# Don Maass, self-publishing, and "culling the prize cattle from the herd"



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

And the gatekeepers pat themselves on the back that all is well, all is well. Nothing to see here.

Self-publishers are in freight class, eh?

http://writerunboxed.com/2014/02/05/the-new-class-system/

Not trying to start a war, just interested in other people's thoughts about this post.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

PatriceFitz said:


> And the gatekeepers pat themselves on the back that all is well, all is well. Nothing to see here.
> 
> Self-publishers are in freight class, eh?
> 
> ...


I found it entirely condescending. And for the record, I haven't flown coach since I went indie. I've never flown freight.


----------



## Lyoung (Oct 21, 2013)

So, a few years ago, I followed a book-review website avidly. I just loved their honesty and refreshing lack of inhibition. I stopped reading their website eventually - life got too busy. Fast forward to now and I find out they have a Podcast!

So I downloaded it...and began picking up on a subtle hint of trad-pub vs. self-pub class bias. They were good about trying not to trash indie authors, but every time they would positively review an indie author, they would sound surprised...as if they did not expect that quality. They also mentioned the "sludge" of self-pubbed books and expressed some form of outrage/distaste at books that sold over 99 cents from the "unknowns."

It was interesting to hear this bias come through on their Podcast. And it's interesting to hear this bias from a good number of my reading friends who do not have any connection to the e-book world other than as consumers.

Having said that, there is also a great acknowledgment of the growth and quality of ebooks. Not every ebook is a winner, but an ebook is not automatically a bad book. And people are coming to that realization. Also, I think we're smack-dab in the middle of an anti-corporation, pro-individual age. Corporate-endorsed consumerism is still huge, but there is a growing awareness and celebration of the individual. Handmade goods, DIY websites/blogs, ebook authors, etc. That makes me feel warm inside.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

my mind is boggled.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Related link: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/02/2014/the-new-class-system/

Also a doh: I thought it was Maass, but I edited my reply to fit what PG wrote, Maas.

Comments: This hurt my opinion of Maass. I held him good esteem before. Less so now. Especially since he thinks of writers as, and seems to imply publishers think of writers as, cattle, beasts, not partners.

Jodi


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I agree with almost all of this. And I would argue that most of the authors who frequent these boards write First Class and Coach Class quality work. I aspire to write Coach Class. Sounds like good stuff, and it earns money.

I think he's a bit optimistic about how much change is occurring, but nothing got my hackles up.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I read that as ALL indies were freight. I saw no mention of them in other classes.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I shouldn't pick up the bait. I know I shouldn't! But I did.

Here is my response, which I posted, because it DID make me laugh that his agency had turned me down:

"Well, I'll console myself over the fact that some consider me "freight class" by FLYING first-class, I guess.

"(By the way: Your agency was one of the ones that turned down my first book. I'm SO HAPPY that you-and everyone else-did! I made more my first month self-publishing than I had at the day job [which I've long since quit]; and my fifth month, I made 7.5 times more. So, thanks.)"


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I read that as ALL indies were freight. I saw no mention of them in other classes.


Oh. I missed that. I thought he was just describing the types of books that qualify for each class.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Oh. I missed that. I thought he was just describing the types of books that qualify for each class.


No, he really wasn't. Get in the back of the plane, Hugh, with the rest of us! Whoops, I mean the baggage compartment 

(Good thing I posted my comment here, because suddenly it's "awaiting moderation." I'm usually pretty polite, but yeah, this one got my hackles up.)


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Allowing for all the bias arising from his obviously vested interests, and how openly he admits that he's exaggerating for effect, I find it quite a stimulating, very well-written and clearly provocative (as intended!) post, which makes some inescapable and incontrovertible points and makes them as articulately and impressively as you'd expect from Mr. Maass.

Of course it's easy to make the mistake of dismissing his entire perspective as condescending, patronizing, or however else people may feel a little less uncomfortable interpreting (or ignoring!) the content. That's their loss. The reality is that it's his style, his exaggeration and his whimsical, provocative tone that come across as condescending (as they're intended to, of course), while the content actually includes some potentially useful insights.

In particular, I find it very difficult to contest his description of "first class writers", which is nicely drawn.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Can we like all come to a civil agreement to go at least one week without posting linkbait that serves only to stimulate the indie inferiority complex?


----------



## LilianaHart (Jun 20, 2011)

It takes a lot to piss me off (can I say that, Betsy?). But this blog post managed to do it. I'd love to respond, but I'm going to go roll around in all the money I'm making from freight class and finish the sub-standard book I'm working on for all the millions of readers who are waiting for it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Can we like all come to a civil agreement to go at least one week without posting linkbait that serves only to stimulate the indie inferiority complex?


Oh, dear, I fear you are right. I so did not need to read that, or to say that. Sigh.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm not feeling inferior. I'm just thinking he forgot a class. I'm going to call it the "Chartering a Learjet Indie."


----------



## belindaf (Jan 27, 2011)

Oh, delusions abound. He seems very hung up on the percentage of sales that are print. Hasn't he heard of POD? I'd get my panties all in a bunch about this, except for the fact that everyone has their own absolute in this biz. We will each reach our own audience, potential, "class" (using his terms), with or without gatekeepers. I know plenty of traditionally published authors that would say they're grossly underpaid, abused, etc. etc. I wouldn't expect someone on the other side of the argument to complement us indies. I'll file this guy under "Antiquated". Thanks, bud, for the condescension.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Thank you all for clicking on the link and giving him support.  You do realize every time you go to someone's blog, they get a bit of money from their advertisers.


----------



## MMJustus (Jun 28, 2010)

Hi, I'm new here, but I have to say the one thing I've had to develop since becoming an indie-published writer is a thick skin.

Some of the best books I've read recently are indie-published.  

And I don't ride in freight myself because my ears won't pop and I need the cabin pressurization.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh you mean indies don't just hop on box cars to get from place to place?


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

I have used his books and attended his workshops in the past, he's an excellent mentor to writers.

But that post was so full of ignorance, my jaw dropped.

Wow.

WOW.

I don't pretend to be an expert in traditional publishing BUT I do know the indie side and he got a lot of those details wrong.

M


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Thank you all for clicking on the link and giving him support. You do realize every time you go to someone's blog, they get a bit of money from their advertisers.


It wouldn't be so galling if it didn't work literally every time.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)




----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Oh you mean indies don't just hop on box cars to get from place to place?


Well, that's what *I* do, Cin.
Actually, I usually put myself into a big carton, punch a few air holes, and send myself UPS.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

In the last several weeks we have seen the CEO of Kensington, CEO of Trident, Wendig twice, and now Maas trumpeting the traditional. Its reasonable to think there is a growing recognition independents are a very powerful competitive force that is taking substantial market share.

I expect we will see a few established traditional authors join them very soon. They are reacting to power, and power is the basis of respect in the market.


----------



## Evie Love (Jan 5, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Well, that's what *I* do, Cin.
> Actually, I usually put myself into a big carton, punch a few air holes, and send myself UPS.


Personally, I prefer to travel by standing on top of trains while fighting ninjas, but that's just me.


----------



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

Hmm, I don't see where he says all indies are freight. In fact, the part about culling the prize cattle would directly contradict the idea that we're all worthless, nondescript cargo bound for who cares where.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I find that blog post heavy-handed, unoriginal in its thought patterns, purple in its emotions and with a time-worn message.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

A.A said:


> I find that blog post heavy-handed, unoriginal in its thought patterns, purple in its emotions and with a time-worn message.


LOL. You win!


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Not going to click on it.
I fly business-class anyway.


----------



## JaroldWilliams (Jan 9, 2014)

I had a link to that blog on my web site. I took it down.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Seriously, guys...

Maass is an AGENT.

His job relies on publishers being intact, and writers continuing to use them - AND writers continuing to use agents.

Every single publisher could be about to enter bankruptcy, and Maass would likely still say they were doing fine. It's against his interest to say anything else.

Why would you listen to someone writing about an industry whose POV *must* by the nature of his job be antithetical to ours? 

Best revenge, in cases like this, is living well.


----------



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

I'm one of those who believes that finding things to be offended about is the new American pastime, and I try not to participate. However, I confess when I read the cattle line (on PV - I didn't click through), I all but lit up. If anyone wants to concentrate on the "prize" part of that remark, go right ahead. I got news for you - cattle are cattle. They get used and used up and nobody gives a single darn except for the meat/milk they can produce before being sent off to the horrors of the slaughterhouse and becoming hamburger. I think that was a stunning slip that showed the honest attitude of the whole traditional industry toward writers, and if Mr. Maass had a decent editor, that line wouldn't have made it through.

Culling livestock doesn't have pleasant connotations either. For starters, it's something you do to animals that are totally at your mercy and have no control whatsoever over their lives.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

> First, e-books have not hurt the print publishers but rather have helped them. Especially in the recent recession, low-cost/high-margin e-books have been a bright spot.


And yet, the publishers are the ones who have gone to authors with stories of how broke they are becoming. Publishers are the ones who colluded to try and raise the price of those low-cost/high margin e-books. Publishers are the ones who have fought tooth and nail, kicking and screaming, into the digital arena while they suffer form ADS. And the agents (the writer's employee) have repeated this back to writers in order to convince them to sign deals with lower advances, more rights given to publishers, and horrid clauses that try to keep that writer as the publishers 'servant'.



> Second, the self-publishing movement has been a boon to the print industry. Far from being threatened, print publishers instead are now gratefully relieved of the money-losing burden of the mid-list. Like giant banks that have discovered that banking is boring and the real money is in gambling, big publishers are now free to focus on the high-risk/high-reward game of finding the next Twilight, Hunger Games, Game of Thrones or Fifty Shades of Grey.


Uhmmm ... that's what they've been doing for a long time now. Maybe publishers should stop gambling and learn how to run a business the proper way. And another point--why are publishers so eager to find something similar to what's already out there? Maybe they should be looking for the next "This is totally original story!"



