been proven. It does take spending money but in a way I agree with you because before you can do that wherever or however you decide, you have to have to good book out there.


Hmm, e-mail marketting? Never heard of it. You've given me an idea. It's kind of...well, it's not ILLEGAL, so it just...Yeah, that might work. Interesting.


----------



## IB (Jan 31, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Several bloggers that promote free ebooks have mentioned that Amazon has asked them to cut back on the number of free books they promote. This is the first indication to us that Amazon does feel it may be having a direct impact on their sales.


I'd read that on another thread and then I read that this wasn't true on another forum (not on KB). Do you know which bloggers have been contacted? If this is true, then, at least, we have some real information... Though, of course, it still has to be interpreted!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

IB said:


> I'd read that on another thread and then I read that this wasn't true on another forum (not on KB). Do you know which bloggers have been contacted? If this is true, then, at least, we have some real information... Though, of course, it still has to be interpreted!


ENT admitted to it here on the forum. This is absolutely true.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> But, again, marketing to the majority of readers is impossible IMO.


The goal is NOT to market to the majority of readers. The goal is not quantity, but quality. You want to market to the people most likely to read your book. I publish speculative fiction. I have no interest in promoting to YA readers or chick lit readers or erotica readers. My market of readers is narrowed down too people who read horror, fantasy, and sci-fi. So I am going to look for sites and magazines that cater to these readers. I can narrow that down further by ignoring sites that cater more toward paranormal romance or urban fantasy or slasher horror, because I don't publish that sort of stuff. I can narrow that down even more by focusing on sites that cater to readers with a more literary bent instead of the popcorn reads, because my titles tend to be more niche and literary than the typical mainstream genre fare.

90% of marketing is accurately identifying your primary target demographic and learning where they hang out. Once you have done that, it becomes a simple matter of regularly marketing to them so that they remember you.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> ENT admitted to it here on the forum. This is absolutely true.


Yep, ENT confirmed it. It is in a thread somewhere.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The goal is NOT to market to the majority of readers. The goal is not quantity, but quality. You want to market to the people most likely to read your book. I publish speculative fiction. I have no interest in promoting to YA readers or chick lit readers or erotica readers. My market of readers is narrowed down too people who read horror, fantasy, and sci-fi. So I am going to look for sites and magazines that cater to these readers. I can narrow that down further by ignoring sites that cater more toward paranormal romance or urban fantasy or slasher horror, because I don't publish that sort of stuff. I can narrow that down even more by focusing on sites that cater to readers with a more literary bent instead of the popcorn reads, because my titles tend to be more niche and literary than the typical mainstream genre fare.
> 
> 90% of marketing is accurately identifying your primary target demographic and learning where they hang out. Once you have done that, it becomes a simple matter of regularly marketing to them so that they remember you.


Exactly.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Yes, by limiting how many freebies the "big guys" promote in their newsletters and FB pages. "


Sure. They can also limit the effect of freebies on a book's place in the popularity list. That discourages authors from making them free.


----------



## Cover Magic (Dec 9, 2012)

Email marketing works for selling fiction??

Hmm.  Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have never (and never would) buy books because some author emailed me or tweeted me, or anything like that.  I search on Amazon, click on the books that look interesting as I scroll fast down the list, and maybe buy them.  That's it.  

So email marketing?  Ugh.  Not for me.  The only exception would be if I signed up for an author's newsletter.  But I haven't found any author yet who is good enough to be worth having spammy newsletters sent to my inbox.  

But if it works for others, that's awesome.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> But, again, marketing to the majority of readers is impossible IMO. I don't know what the numbers are, but let's say 80% of the readers out there buy books the same way, the old fashioned way. They either see the book at Costco or Sam's when they're doing their grocery shopping (no way to market THERE), they may get off their butt and go to B&N and peruse the rack (no way to market THERE), they may go on Amazon.com and peruse the new releases or top 100 (no way to market THERE that I know of, since I don't see any ads pop up in the searches). That leaves a small number who visit places like this, places like review sites, places like Goodreads. Yeah, you can buy advertising there, but that's more of a decision about whether or not to spend the money. So the only real strategizing left that I see is stuff like blog hopping, facebook, twitter, and other things which never really seem to reach too many people until AFTER you've actually got a lot of readers. The best marketing I can think of after the cover and blurb thing is to write a good book and engage the reader you actually DO snare (which should be hard since we love nothing more than to talk about what we've written), and get THEN excited enough about your work and yourself to suggest your books to their friends. Word of mouth. I'm not even sure I'd call that marketing.
> 
> And I missing a whole aspect of marketing here? Something you guys know of that isn't included in my diatribe above?


Ebooks and paper books require different kinds of marketing, but overlap on the essentials: working to the maximum all social media and online activities (some of which you mention above - there are also book trailers on YouTube, etc), and a decision (as you say) about whether you want to pay (for advertising, direct emails, etc) or promote online at no cost except your time; working traditional media such as reviews in newspapers, interviews on radio and television, in-person appearances at conventions, bookstores, libraries; etc.