> Better still, because some authors are now-voluntarily!-willing to bear the expense and undertake the effort of building an audience by themselves, print publishers have the luxury of culling the prize cattle from the herd.


::scratches head:: and thinks to himself _'Where have you been?'_.

This too has been the responsibility of the author for many years now. Publishers didn't want to be "burdened" by using advertising on those money-losing mid-list authors.



> High success at self-publishing has happened only for a few who have mastered the demanding business of online marketing. A larger, but still small, number of authors have achieved a modest replacement income from self-publishing.





> High success at self-publishing has happened only for a few who have mastered the demanding business of online marketing. A larger, but still small, number of authors have achieved a modest replacement income from self-publishing.


High success at traditional publishing has happened only for a few. (A larger, but still significant, number are money-losing mid-list authors which the ever so knowledgeable establishment--AND AGENTS selected while they were culling the herd).



> Fourth, as I said, a new class system has arisen. Here's how it breaks down:


Freight Class: Basically publishers. They are SLOW! They are stuck on a RAIL (only have one way of doing things), and they are gamblers who have a tendency to place bad bets (see all of those money-losing mid-list authors which they selected). Further more, they operate like a writer's career is freight. FRAGILE HANDLE WITH CARE! HAAHAHAHAH--right 

Coach Class: Basically agents. They'll tell you they know all about the business, and will COACH you up right--but look at their track record. Most writers are money-losing mid-list authors whom they helped select. They have very little power (see horrid contracts) and want to be publishers (because deep down they know the ship is sinking, even if they're not ready to admit it) because banking is ... I meant agenting is boring.

First Class: Hybrid Authors and Indies. Why? Because most writers are in the slush pile and not selling anything. Or they are a money-losing mid-list author who the publishing industry (who select them) is burdened by. Hybrids and Indies have a better view. And they have a CHOICES!

That means FREEDOM!

That contract is horrid--I won't sign it.

What exactly can an agent do for me? Will I be handed something other than a boiler plate contract that seeks to indenture me and my children for the life of the copy right? Oh! You publish writers that you've signed on as their agent--but can't I do that self-publishing stuff all by my self?


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

sstroble said:


> He ends with :
> "Do things look different inside publishing today? Yes and no. There's innovation all over the place but also for authors a picture more challenging than ever. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Inequality is vast. But change doesn't require billionaire money buying elections. You don't need a phony revolution. You can change your class by yourself, right at home, one keystroke at a time."
> 
> He should become a politician. Remember Cream's song Politician: "I support the left though I'm leaning, leaning to the right..."
> ...


Lol, exactly! I hate to say it, but his replies on the original thread feel very . . . slick. I dislike it when people are provocative in the post, but then manage to have hardly any opinion in their comments; they seem to say a lot without saying anything. Slick. I'll go back to liking his writing books, but I'm not so sure I like him any more.

Jodi


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Well, that's what *I* do, Cin.
> Actually, I usually put myself into a big carton, punch a few air holes, and send myself UPS.


My belly laugh of the day!!'!!


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

I really liked his Breakout Novel book, but that was a while ago. 

The class distinctions here seem ridiculous to me because honestly, most of us are not going to write books that rock the literary world, and that's OK. Those writers who do produce a "First Class" book usually have some commercial (and/or artistic) flops along the way. It makes more sense to classify books this way, than authors, and even then it's a little silly.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

Rosalind James said:


> Well, that's what *I* do, Cin.
> Actually, I usually put myself into a big carton, punch a few air holes, and send myself UPS.


it will be interesting to see if he approves your comment. i've heard negative comments aren't getting approved.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Anne Frasier (Theresa Weir) said:


> it will be interesting to see if he approves your comment. i've heard negative comments aren't getting approved.


He did. Points for that, I have to say. But I wish I'd been more polite. Darn it. Temper.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

Rosalind James said:


> He did. Points for that, I have to say. But I wish I'd been more polite. Darn it. Temper.


good to know!!


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

While I agree with the broad strokes, I'd say he really needs to split trad from self-published and apply his freight, coach, and first class analogy to both. Not all self-publishers are equal, just as there are more than industry leaders and everyone else in trad.

Small presses are the freight class of traditional publishing, just as the writers who simply don't care enough to edit their work, mock up a decent cover, and/or plain just don't give a [crap] about sales are the freight class of self-publishing. First class self-pubbers are culled into the next tier (according to trad at least) and given trad contracts. Midlist trad are coach, just as the vast majority of self- who get pro edits and covers but don't break out with sales are the coach of self-publishing.

It's a roughly workable analogy if there's a bit more granularity added in.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Well, I'm glad it's now out in the open that publishers want to be free to focus on best sellers, without concerning themselves with that filthy mid-list. Good to know that there's no point EVER submitting to ANYONE - agent or publisher - if your book isn't the next big thing. 

This should save many authors a lot of time.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Lady Vine said:


> Well, I'm glad it's now out in the open that publishers want to be free to focus on best sellers, without concerning themselves with that filthy mid-list. Good to know that there's no point EVER submitting to ANYONE - agent or publisher - if your book isn't the next big thing.
> 
> This should save many authors a lot of time.


Pretty much, yeah. But hopefully self-published authors will be open to making print-only deals to expand their audience. If nothing else, let the trad publisher take the hit for printing the things, the wider audience sees you're a "real author" with books in stores and everything, only to click through for an ebook sale that goes straight to your pocket. Perfect world and all that. Treating trad-publishing as simply another marketing tool rather than the goal.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> But hopefully self-published authors will be open to making print-only deals to expand their audience.


Self pubbed authors ARE open to making print-only deals. Publishers, not so much. They've made a few, but I've heard of far more than depended on the author giving up digital rights as well. Which I find interesting since some in NY keep screaming that print is 70% of the market. Then why so much dragging of feet to do print-only deals? Either print is the primary money-maker, or it isn't.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> Well, that's what *I* do, Cin.
> Actually, I usually put myself into a big carton, punch a few air holes, and send myself UPS.


Be careful not to punch the air holes near the exhaust, and by exhaust I mean... never mind.


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

I think it's useful for all of us to know what the general attitude is... and what others think about self-publishing is important to my chances of success.  I've had a number of reviews that include something along the lines of, "Wow, this is really good.  I never read a self-published book before.  This book was well-written and carefully edited, and much better than I expected."  

I did get that Mr. Maass was being jocular and provocative, but I nevertheless found his piece very foreign to my experience of indie publishers.  The writers I know work incredibly hard to produce quality work that is of precisely the same caliber as what they would write for a traditional publisher--and some of these are people writing on both "sides" of the business. 

Two critical differences in the approaches are ignored by Mr. Maass in his discussion of classes and prize cattle.  

The first is that most writers never get the opportunity to have their writing assessed by readers if they restrict themselves to the traditional route.  Only a tiny percentage makes it through the gauntlet to publication.  Who will ever determine whether their books are freight or first if they never get read by the actual consumer?  Further, it would be hard to argue that traditional publishers are looking for new and original stories if the reason many aspiring writers don't get in is because their stories are too different from what is currently selling.    

The second is that indie writers make significantly higher royalties per book on digital books than authors published by the traditional houses.  So if your writing is of the first class, you will be more richly rewarded by publishing yourself.

And if you're at the "freight" level, you can jump right in and experience the refreshing honesty of the marketplace.  

The earlier you publish, the sooner you get feedback.  The more you write, the better you get.  The more quickly you publish, the sooner you can get on to the next story.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

discussion of the content of the blog post is fine; agree or disagree, whatever.  Let's refrain from making personal comments about Mr. Maass.  There's been too many personal attacks in these blog discussions lately.  Posts that make personal comments about Mr. Maass have been and will be removed.  Let's discuss ideas.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I read that as ALL indies were freight. I saw no mention of them in other classes.


I'm fine being freight. He lost me in the description of First-Class, though. A lot of authors whose endeavors earn them the privilege of First-Class are comparable to McDonalds as First-Class cuisine. A lot of Coach Class writers have the qualities described in First-Class, but not the rewards.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

zoe tate said:


> ... and how openly he admits that he's exaggerating for effect


Vested interest aside, when he admitted that he exaggerated for effect, he lost me. If his argument rests on him stretching things and exaggerating to make his point? Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't _have_ a point.

But that's okay. Those who want first class accommodations are welcome to continue to try to get the limited available tickets. While they're on the waiting list, I'll be going on my trip and getting there just fine, not only enjoying the trip there (as I can find my own ways of entertaining myself in the most uncomfortable of positions and I'm sure I'll be in good company) and enjoy the scenery when I get to the final destination, as well as being able to make another trip very soon, since I'm not on that waiting list, still waiting for a vacancy to shake loose.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Most authors are still knocking at the gate, too, since after all seventy percent of trade book sales are of print editions."


What does the split of trade books into eBook and print tell us about how many authors are submitting to traditional publishing?

Suppose 100% of traditional books were print. What would that tell us about how many authors are submitting to traditional publishers?

Suppose 100% of traditional books were eBooks. What would that tell us about how many authors are submitting to traditional publishers?


----------



## Nicholas Andrews (Sep 8, 2011)

Whenever I read these kinds of posts now, I'm getting the distinct whiff of Baghdad Bob...

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I order my paperbacks directly from Createspace, then sell directly to customers. I can sell at least 1,500 a year, of just one book. How many authors like me are doing the same thing? Quite a few. As one person the quantity I'll sell in a year isn't much, but when a 100 or a 1,000 of us do it, the uncounted numbers really start to add up.

Steve Laube, a fairly well known agent just bought a small press (Marcher Lord Press.) I believe more agents will be going the publishing route. They have authors who have given them great manuscripts to sell, but the market to sell to the publishers is small. These agents know their writers have readers. Why not sell to those readers?

Maass is speaking out of ignorance because _if_ Indies are just as good as trades, and are building huge customer bases, and putting out more works per year to take advantage of grabbing those readers' dollars...he and the old system of "how things worked" are in big trouble. And as we know, they are in big trouble.

You can't put the self publishers who appeal to readers back in the box. He's trying to-but that box has been smashed and recycled.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I think we might be overlooking the most important aspect to this article, which is quite powerful...
> 
> Indies are in the discussion and our IP's are in play - just like every other author out there. A few years ago, we wouldn't have even rated an off-handed snipe, much less a seat at the table (freight or otherwise).


Agree. Its like watching any market. Sentiment changes. The market itself changes and we can see how it reflects in the actions of the players. What we see lately is a general recognition that independents have real and growing market power. People are trying to figure out how to deal with it.



> Can we like all come to a civil agreement to go at least one week without posting link bait that serves only to stimulate the indie inferiority complex?


No. It does far more than stimulate inferiority. It is a valuable source of information on the market.


----------



## moirakatson (Jan 11, 2014)

Just right up front, I'm (a) a fan of self-publishing and (b) inclined to be sympathetic to this dude. I'm not getting as much condescension out of this as others are, more a series of unpalatable truths. (Also, Maass has represented some of my favorite authors - as much as it might be ridiculous, I continue to view him as someone who has a love of books, for their own sake. I don't know the man, so I could be off by a mile, it's just my take. It's difficult for me to be objective about someone who helped bring _Cyteen_ into my life.)

While on the one hand, his meritocracy comment brings up the, "there is no viable way for an industry to be a meritocracy," I think Maass has made a very, very good point with writing quality. One of the best things about his "Writing the Breakout Novel" was that he brought it all back to the writing, and that was after observing publishing for years. In all his time in the industry (a long time even at that point), he had not seen books sell from NYTimes ads or book tours. He had observed books selling by hooking readers, creating fans who would buy copies to give to their friends. Not every one of those books was exquisitely crafted, but the books that broke out were the ones that spoke to people in some way.

As for "culling the prize cattle from the herd," I believe he's pointing out an important piece of publishing right now: there are a lot of people who are eager to profit off of authors' hard work. It may be a good time for the formerly-overlooked to rise up, but that doesn't mean that people with power and money aren't going to try to arrange matters so that they profit by this new flood of authors. It's a shrewd reminder. Building a career book by book, interacting with a fan base for years, creating a career from scratch? Amazon, iTunes, B&N, and a lot of others have been profiting off that for years. Just because trad publishers are a bit late to that particular game doesn't mean that any of the other retailers see authors as anything more than little money machines. I will forever be grateful to Amazon, especially, for allowing a marketplace in which my work could thrive, but I don't think they care at all about the quality of my writing, for its own sake.

In short, he and I have fundamentally different views on the long-term viability of brick-and-mortar as employed now. Still, I respect the man as having helped bring some of my favorite work to light, and I think he's passionate about books. Also, I think every one of these publishing blog posts should probably come with the disclaimer, "Publishing is a vast industry in constant flux, and the dizzying range of variables and luck combine to make an environment in which people of all stripes and publishing types can do the same things and have wildly dissimilar experiences. This is less definitive and more an anecdote."


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Can we like all come to a civil agreement to go at least one week without posting link bait that serves only to stimulate the indie inferiority complex?


+1

That said, I succumbed, too. I did find the discussion in the comments satisfying. And yes, if he had stuck to the level of writing and not brought the method of publication into it, then I would have agreed with his post. I am glad that commenters schooled him on this, especially Liana Mir (sp?).


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Maass is speaking out of ignorance because _if_ Indies are just as good as trades, and are building huge customer bases, and putting out more works per year to take advantage of grabbing those readers' dollars...he and the old system of "how things worked" are in big trouble. And as we know, they are in big trouble.
> 
> You can't put the self publishers who appeal to readers back in the box. He's trying to-but that box has been smashed and recycled.


I don't see that. He's praising self-pub as I read it.

First, he's creating an intentionally provocative metaphor, but it's still just a metaphor and nothing to get bent out of shape about. And besides, if you want to buy into this metaphor, everyone in the airline business knows the lion's share of the money is in hauling freight. 

But back to his real point, what he's saying is that this transition to e-reading is helping everyone, including big publishers. They can cut back on the hit-and-miss print midlist to focus on bestsellers which is the true strength of their print distribution network while allowing it to shrink as needed. That low volume market will be served fine by self-publishing and small press ebook originals. The big boys have a new way to find the next print bestsellers--self-publishers who have clawed their way to the top, rather than the scattershot methods they have used in the past. Their (unstated) point of concern is if bestsellers choose to leave the system, and that hasn't really been much of a worry to this point (which is why it's unstated).


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Pretty much, yeah. But hopefully self-published authors will be open to making print-only deals to expand their audience. If nothing else, let the trad publisher take the hit for printing the things, the wider audience sees you're a "real author" with books in stores and everything, only to click through for an ebook sale that goes straight to your pocket. Perfect world and all that. Treating trad-publishing as simply another marketing tool rather than the goal.


Yep. Exactly. This is the only way I would sign a contract.


----------



## Robert A Michael (Apr 30, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I agree with almost all of this. And I would argue that most of the authors who frequent these boards write First Class and Coach Class quality work. I aspire to write Coach Class. Sounds like good stuff, and it earns money.
> 
> I think he's a bit optimistic about how much change is occurring, but nothing got my hackles up.


I agree as well. I respect Maas for his insights into what constitutes a best seller. He has the chops to back that up. His abrasive-sounding comments aside, I would agree that classes exist. The comparisons were more than a bit rude and over-generalized, but not entirely inaccurate. I think we would all agree that when it comes to most things in life (movies, restaurants, dating experiences, travel destinations, etc.) a hierarchy of quality exists. Some of it is a matter of preference and taste. I may love sushi, and you may hate it. Some don't get _Napoleon Dynamite_. Some people hate chocolate.

The mistake he made was to lump all authors who choose to self-publish in the freight category. He does this due to the (quite popular) assumption that a load of indie works are inferior. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not saying this is true, I am merely stating that it is an assumption, a perception. It is a mistake, but it is also a preference based on bias. Maas is an agent. He sells his clients' work to publishing companies. Therefore his interest (and preference) lies with traditionally published work. Even in this, he compartmentalizes based on his preference. He dislikes "genre" fiction. He even elevates Elmore Leonard in a comment as someone who rose above genre writing. Laughable, because until late in his career, he was considered a genre writer. Again, it is perception. Nothing about his writing changed except the readers' perception.

This has been quite a bombastic past few months in the indie-v-trad debates. I don't think either side is really making any true headway. We are proselytizing. So, I am resolving now to to personally just drop it. I don't care any more. I don't need validation for my choice. I don't need to have righteous indignation that others are disparaging my publishing path. I gain nothing from converting other authors and aspiring writers to follow a path similar to my own.

I have books to write. Fans to develop. Covers to finish. Promotions to plan. Chapters to outline. Drafts to edit. This drama somehow seems shallow when I sit back and look at it. About the only education that I have received from the whole thing is the perception of price=quality by readers. Readers are all I care about. Not publishers. Or agents. When I chose to publish my own work, I consciously chose to eliminate those folks from my business model. They are my competition, but in a mild way. Only in a way that is related to the same competition I would have from another indie author.


----------



## KevinH (Jun 29, 2013)

I'm not even sure if what I do could be called flying freight. It's actually more like I race out onto the tarmac as the plane is zooming down the runway and try to get a grip on the landing gear before they go wheels up.

Seriously though, nothing I read got my dander up. Just another person expressing their opinion - right or wrong - of indie publishing (and I don't think I've come across any new or unfamiliar opinions about that subject lately).


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

If traditional publishers were doing as splendidly as his article implies, Random House wouldn't have scrambled to pay a HUGE sum to buy the rights to an indie writer's books--Fifty Shades of Grey. Further, the largest bonuses Random House has given out in years came from the money made from Fifty Shades...  Oh, how I love irony!

And haven't you noticed that the trads are using indie marketing methods now for their ebooks?  Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?


----------



## redacted (Dec 16, 2013)

You guys just loooooooooove getting worked up over this stuff, don't you?   I checked out this guy's Amazon page and he has a few gazillion books about how to write great books and bestsellers, but everything I've seen under his name are ... books about how to write great books and bestsellers. Has he actually written a bestseller himself? Or is he one of those "I can't, so I teach" type of guys? And why does anyone care?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Marian said:


> If traditional publishers were doing as splendidly as his article implies, Random House wouldn't have scrambled to pay a HUGE sum to buy the rights to an indie writer's books--Fifty Shades of Grey. Further, the largest bonuses Random House has given out in years came from the money made from Fifty Shades... Oh, how I love irony!
> 
> And haven't you noticed that the trads are using indie marketing methods now for their ebooks? Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?


I do wish the whole Fifty Shades myth would go to bed and die there. Fifty Shades of Grey was NEVER self-published except in the loosest sense when it was posted as fan fiction. It was picked up by a publisher and then sold to a larger publisher. Other than it being fan fiction to start (and she apparently changed a lot of things before selling it to the first publisher, there is no self-publishing involvement in it at all.

As for Maas. He's an agent, not a writer. Who cares what he thinks?


----------



## AutumnKQ (Jul 27, 2013)

I've read his craft books and enjoyed them... I took what was useful and left the rest. 

Guys, everything he teaches comes down to learning the craft of storytelling so you can write great books that sell well. 

Even if I dislike the way he framed this, it was not written for us. It was written for his followers and fans. He's selling "prestige". His ppl want to believe they can rise above the "cattle" and be special, be rich...be publishing stars. And he's positioned himself as the expert who can take them there. 

We really don't need to be concerned with the way he's pandering to two audiences- writers who need to feel special and better... And the publishers who pay his bills.

His opinion about indie pubbed books is rather irrelevant. And I also wish we'd quit posting linkbait.

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

I like his cow metaphor. Nice cattle baron touch. Deft continuation with the freight car mention. Freight cars of cattle rolling off to who-knows-where. Either to get milked or slaughtered, I suppose.

And perhaps his title, The New Class System, was an allusion to India's caste system and their reverence for cattle? Oh, wait, so he actually _does_ revere indies? Wow. He's a deeper and more subtle writer than I thought.