And, absolutely, as they used to say about radio and records, if it's not in the grooves, no amount of promotion will make the record a hit. If the book is not good, marketing won't help much. But if the book is good, and there's no marketing, it's not likely to do well, either.

Word of mouth, by the way, is considered the single most important factor in generating sales. A trad publisher once told me it accounts for 90% of sales. But since you have no direct control over it, the best you can do is market through social and traditional media.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Speaking as a reader, email marketing works extremely well. If I really like an author, I will sign up for their newsletter. There's only a handful of authors I've subscribed to and most handle it the same way with occasional emails, usually announcing a new release or pre-order date or some behind the scenes info on a WIP or cover reveal. This is fun stuff for readers. I like it anyway, and I'm easy.....as soon as they tell me their new release is available I usually buy within minutes of receiving the email.

Lots of readers do this, which helps authors jumpstart their releases and move their ranking up quickly. It's good for the author and the reader.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2013)

Cover Magic said:


> Email marketing works for selling fiction??


One of the vendors I sell through offers the opportunity to email an opt-in customer list with information regarding new releases. These are people who WANT to be told about new releases. The catch is, you can only email customers who had previously bought one of your products. When I send out an email through their system, it goes to over 7,000 customers. Within an hour or two, I'll have a half dozen sales. So yes, if the list is well targeted you can get immediate results.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> One of the vendors I sell through offers the opportunity to email an opt-in customer list with information regarding new releases. These are people who WANT to be told about new releases. The catch is, you can only email customers who had previously bought one of your products. When I send out an email through their system, it goes to over 7,000 customers. Within an hour or two, I'll have a half dozen sales. So yes, if the list is well targeted you can get immediate results.


Exactly. I have my own list but I also use a company that has its own list. It is a very effective form especially since people can follow the link in the email.

For digital sales, the ability to follow a link is essential.

ETA: I also run banner ads through Project Wonderful which works to a lesser degree but it's fairly cost effective. I prefer a mix of advertising.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> Then, no offense vrabinec, but you have no idea what marketing is.


Guilty as charged. I haven't had anything to market, so it hasn't been much of a priority. I'm starting to dip the toe, though, and the water's cold.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Cover Magic said:


> Email marketing works for selling fiction??
> 
> Hmm. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have never (and never would) buy books because some author emailed me or tweeted me, or anything like that. I search on Amazon, click on the books that look interesting as I scroll fast down the list, and maybe buy them. That's it.
> 
> ...


You are in the minority - because people join fiction e-mail lists because they want the next book by this particular author. So if you build your list properly, you have a list of fans, not e-mail addresses.


----------



## Cover Magic (Dec 9, 2012)

Oh, I have no doubt such groups of readers exist. I was just curious how much of the market they make up, that's all. I'm not criticizing anyone's choice of marketing tools. I guess I just fall into a different target market.  The "no you _cannot _ have my email address" market.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

I think a few things are really important about marketing your work:
-You have to offer something nobody else offers
-You need to get noticed
-Your audience should not want to be without what you offer
-Your audience has to convince themselves that other people would benefit from what you offer
-Your audience spreads the word.

I cannot quote the source, but I think there was a study that showed that readers are most convinced by recommendations by someone they trust. And that is not someone who has a stake in the venture. If an author tells people, you have to buy my book, readers will turn away. But if a reader tells another reader 'I know what you like, and you should read this book by this author', they will often buy your work unseen, on the power of the personal recommendation. And that is what authors covet, having fans who will recommend their work.


----------



## IB (Jan 31, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Exactly. I have my own list but I also use a company that has its own list. It is a very effective form especially since people can follow the link in the email.
> 
> For digital sales, the ability to follow a link is essential.
> 
> ETA: I also run banner ads through Project Wonderful which works to a lesser degree but it's fairly cost effective. I prefer a mix of advertising.


JR, Can you elaborate on a couple of things? I'm curious as to the company that has its own list? Also, I'd like to try Project Wonderful, but I was confused as to how to use it. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Oh, I have no doubt such groups of readers exist. I was just curious how much of the market they make up, that's all. "


Agree. It's important, but I don't think anyone knows.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2013)

IB said:


> I'm curious as to the company that has its own list? Also, I'd like to try Project Wonderful, but I was confused as to how to use it. Thanks in advance!


Project Wonderful lets you bid on ad space on various sites. You can set the parameters you are looking for using keywords or categories. For example, if you are looking for sites that talk about fantasy, you can set the system to look for fantasy. You can also set your search to ignore sites with certain keywords. For example, if you don't want to promote on fantasy sites that focus on erotic fantasy or paranormal romances, you can put the words erotica or romance into the box to ignore those sites. For the most part, I've found that site owners are really good about their keywords (because the better their keywords, the more relevant ads they get on their site)

Once you search your parameters, you end up with a list of sites. You can check out each one and learn how much traffic it gets, where the ads would be displayed, etc. You then bid for the ad spot. In most cases, you end up paying less than a $1 a day for some of these ads.

Most of the sites on Project Wonderful are small sites with moderate to low traffic, but the traffic they get is highly targeted. So while your ad is seen by fewer people, when it is seen there is a higher probability that it is seen by someone who would actually be interested in your book.


----------