Okay, I'll rein in here before Betsy gets out her cattle prod.


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> I'm one of those who believes that finding things to be offended about is the new American pastime, and I try not to participate. However, I confess when I read the cattle line (on PV - I didn't click through), I all but lit up. If anyone wants to concentrate on the "prize" part of that remark, go right ahead. I got news for you - cattle are cattle. They get used and used up and nobody gives a single darn except for the meat/milk they can produce before being sent off to the horrors of the slaughterhouse and becoming hamburger. I think that was a stunning slip that showed the honest attitude of the whole traditional industry toward writers, and if Mr. Maass had a decent editor, that line wouldn't have made it through.
> 
> Culling livestock doesn't have pleasant connotations either. For starters, it's something you do to animals that are totally at your mercy and have no control whatsoever over their lives.


I haven't read through all the posts yet, but this one was right on.
I took an all day class from Don Maass a couple of years ago. I kind of regret it now.

Rosalind, I loved, loved your comment to him.

_Edited to remove personal comment about Mr. Maas. See my earlier post. --Betsy_


----------



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

Rosalind James said:


> No, he really wasn't. Get in the back of the plane, Hugh, with the rest of us! Whoops, I mean the baggage compartment
> 
> (Good thing I posted my comment here, because suddenly it's "awaiting moderation." I'm usually pretty polite, but yeah, this one got my hackles up.)


Don't do that! All of us in the back it will make it tip and the thing won't be able to take off!


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Agree. Its like watching any market. Sentiment changes. The market itself changes and we can see how it reflects in the actions of the players. What we see lately is a general recognition that independents have real and growing market power. People are trying to figure out how to deal with it.
> 
> No. It does far more than stimulate inferiority. It is a valuable source of information on the market.


Good answer Terrence or is it Terry?


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Christopher Bunn said:


> I like his cow metaphor. Nice cattle baron touch. Deft continuation with the freight car mention. Freight cars of cattle rolling off to who-knows-where. Either to get milked or slaughtered, I suppose.
> 
> And perhaps his title, The New Class System, was an allusion to India's caste system and their reverence for cattle? Oh, wait, so he actually _does_ revere indies? Wow. He's a deeper and more subtle writer than I thought.
> 
> Okay, I'll rein in here before Betsy gets out her cattle prod.


I've been feeling rather sad about cattle all day. They are getting sent to slaughter early in Ca because of the drought which they have partially caused though through no fault of their own, but by releasing methane because they are trapped.

I know he wasn't really referring to the cattle's predicament, but it really got to me. I missed the Class and Caste thing but you might be right about that.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jackcrows said:


> You guys just loooooooooove getting worked up over this stuff, don't you?  I checked out this guy's Amazon page and he has a few gazillion books about how to write great books and bestsellers, but everything I've seen under his name are ... books about how to write great books and bestsellers. Has he actually written a bestseller himself? Or is he one of those "I can't, so I teach" type of guys? And why does anyone care?


He is an agent and a very, very successful one. I don't really care what he thinks although I found his 'cattle' comment a bit offensive. Treating people like cattle to be sent to the slaughter is not the kind of image I find productive. But he can think whatever he wants and it certainly won't change what I do.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

From the article (emphasis mine):



> *I've exaggerated the above for effect*, obviously, but _in a lot of ways that's how the industry looks to me now_.


So, tell my why I should care what this guy thinks? I haven't read any of the responses here, will get to that in a minute, but honestly, if you can't compare/analyze something without exaggeration, what use is your opinion to me?

Most everything he said has always been true (without the exaggeration  ) about writing/publishing, the only thing that's really changed -- and which seems to scare traditional publishing to death -- is that readers now have more control over what they read.

Bah, knew I shouldn't have read it.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I agree with almost all of this.





Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I agree with the broad strokes





Terrence OBrien said:


> It is a valuable source of information on the market.





moirakatson said:


> I'm not getting as much condescension out of this as others are, more a series of unpalatable truths.





moirakatson said:


> I think Maass has made a very, very good point with writing quality.





Robert A Michael said:


> The comparisons were more than a bit rude and over-generalized, but not entirely inaccurate. I think we would all agree that when it comes to most things in life (movies, restaurants, dating experiences, travel destinations, etc.) a hierarchy of quality exists.





Dean Crawford said:


> he's right: if you want to be in First Class, your first job is to produce First Class material.


I agree with all the above. (I wasn't quite expecting to find myself in agreement with so many people, here, I must admit.)



Sheila_Guthrie said:


> So, tell my why I should care what this guy thinks?


You shouldn't, Sheila.



Sheila_Guthrie said:


> honestly, if you can't compare/analyze something without exaggeration, what use is your opinion to me?


His opinion is no use at all to you. That's why you shouldn't care what he thinks. Caring about what he thinks, and what we can learn from someone with all his decades of experience, is for those of us who *don't* mind that he exaggerates (and openly admits it) in explaining his perspective, for the sake of making it more interesting, stimulating and provocative. It's an attention-grabber, just like some aspects of the kind of writing he describes as "first class". I benefitted from reading it.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

Forget the train. I'm taking a spaceship....


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

zoe tate said:


> His opinion is no use at all to you. That's why you shouldn't care what he thinks. Caring about what he thinks, and what we can learn from someone with all his decades of experience, is for those of us who *don't* mind that he exaggerates (and openly admits it) in explaining his perspective, for the sake of making it more interesting, stimulating and provocative. It's an attention-grabber, just like some aspects of the kind of writing he describes as "first class". I benefitted from reading it.


I think that publishing, not just self-publishing, but traditional publishing too, is a quickly changing landscape, especially since we are still in transition. Mr. Maass sounds to me like somebody who is stuck in old ways and even though, as you said, he has decades of experience, he doesn't seem to be in touch with the changes that are happening. In most cases where technology is concerned, if you don't keep up, you are left behind, and publishing might not be that different. 
Even though I find reading views of prominent people from trade publishing interesting, especially when those reveal how the industry treats and views their content providers, I don't see what one could learn from Mr. Maass. When you say that we can learn much from him, what exactly did you mean by that?


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

jackcrows said:


> You guys just loooooooooove getting worked up over this stuff, don't you?  I checked out this guy's Amazon page and he has a few gazillion books about how to write great books and bestsellers, but everything I've seen under his name are ... books about how to write great books and bestsellers. Has he actually written a bestseller himself? Or is he one of those "I can't, so I teach" type of guys? And why does anyone care?


Actually, he's one of those "most successful agent who deals almost exclusively with fiction" kind of guys... 

The Maass Agency has a long-standing, and well-deserved IMHO, reputation as a real heavy hitter in commercial fiction. His books are all about how to write the types of novels that sell -- to publishers, and to readers. They're based on his observations from working with a whole lot of successful authors and their books. He has a lot of really good, usable advice about the craft of writing.

He's really all about the craft, as evidenced by this post. It's unfortunate that he worded the class divisions as belonging to self-publishers, midlisters, and bestsellers with hardcover releases instead of writers in general. But ignoring that category call-out (which may have been intentional as part of the exaggeration he used in writing the post), there's some good advice here.

Basically, he's saying "write harder." What he's not directly saying (but is implying in the introductory part of the post) -- which is the valid and useful point indies can take away from this piece -- is that any author who writes First Class level material can enjoy success, whether they choose the indie, hybrid, or traditional route.

I may not have had enough coffee yet to be this serious. YMMV and all of that.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Freight class? Before indie publishing, I took the bus.

One's definition of success really does depend on perspective, doesn't it?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Moo.

I'm not gonna blast Maas for questionable the characterizations. He's one of the agents I was considering when I was thinking of going trad, and it was because he was blunt. Though, I confess I'm biased. I sent him a query and sample pages and his people asked for a full which made me feel good. (Didn't have a full to send at the time, or I might've gone trad, because that was before I found this place.) I kinda agree with what he's saying, but I agree with whoever it was that said we don't have the freight class here.

p.s. I should add that it's a CRAPY thing to do, to waste an agents time like that, and I feel guilty for doing it to this day. Problem is, the agents are some of the very people at the forefront, cultivating the insecurity in me with their incessant "it's a one in a billion shot that you'll succeed" mantra. For me, it takes so much effort to generate a single page I think is acceptable for viewing, that I felt the need for that glimmer of hope that maybe my writing could be entertaining before I spent the next six years working on a book. Yeah, it makes me feel weak minded or something, that I don't naturally have the confidence, but whatever insecurity I had was fully fertilized by the people who tell you over and over that you're probably not good enough. But, ultimately, those people are right, and we all have to make the decision to accept the risk to our psyche and invest the time.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

A replacement income is nothing to sneeze at. Why would anyone assume there is something undesirable about being able to write full-time for the same money you would make at a low level office job or in the service industry? Even replacing that level of income is a huge boon for a writer at that income level in their job. If you can replace a service level job, you can replace a teaching job, or a middle management job, etc. It's a matter of increments and time. I'm not sure why we keep linking these derogatory blog posts. Do we have collective Stockholm Syndrome or something?

This post, for example, seems to be blatant self-promotion by its author. He's suggesting that all indie authors might as well be collecting garbage at a landfill in Guatemala. Why do we read this drivel? We aren't his target audience. His target audience are people who are too afraid to go it alone and feel the need for the traditional publishing industry's validation. They'd rather spend years waiting for a pat on the head than to take a chance. Is that us? Do we need their validation? Maybe if we're good enough, they'll stop hitting us? 

To paraphrase someone before, I used to take the bus to my day job, now I don't need a day job. That's success. That isn't lower class. That's living the dream. What the people who write these blogs don't want you to know is that if you are lucky enough to get published by the traditional industry, you will still be working your day job and will probably continue taking the bus. In most cases, traditional publishing doesn't even give you that "modest replacement income." All it gives is an ego boost and money to line the traditional publishing industry's pockets.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Trinity Night said:


> Maybe if we're good enough, they'll stop hitting us?


Great line.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

zoe tate said:


> Caring about what he thinks, and what we can learn from someone with all his decades of experience, is for those of us who *don't* mind that he exaggerates (and openly admits it) in explaining his perspective, for the sake of making it more interesting, stimulating and provocative. It's an attention-grabber, just like some aspects of the kind of writing he describes as "first class". I benefitted from reading it.


At no time have I _ever_ said I was not interested in learning from someone's experience. I have spent more than 40 years studying and learning everything I could about writing and publishing.

I'm glad you benefited from reading his over-the-top and arrogant post. Nothing he said was new, or helpful, but was rather the same old, tired opinions from traditional publishing that anyone who doesn't bellow their way through the shutes can't make it as a writer.

Well, guess what? That day has passed. He may not want to admit it, but it's a brave, bright new world out there. His way isn't the only way, and often isn't the best.

Moo.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

elalond said:


> I don't see what one could learn from Mr. Maass.


Fair enough. We must agree to differ, then. 

Personally, I've learned a great deal from him, over the years, and I owe some of my income to that.

He's someone to whom I've learned to listen. We all pay attention to what our experience has shown to have been helpful to us in the past, you know?

I dare say that (as would doubtless be true of almost any two random forum members) you've also benefitted from some people from whom I haven't.

I'm just not sure that I'd so quickly dismiss someone with so much experience, saying "I don't see what one could learn from him", especially when one sees Hugh Howie and several other successful authors here expressing their broad agreement with him, but that's a different matter, I admit.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

zoe tate said:


> Fair enough. We must agree to differ, then.
> 
> Personally, I've learned a great deal from him, over the years, and I owe some of my income to that.
> 
> ...


This wasn't me disagreeing with you, I presented you my point of view and I was hoping that you would widen it with information about Maass that I'm not aware of. I was curious, I still am, what that knowledge you gain from him was; about craft, about business side of publishing,... It's great that you learned a great deal from the man and yeah, since you are not willing to elaborate what a great deal was, let's leave it at that.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

elalond said:


> This wasn't me disagreeing with you, I presented you my point of view and I was hoping that you would widen it with information about Maass that I'm not aware of. I was curious, I still am, what that knowledge you gain from him was; about craft, about business side of publishing,... It's great that you learned a great deal from the man and yeah, since you are not willing to elaborate what a great deal was, let's leave it at that.


The guy and his agents are all over the internet, imparting what they think makes a story sell. They do interviews, they donate MS evaluations for charitable causes, they try to help authors become better. I know the way he put it rubs some people the wrong way, but I'd rather have an agent out there who has experience selling books talking about what makes them sell, than one who keeps it a trade secret. Let's look at the paragraph in which he describes what constitutes "freight class" literature:

_Freight Class novels generally take few risks. Too often they rely on character stereotypes, heavy-handed plots, purple and obvious emotions, and messages and themes that are time-worn. Justice must be done. Love conquers all. Good vs. evil. Freight Class fiction can be easy to skim. Literary flourishes are few, cliffhangers are many. Genre conventions are rigidly honored. Characters are not motivated from within, for the most part, but instead are pushed into action by external plot circumstances._

This is advice to authors. You may not like the categorizations, but the guy runs an agency that makes money only by knowing which books to select from, the ones that will sell. No skin off anyone's back to at least weigh what he's saying.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> The guy and his agents are all over the internet, imparting what they think makes a story sell. They do interviews, they donate MS evaluations for charitable causes, they try to help authors become better. I know the way he put it rubs some people the wrong way, but I'd rather have an agent out there who has experience selling books talking about what makes them sell, than one who keeps it a trade secret. Let's look at the paragraph in which he describes what constitutes "freight class" literature:
> 
> _Freight Class novels generally take few risks. Too often they rely on character stereotypes, heavy-handed plots, purple and obvious emotions, and messages and themes that are time-worn. Justice must be done. Love conquers all. Good vs. evil. Freight Class fiction can be easy to skim. Literary flourishes are few, cliffhangers are many. Genre conventions are rigidly honored. Characters are not motivated from within, for the most part, but instead are pushed into action by external plot circumstances._
> 
> This is advice to authors. You may not like the categorizations, but the guy runs an agency that makes money only by knowing which books to select from, the ones that will sell. No skin off anyone's back to at least weigh what he's saying.


That's great for them, that they are doing charitable causes and stuff like that, but agenting is a business. As you said, they try to help authors, but you forgot to mention that for that they are offering them their paid service. The thing that you quoted, there's nothing new for me (or IMO for writers who had at least read one book on writing) to learn from it. Almost every writing book/article on writing that I have read had the same advice in one form or other.

So, from your comment, I will assume that the waste knowledge that he offers is craft related. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## redacted (Dec 16, 2013)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> Actually, he's one of those "most successful agent who deals almost exclusively with fiction" kind of guys...
> 
> The Maass Agency has a long-standing, and well-deserved IMHO, reputation as a real heavy hitter in commercial fiction. His books are all about how to write the types of novels that sell -- to publishers, and to readers. They're based on his observations from working with a whole lot of successful authors and their books. He has a lot of really good, usable advice about the craft of writing.
> 
> ...


Eh, I haven't read the article. TLR and all that. Plus, when I decided to self-publish, I stopped caring about what Establishment guys think. I just assumed most of my self-publishers stopped, too, but I guess a lot of people still really, really care what the Establishment thinks of them, otherwise we wouldn't see 10 of these type of threads every day on Kboards. I don't know why people get so worked up over it, nothing he says or does will effect them in the world of self-publishing. Isn't that the whole point of self-publishing?


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

jackcrows said:


> Eh, I haven't read the article. TLR and all that. Plus, when I decided to self-publish, I stopped caring about what Establishment guys think. I just assumed most of my self-publishers stopped, too, but I guess a lot of people still really, really care what the Establishment thinks of them, otherwise we wouldn't see 10 of these type of threads every day on Kboards. I don't know why people get so worked up over it, nothing he says or does will effect them in the world of self-publishing. Isn't that the whole point of self-publishing?


LOL It is long. And true that this seems to be a big deal for what shouldn't be.

I was just attempting to point out that Don has a lot of experience with what sells -- regardless of what side of the publishing fence one might be on. His *craft* advice is good, and worth listening to. Not so much his idea of "writing class" = publishing method. That's down to individual authors, no matter how they get their stories to readers.

But I think you're speaking in a more general sense about self-publishers listening to the Establishment, or not. Which is a good point.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

elalond said:


> So, from your comment, I will assume that the waste knowledge that he offers is craft related. Thank you for sharing.


Yeah, I don't think any sales advice he gives would be pertinent to indies since he's selling to publishers, and we're selling directly to readers. He's gotta sell the publisher on whether or not the writer has a future, a platform, etc...An indie is selling themselves. His strategy would be confined to the work he's representing, something that changes with every book. To sell the book, you have to sell the great things the book provides. Whatever he's pushing would have different great things that whatever you and I might be pushing. I would sooner listen to the indies who've made it big when it comes to indie self-promotion. But I'll listen to anyone as far as what kind of content sells.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Yeah, I don't think any sales advice he gives would be pertinent to indies since he's selling to publishers, and we're selling directly to readers. He's gotta sell the publisher on whether or not the writer has a future, a platform, etc...An indie is selling themselves. His strategy would be confined to the work he's representing, something that changes with every book. To sell the book, you have to sell the great things the book provides. Whatever he's pushing would have different great things that whatever you and I might be pushing. I would sooner listen to the indies who've made it big when it comes to indie self-promotion. But I'll listen to anyone as far as what kind of content sells.


I think, though (to go off on a tangent for a moment) that agents and publishers aren't that good at knowing what will sell. Yes, they are probably good at figuring out which 5%, or whatever it is, of submissions meet basic readability standards, but beyond that? I don't think they're good at spotting anything other than "more of the same." BDSM romance, anyone?

(I used to do this for a living. Not in trade publishing, but in educational publishing. I KNOW that publishers tend to look for "what's been selling recently," because I used to be one of those people.)

Nobody thought a romance series set in New Zealand would appeal. Nobody. Except me. As a marketer, I KNEW it would. Every woman who had ever learned that I was living in NZ responded the same way, "Oh, my gosh, I've ALWAYS wanted to go to New Zealand!" And this was at the time when the "Lord of the Rings movies" were just out. It was so freaking obvious to me that it would sell. But, nope. Now, if it had been Scotland . . .

I really think that the reason I sold out of the gate was that my first series was titled "Escape to New Zealand." That's it. I told all those folks I had a Marketing MBA, that I had a marketing plan, etc., etc. NONE of them had any interest.

Look at how many times "Harry Potter," "The Hunt for Red October," "The Princess Diaries" were turned down. (100 times, for the last one. A story about a girl who turns out to be, unbeknownst to her, a princess? Who'd want to read that? How about EVERYBODY. Heck, *I* read it--and loved it!) That Tom Clancy--pffft--what a hack. Who wants to read a techno-thriller? Clearly, nobody.

So, while I did read his descriptions of "freight-class" vs. "coach-class" writing with some interest (since I'll clearly, as a feel-good genre writer, never make "first-class"), I don't buy that he has any better idea of "what sells" than I do. I'd stack my marketing nose up against anybody's.

P.S. His agency didn't even reject me. They actually didn't even respond. I went and looked it up last night. Oh, well, sales are the best revenge!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Drew Gideon said:


> What's with the sudden stating outright that only TradPubs are First Class, inferring that indies are of a lower class?
> (I do realize this has always been the underlying message. The difference is, this week it's being stated outright. Are they getting *that* desperate?)
> 
> Wendig earlier this week with his reference to First Class.
> ...


You noticed this sounds like the talking points, too? I can't say it's coordinated, but it sure does present a case of very similar stuff coming from some people holding significant positions in traditional publishing.

I'd say the market has shown that independents have competed, and taken a large market share. Who did they take the market share from? Traditionalists.

I recently noticed two interesting things. First, the folks on the traditional side have acknowledged the independent market share, and no longer say it is a passing fad that will be rejected by consumers. Second, independents are acknowledging their own books and authors are competing in the market place, both against traditionals and other independents.

For the past several years traditionalists have insisted consumers would reject the dreck and dump independents. At the same time, many independents have insisted they and their books do not compete.

Looks like both sides are now following the money.

Ain't this a great country?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> (since I'll clearly, as a feel-good genre writer, never make "first-class")


Your sales are cooking along nicely. You may be "coach class riche", but it's the "riche" that counts, right?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As I said earlier in the thread, posts that attack Mr. Maass will be removed.  I've removed a post and another that quoted and responded to the post.  Discuss the content of the linked blog post, if you will...but set the personal attacks aside.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## BBGriffith (Mar 13, 2012)

I thought it was a good post. I think the price point stuff is especially provoking, because we often have pricing debates here. I sell at 2.99 and 4.99. I'm quite sure I wouldn't sell at 14.99, or even at 10.99. For the most part indies don't sell past the five buck price threshold. Why is that? Why can't we command that price point?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

BBGriffith said:


> I thought it was a good post. I think the price point stuff is especially provoking, because we often have pricing debates here. I sell at 2.99 and 4.99. I'm quite sure I wouldn't sell at 14.99, or even at 10.99. For the most part indies don't sell past the five buck price threshold. Why is that? Why can't we command that price point?


According to Maas, the traditional stuff doesn't sell at $14.95 either.

_"Here we find decently-written literary fiction and nicely-crafted commercial fiction that achieves print publication but sells best at trade-paperback level ($14.99 or so), or discounted in e-book form. Coach Class novelists support each other yet find it difficult to gain a foothold with the public."_


----------



## BBGriffith (Mar 13, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> According to Maas, the traditional stuff doesn't sell at $14.95 either.
> 
> _"Here we find decently-written literary fiction and nicely-crafted commercial fiction that achieves print publication but sells best at trade-paperback level ($14.99 or so), or discounted in e-book form. Coach Class novelists support each other yet find it difficult to gain a foothold with the public."_


True, but I'm assuming he's talking about discounts in the ten buck range. Rarely, if ever to the $2.99 level. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, I don't feel that I have the legitimacy yet to ask ten bucks for one of my books. Which I think is his point. And that frustrates me. The common indie-rebuttal to this is "Well, it doesn't matter because I'll sell ten at .99c" but I think it sort of does matter. We point to the purity of market forces for legitimacy when they work in our favor, like moving a ton of copies at dirt cheap, but we kind of gloss over why the market won't sneeze at most of us if we're priced in line with the "higher classes"


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

BBGriffith said:


> I thought it was a good post. I think the price point stuff is especially provoking, because we often have pricing debates here. I sell at 2.99 and 4.99. I'm quite sure I wouldn't sell at 14.99, or even at 10.99. For the most part indies don't sell past the five buck price threshold. Why is that? Why can't we command that price point?





BBGriffith said:


> True, but I'm assuming he's talking about discounts in the ten buck range. Rarely, if ever to the $2.99 level. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, I don't feel that I have the legitimacy yet to ask ten bucks for one of my books. Which I think is his point. And that frustrates me. The common indie-rebuttal to this is "Well, it doesn't matter because I'll sell ten at .99c" but I think it sort of does matter. We point to the purity of market forces for legitimacy when they work in our favor, like moving a ton of copies at dirt cheap, but we kind of gloss over why the market won't sneeze at most of us if we're priced in line with the "higher classes"


This is interesting to think about though. At what point do you think an indie author can or should command, let's say, $9.99 for an ebook release? Whether that's the author's debut novel or their 15th.

Traditional debuts are usually $9.99 or around that much, no matter how known or unknown the author is. The only difference being (assuming the indie has laid out $$$ for good editing and cover) that the trad book has a publisher saying it's worth ten bucks, and the indie doesn't.


----------



## BBGriffith (Mar 13, 2012)

Laura Rae Amos said:


> This is interesting to think about though. At what point do you think an indie author can or should command, let's say, $9.99 for an ebook release? Whether that's the author's debut novel or their 15th.
> 
> Traditional debuts are usually $9.99 or around that much, no matter how known or unknown the author is. The only difference being (assuming the indie has laid out $$$ for good editing and cover) that the trad book has a publisher saying it's worth ten bucks, and the indie doesn't.


That's right. It isn't a matter of "exposure" because newly pubbed trad authors are priced at 10 bucks and these guys are often as unheard of as any of us starting out. And they sell or they don't, just like we do, it's just they fight that battle at the $10.00 and up price point while we fight that battle at the .99c price point for some reason.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Your sales are cooking along nicely. You may be "coach class riche", but it's the "riche" that counts, right?


Hey, they give me pretzels AND peanuts these days.

As far as pricing: traditional publishers do have marketing power behind their books. They are placing them in bookstores, sending out ARCs, etc. And, of course, think about what an author is making on that $9.99 ebook vs. what I make on a $3.99 ebook. I'm guessing I make at least twice as much per book as they do, despite my much lower price.

Note that Montlake, at least, prices their ebooks more in the $3.99-4.99 range. That's pretty much the sweet spot for ebooks in romance. I do think it varies a lot by genre.


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

Recently I've noticed a lot of indies in my genre (women's fic) upping their novels to at least $3.99-$4.99. And there's one, Joanne DeMaio, who I noticed upped ALL of her novels to $5.99, and they're all ranking 15K or less too, so they're selling. I don't think she posts here, but I'd love to know how she's doing it. (It's probably rude to write to random authors out of the blue and say, "Hi, you don't know me, but will you be my mentor?" lol!)


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

BBGriffith said:


> True, but I'm assuming he's talking about discounts in the ten buck range. Rarely, if ever to the $2.99 level. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, I don't feel that I have the legitimacy yet to ask ten bucks for one of my books. Which I think is his point.


This is _one_ of his points, for sure.



BBGriffith said:


> And that frustrates me. The common indie-rebuttal to this is "Well, it doesn't matter because I'll sell ten at .99c" but I think it sort of does matter.


Of course it matters.

Some self-published writers will console themselves by looking at what they're making on a $2.99 ebook (which might be around $2.10 or whatever) and telling themselves that if they were trade-published they'd make less than that anyway. That line of reasoning will apparently satisfy some of us. Others perhaps tend to think about it more as you and I do.



BBGriffith said:


> We point to the purity of market forces for legitimacy when they work in our favor, like moving a ton of copies at dirt cheap, but we kind of gloss over why the market won't sneeze at most of us if we're priced in line with the "higher classes".


Indeed.

(For what it's worth, if anything, some more literate/literary self-publishers seem to be finding that there may be _nearly_ as many sales at higher prices. I admit that - rightly or wrongly - I don't instinctively think of "$3.99" as a "higher price", myself, but some are even finding that there are actually _more_ sales at $3.99 than at $2.99).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Laura Rae Amos said:


> Recently I've noticed a lot of indies in my genre (women's fic) upping their novels to at least $3.99-$4.99. And there's one, Joanne DeMaio, who I noticed upped ALL of her novels to $5.99, and they're all ranking 15K or less too, so they're selling. I don't think she posts here, but I'd love to know how she's doing it. (It's probably rude to write to random authors out of the blue and say, "Hi, you don't know me, but will you be my mentor?" lol!)


I do think Women's Fiction can demand a higher price. And I think people miss the boat (not talking about you, Laura) when they think, "so-and-so prices $2 above me, and she's a bestseller, so that's obviously the right price." They can get that price BECAUSE they're well-known. In my genre, the very top indies charge $4.99, and that's great. I'm happy to get $3.99, but I know that $4.99 would be as high as I'd ever go in the current climate.

(I'm pretty literate, but not very literary.)


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Hmm, if indie authors all agreed to raise their prices $2, could we be sued for collusion?


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

LilianaHart said:


> It takes a lot to p*ss me off (can I say that, Betsy?). But this blog post managed to do it. I'd love to respond, but I'm going to go roll around in all the money I'm making from freight class and finish the sub-standard book I'm working on for all the millions of readers who are waiting for it.


saw your comment on joe's blog. you are awesome.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Drew Gideon said:


> That's a price point born out of production cost.
> TradPubs established their price points based on the amount of paper, ink, labor, shipping, and hand-greasing that a book required to be on the shelf.
> They are LOATHE to leave that plateau and insist that all books - even digital ones - should be priced the same.
> 
> ...


Exactly.

The profit margin for digital is wide open compared to the tiny profit margins of print. Most trad publishers are using their ebooks to make up for the margins on print. Print publishers make something like 35-40% of retail per unit sold through traditional distribution channels (ignoring deep discounters like Amazon, which make up a lot of print sales). For the same book at $9.99 in print vs digital, the publisher would maybe earn $3.49 in print (before all expenses) vs. $6.99 in digital (before all expenses). Digital costs them editing, cover design, marketing, and royalties. Print costs them the same as digital plus physically printing the thing, warehousing, shipping, taxes for stock on hand, royalties, on and on. For an author, that 10% of retail royalty rate from trad publishers give them $0.98 per sale, same thing self-published gives the author $6.99 per sale.

It boggles my mind that people even bother going after traditional publishing at this point.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

BBGriffith said:


> True, but I'm assuming he's talking about discounts in the ten buck range. Rarely, if ever to the $2.99 level. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, I don't feel that I have the legitimacy yet to ask ten bucks for one of my books. Which I think is his point. And that frustrates me. The common indie-rebuttal to this is "Well, it doesn't matter because I'll sell ten at .99c" but I think it sort of does matter. We point to the purity of market forces for legitimacy when they work in our favor, like moving a ton of copies at dirt cheap, but we kind of gloss over why he market won't sneeze at most of us if we're priced in line with the "higher classes


OK. He still says at those prices they do not gain a foothold with the public. That means the price is too high. So legitimacy has nothing to do with it. The public doesn't want it at those prices.

I agree traditional publishers don't sell at 2.99. Their objective is to maximize revenue over all their offerings, not any single book. So they price where they get the max from paper and eBook. It's a linear programming problem. If 70% of sales are indeed paper, then they are following a rational method. We also have to acknowledge publishers don't get the retail price. They get half(?), and the reytailerhas to get his cut.

Why are independents at 2.99? Because they are competing with each other. They push prices up as they differentiate themselves enough that consumers will pay more.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

BBGriffith said:


> I thought it was a good post. I think the price point stuff is especially provoking, because we often have pricing debates here. I sell at 2.99 and 4.99. I'm quite sure I wouldn't sell at 14.99, or even at 10.99. For the most part indies don't sell past the five buck price threshold. Why is that? Why can't we command that price point?





Laura Rae Amos said:


> Traditional debuts are usually $9.99 or around that much, no matter how known or unknown the author is. The only difference being (assuming the indie has laid out $$$ for good editing and cover) that the trad book has a publisher saying it's worth ten bucks, and the indie doesn't.


Good point. How does an traditional publisher manage to sell an ebook by an unknown author for $9.99? They may not do it often, but it does happen. I think an unknown indie would have a much harder time selling at that price point than an unknown trad published author. Why is that?

If it's a question of sending out ARCs, I think we'll be okay. Indies can send them out just as well. But I think there are two barriers to indie publishing that we can't easily surmount:

(1) no bookstore exposure
(2) hard to get reviewed in mainstream media outlets

These barriers will fall over time. But for now, I think they are a real handicap to self-publishing, particularly in areas like literary fiction and popular science where most readers aren't plugged in to the self-published market. Could _The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks_ have achieved the success it did as a self-published book? I very much doubt it. I think the machinery of traditional publishing was critical to its success.


----------



## sstroble (Dec 16, 2013)

Doesn't matter which car you sit in, you still get the same view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEe9DF_mUEI


----------



## 58907 (Apr 3, 2012)

LilianaHart said:


> ...but I'm going to go roll around in all the money I'm making from freight class and finish the sub-standard book I'm working on for all the millions of readers who are waiting for it.


*boom* Drops mic on stage.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Anne Frasier (Theresa Weir) said:


> saw your comment on joe's blog. you are awesome.


http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/02/fisking-donald-maas.html - for anyone who wants to take a look.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I've thought about this and have to say my opinion hasn't changed. Referring to writers as cattle waiting to be culled was seriously the most offensive and insulting analogy I have ever read coming from an agent--and I've seen some pretty insulting comments from agents.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

N. Gemini Sasson said:


> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/02/fisking-donald-maas.html - for anyone who wants to take a look.


That is a jaw-droppingly well done rebuttal.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I wonder how his authors' feel, knowing he thinks of them as his cattle? They can't be feeling too good right about now. 
I also love how he mentions literary standards, then goes on to mention 50 Shades, Twilight, etc. which are known as good stories, but are certainly not considered literary.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Drew Gideon said:


> Another note about talking points.
> Back on page 2 of this thread, Terrence highlighted a number of articles/blog posts recently that have been pounding this "Authors NEED gatekeepers to have legitimacy and make money; readers NEED gatekeepers because they're too stupid to choose what they want to read" drum.
> 
> I hunted down and read each one that he mentioned, and that led me to this:That was said by YS Chi, President of the International Publishers Association, in mid-December. So we can assume this meeting took place sometime just before that.
> ...


Interesting. Source link?

Maass and the other one I could see, but I wouldn't call Wendig a big-name author. Sorry, Chuck, I like your fiction and blog, but widely known you are not. There certainly could be a conspiracy afoot, but there might also be people who just happen to agree with some of those bullet points without being coached or nudged or bought.


----------



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

Think this may be the article Drew quoted from:

http://publishingperspectives.com/2013/12/the-majority-do-not-know-what-publishers-actually-do/

It certainly paints a different picture from the one Maas or whatever does.

It's all just hot air, in the end. Things change. People adapt.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Laura Rae Amos said:


> Recently I've noticed a lot of indies in my genre (women's fic) upping their novels to at least $3.99-$4.99. And there's one, Joanne DeMaio, who I noticed upped ALL of her novels to $5.99, and they're all ranking 15K or less too, so they're selling. I don't think she posts here, but I'd love to know how she's doing it. (It's probably rude to write to random authors out of the blue and say, "Hi, you don't know me, but will you be my mentor?" lol!)


Aside from my loss leaders (which are permafree), I have all my backlist books and new releases in that series priced at $4.99 (this is mystery). And my new straight indie series is priced at $5.99. It's also my bestselling series.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Drew Gideon said:


> Another note about talking points.
> Back on page 2 of this thread, Terrence highlighted a number of articles/blog posts recently that have been pounding this "Authors NEED gatekeepers to have legitimacy and make money; readers NEED gatekeepers because they're too stupid to choose what they want to read" drum.
> 
> I hunted down and read each one that he mentioned, and that led me to this:That was said by YS Chi, President of the International Publishers Association, in mid-December. So we can assume this meeting took place sometime just before that.
> ...


Well, if the Guardians of Culture are going to be burnishing their image, the next year should be great fun. I predict independents will take even more market share.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

I didn't post anything on this KB thread re: agents before today because I was simply tired that there are still voices in traditional publishing who don't take self-publishers seriously enough to treat them as equals. Where’s the respect from top agents? I’m still waiting for it.

And then one after another I'm seeing that this story has no end out there in blogosphere so I finally caved in. Well, thanks to Maass (whom I respect and have his books), we bloggers have new blog fodder. That's one good thing that comes out of this, eh?!


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> *FEAR*


I get the whole petition thing you're doing, and I'm still undecided on all that, but could you not do that trick here? This is a discussion forum for self-published writers. The people you want to show solidarity to are the ones posting the blogs that are causing such an uproar. Post your slogan there. I don't see how one word, bolded responses contribute one whit to this thread, or any other, on what is supposed to be a discussion forum.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I get the whole petition thing you're doing, and I'm still undecided on all that, but could you not do that trick here? This is a discussion forum for self-published writers. The people you want to show solidarity to are the ones posting the blogs that are causing such an uproar. Post your slogan there. I don't see how one word, bolded responses contribute one whit to this thread, or any other, on what is supposed to be a discussion forum.


That's the beauty of Writers' Cafe. My one word summed it up beautifully. Look at the rise it got out of you.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> That's the beauty of Writers' Cafe. My one word summed it up beautifully. Look at the rise it got out of you.


That's childish. Hint: I'm on your side. I'm a self-pubber too, noob though, and I agree with you in the broad strokes that trad publishers are afraid of self-publishers, especially now. It "got a rise" out of me because it's a hollow slogan that doesn't contribute to a discussion. Which this is supposed to be. It being a discussion forum and all.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> That's childish. Hint: I'm on your side. Self-pubber too, noob though, and agree with you in the broad strokes that trad publishers are afraid of self-publishers, especially now. It "got a raise" out of me because it's a hollow slogan that doesn't contribute to a discussion. Which this is supposed to be. It being a discussion forum and all.


You can feel that way. But if I have to sum up every post I've ever read from agents, publishers, or trade authors who denigrate self publishers it's: Fear.

Cutting to the chase and summing it up is what comments are for. My opinion of their ignorance regarding the money and reader bases self publishers are building up is: fear. I'm entitled to post my opinion and why you would think your *opinion* (that I shouldn't post my opinion) is more valid than my right to sum it up in one word... does make me roll my eyes.

Also, since when did longer posts lend more to a discussion? And who judges what word length is appropriate? Gatekeepers! Pffft.



Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I get the whole petition thing you're doing, and I'm still undecided on all that, but could you not do that trick here? This is a discussion forum for self-published writers. The people you want to show solidarity to are the ones posting the blogs that are causing such an uproar. Post your slogan there. I don't see how one word, bolded responses contribute one whit to this thread, or any other, on what is supposed to be a discussion forum.


That's not childish? Asking someone not to post?

One word can't sum up a whole post? 
Since when?

Not everyone who reads this thread, will read the other one. And I'm sure there are those who got _exactly_ what that one word means.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> You can feel that way. But if I have to sum up every post I've ever read from agents, publishers, or trade authors who denigrate self publishers it's: Fear.
> 
> Cutting to the chase and summing it up is what comments are for. My opinion of their ignorance regarding the money and reader bases self publishers are building up is: fear. I'm entitled to post my opinion and why you would think your *opinion* (that I shouldn't post my opinion) is more valid than my right to sum it up in one word... does make me roll my eyes.
> 
> ...


I'll give you one word: Crusade. Or three: Tilting at windmills.

The bit you're skipping over is that I agree with you. And the fact that posters in this thread won't necessarily go read your other thread is precisely why you should elucidate your thoughts rather than post quippy slogans. The other bit you're skipping over is that I didn't say don't post, I simply asked that you contribute more than hollow slogans to jump start your crusade. You seem to be itching for a fight that isn't there, at least not with me.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I'll give you one word: Crusade. Or three: Tilting at windmills.
> 
> The bit you're skipping over is that I agree with you. And the fact that posters in this thread won't necessarily go read your other thread is precisely why you should elucidate your thoughts rather than post quippy slogans. The other bit you're skipping over is that I didn't say don't post, I simply asked that you contribute more than hollow slogans to jump start your crusade. You seem to be itching for a fight that isn't there, at least not with me.


Sorry you missed the point. Sometimes a single word can be much more powerful than a paragraph.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Once again, I notice that the few books that get touted as "quality" however you want to define it, are identified AFTER the fact, in other words, AFTER the publishing choice has already been made. The post also seems to confuse "quality"--which is undefinable--and sales--which can be measured precisely. One moment the posts upholds an unidentified "Quality" as benchmark, the next it relates to sales. 

Supposing he is talking "quality" to mean "bestsellers" (seeing as he mentions books that are not literary quality at all), and if this is what he means, one look at the genre 100 bestselling books proves that he's being very selective with his facts (as in, ignoring the many self-published authors on those lists).

It's very easy to pick out a couple of mega-bestselling books and say they are "quality" AFTER their success has gone wild. So, y'know, there may well be a valid class system (uhm--do we actually need one? Methinks not), but this sure as hell ain't it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

please, no personal attacks.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I woke up at 5am because I have a cold and couldn't sleep. The idea was I would write now and nap later. But I've spent the last hour reading about this image war. There goes my productivity. The conspiracy is working.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Trinity Night said:


> ----


Beautiful orchids in your avatar/image, Trinity Night.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2014)

Lydia Young said:


> They also mentioned the "sludge" of self-pubbed books and expressed some form of outrage/distaste at books that sold over 99 cents from the "unknowns."


Methinks indies did THIS to themselves, however. Even in this forum, there are countless discussions from indies claiming that the "only" way to build an audience is to sell at 99 cents because they are "unknown." When indies condition themselves to believe they can't sell above 99 cents, it is only a matter of time before than mentality seeps into the marketplace as well.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

As for eBooks being of lesser importance than printed books, Maass is sadly mistaken as Publishers Weekly reported that Harper Collins's sales went up because of eBooks:

"Harper Earnings Jumped 33% in Quarter" (Publishers Weekly)
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/financial-reporting/article/60957-harper-earnings-jumped-33-in-quarter.html?



> http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/financial-reporting/article/60957-harper-earnings-jumped-33-in-quarter.html?
> "*As has been true since e-books became a meaningful part of publishers' businesses, parent company News Corp attributed the profit improvement in part to higher sales of more profitable e-books. In the quarter, e-book sales rose 39% and accounted for 17% of total sales, up from 14% in the second quarter of fiscal 2013*." - Publishers Weekly


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When indies condition themselves to believe they can't sell above 99 cents, it is only a matter of time before than mentality seeps into the marketplace as well.


I agree completely.

(For me, you could even substitute $2.99 where you said "99 cents" and I'd still agree.)


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Methinks indies did THIS to themselves, however. Even in this forum, there are countless discussions from indies claiming that the "only" way to build an audience is to sell at 99 cents because they are "unknown." When indies condition themselves to believe they can't sell above 99 cents, it is only a matter of time before than mentality seeps into the marketplace as well.


This is my frustration with permafree as well. It *can* work and has worked for many writers, but it often feels like the takeaway is that a writer *must* permafree.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

Patty Jansen said:


> Once again, I notice that the few books that get touted as "quality" however you want to define it, are identified AFTER the fact, in other words, AFTER the publishing choice has already been made. The post also seems to confuse "quality"--which is undefinable--and sales--which can be measured precisely. One moment the posts upholds an unidentified "Quality" as benchmark, the next it relates to sales.
> 
> Supposing he is talking "quality" to mean "bestsellers" (seeing as he mentions books that are not literary quality at all), and if this is what he means, one look at the genre 100 bestselling books proves that he's being very selective with his facts (as in, ignoring the many self-published authors on those lists).
> 
> It's very easy to pick out a couple of mega-bestselling books and say they are "quality" AFTER their success has gone wild. So, y'know, there may well be a valid class system (uhm--do we actually need one? Methinks not), but this sure as hell ain't it.


this is a very good point. i have to say that after my initial outrage over the post, I've come to wonder if it's just a poorly executed piece of writing that leans heavily on bad analogies, cliches, and unfortunate word choices. an editor might have helped.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Anne Frasier (Theresa Weir) said:


> this is a very good point. i have to say that after my initial outrage over the post, I've come to wonder if it's just a poorly executed piece of writing that leans heavily on bad analogies, cliches, and unfortunate word choices. an editor might have helped.


Bwa ha ha ha ha!!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

JimJohnson said:


> This is my frustration with permafree as well. It *can* work and has worked for many writers, but it often feels like the takeaway is that a writer *must* permafree.


I don't have permafree, but I suppose it's a matter of making yourself visible. For me, that's been 99 cents on first book and regular Select promos. Doing those things has given me that much-needed visibility (after which my books had to do the selling), and has meant that I don't have to spend much time (almost any time) chasing my tail on "marketing" devices of (in my estimation and/or experience) dubious value that would use up half my writing day.

I respect that others have other approaches, but mine is, basically, do what works and what makes my life easier and more enjoyable. I don't have any emotion attached to pricing other than, "Hope this makes my books sell!" and pleasure at the deposit amount. And, I'll repeat, much depends on genre.


----------



## zzzzzzz (Dec 6, 2011)

I really only care what my readers think about my work, and they think it's just great.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> Once again, I notice that the few books that get touted as "quality" however you want to define it, are identified AFTER the fact, in other words, AFTER the publishing choice has already been made. The post also seems to confuse "quality"--which is undefinable--and sales--which can be measured precisely. One moment the posts upholds an unidentified "Quality" as benchmark, the next it relates to sales.
> 
> Supposing he is talking "quality" to mean "bestsellers" (seeing as he mentions books that are not literary quality at all), and if this is what he means, one look at the genre 100 bestselling books proves that he's being very selective with his facts (as in, ignoring the many self-published authors on those lists).
> 
> It's very easy to pick out a couple of mega-bestselling books and say they are "quality" AFTER their success has gone wild. So, y'know, there may well be a valid class system (uhm--do we actually need one? Methinks not), but this sure as hell ain't it.


I agree. "Quality" and "Bestseller" aren't synonyms. One of the best books I read last year was "In The Kingdom of Men" by Kim Barnes. The story was compelling and the language was beautiful. If bestsellers were determined by merit, it should have been close to the top of the bestseller lists. But that didn't happen. Often the best books, the "Quality" books don't come close to making the bestseller lists, which are determined by the buying public.

One of my favorite books is "To Kill A Mockingbird." I wonder--actually, I doubt-- that a story about a Southern, small-town attorney raising two young children would stand a chance of getting traditionally published today. It doesn't have hot sex. It isn't in a popular genre. The author didn't have a "platform" when she submitted it. (Trad publishers are more interested in authors who have a "platform.") If this great American novel had been written today, there is a good chance that it would have been self-published on Amazon.

We all know there are indie books that are full of typos and grammatical errors. But there are also indie books that are polished and compellingly written. Mr. Maass shouldn't have put them all in the same freight car unless he perceives them as a threat to his business.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Marian said:


> The author didn't have a "platform" when she submitted it. (Trad publishers are more interested in authors who have a "platform.")


That's for _non-fiction_: agents representing first-time _fiction_ authors, in the expectation of selling their manuscript to a trade publisher, don't expect the author to have a "platform".



Marian said:


> We all know there are indie books that are full of typos and grammatical errors. But there are also indie books that are polished and compellingly written.


I agree.



Marian said:


> Mr. Maass shouldn't have put them all in the same freight car


He didn't. Not "all".


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

zoe tate said:


> That's for _non-fiction_: agents representing first-time _fiction_ authors, in the expectation of selling their manuscript to a trade publisher, don't expect the author to have a "platform".
> 
> Perhaps agents don't expect first-time fiction authors to have a "platform, " but trade publishers ask about them. I was represented by the late Emilie Jacobson (Senior Vice President of Curtis Brown Ltd.). I vividly recall Emmy talking about trade publishers asking about author "platforms" for works of fiction. It really irritated her.
> 
> He didn't. Not "all".


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

Dean Wesley Smith has an informative response regarding the post by Mr. Maass:

http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=11723


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

There are some agents who expect all of their authors, both fiction and non-fiction, to have a platform. Essentially, these are your first customers and if you can approach a publisher with a list of potential customers then it makes you look more appealing.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Methinks indies did THIS to themselves, however. Even in this forum, there are countless discussions from indies claiming that the "only" way to build an audience is to sell at 99 cents because they are "unknown." When indies condition themselves to believe they can't sell above 99 cents, it is only a matter of time before than mentality seeps into the marketplace as well.


Your posts are always brilliant, Julie. But methinks you're preaching to the choir. Sure there are a some duds around here, but this forum represents the cream of the crop. Even if an author came here clueless, before long they'd learn that the prevailing culture in the Writer's Cafe is about putting out a quality product or get shamed into learning it (just look at all those beautiful covers in everyone's signature's. You and I both know it didn't always look that way).

Still, I can't help but wonder how many masterpieces aren't being written because authors are worried about what some dude living in a castle in the sky thinks about the unwashed masses of writers who didn't learn the trade the same way he did? Not a wise way to spend one's time, but that's just me.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

zoe tate said:


> That's for _non-fiction_: agents representing first-time _fiction_ authors, in the expectation of selling their manuscript to a trade publisher, don't expect the author to have a "platform".


Some well-known fiction agents do. They've asked me about my platform at conferences before I was fairly established as a self publisher. I also used to be part of a paid YA writing community where it was a regular seminar topic from agents. Perhaps it has some to do with genre, or it shows your willingness to get dirty and work extra hard, but it is something some agents ask about.


----------



## DavidGil (May 16, 2013)

I'm not sure if it's already been posted (I'm assuming it has with Dean Wesley Smith's post being linked to), but you may want to check out Konrath and Eisler's response in case it hasn't been:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/fisking-donald-maas.html

Edit: Actually, just noticed that Dean's post mentions Konrath and Eisler responding to Don.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I feel like the topic has been exhausted when folks are at the stage of no longer saying what they think but linking to things that other people think.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

zoe tate said:


> Fair enough. We must agree to differ, then.
> 
> Personally, I've learned a great deal from him, over the years, and I owe some of my income to that.
> 
> ...


Learn about writing all you want from him, he's a master, but he knows jack about selling as an indie. That blog post was a mess and for those of us who've done the marketing and sold the books, his ignorance was like a flashing neon light. Infer or form opinions from his post at your own risk. He doesn't know indie. At all.

M


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Very valid point, mrv. With the Kensington and Maass posts on self-publshing, among others, I am shocked about the ignorance displayed in their arguments. If they bother to offer any support at all, it's pointing to poorly executed surveys by companies that want writers to buy their services. I hope we can see more indie conferences in future that are planned and keynoted by proven successful indies, rather than by traditional publishers, agents and service providers trying to milk us. 

I so wish I could have gone to the Indie Unconference that is wrapping up today in San Francisco.


----------

