# Is self-publishing a dead end?



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

In this article in The Phoenix, the gist of it is that self-publishing is a dead end for most authors.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/arts/140931-self-published-novelists-


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Four pages of text and barely a byte of information.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I am shocked-- _shocked!!!_-- by the information contained within this article:



> Although nobody would begrudge an author who profits from his work, however modestly, the truth is that the Amazon model often doesn't yield profits. The truth is that self-publishing costs money.


Wow. Never woulda guessed that. I thought I could just magically throw crap up on Amazon, without any sort of effort or expense on my part, and become E.L. James.

To be fair, some people obviously do think that. But they are rapidly disabused of that notion, generally speaking. And most of us who are really working at it have already figured out that we need to, you know, work at it.



> At least, under the old regime, a writer could hope to get paid for his troubles.


Sure, if that writer ever actually sold a book. Not always as easy as articles like this make it sound.



> The following year, thriller writer J.A. Konrath _claimed _to make his living solely from the sales of his self-published novels.


 (emphasis added)

Someone doesn't like Konrath very much.  Well, no surprise. He's not always the most likable cuss, frankly. I still wish I were making as much money as he is. 

The upshot of this article seems to be that, shockingly, everyone can't hope to throw up unedited junk and make gazillions of dollars (true) and that all self-pubbed authors expect this (false) and that we'd be more likely to make money in traditional publishing (sometimes true, sometimes false). No real surprises here, IMHO.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

The pain. If even one of the people writing these articles would do some basic research...


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Louis Shalako said:


> In this article in The Phoenix, the gist of it is that self-publishing is a dead end for most authors.


I think his larger point is that self-published authors are destroying the literary world, because each one that _does_ become successful helps only himself, where if they were published by a big house, some of that revenue would go to help newer, less-successful authors. So not only are most self-published authors going to fail, those who succeed are failing by not being part of a team. To which I say bollocks.

He's right that it's a dead-end for most people who self-publish, though, at least if they're doing it hoping for financial gain. Statistically, most people who try anything will fail at it. But his article completely skips the point that for every Amanda Hocking, there are tons of people making a smaller but decent income.

When will the critics of self-publishing stop pretending that only a million dollar income is a success? Until they do, they're making the same old dodgy argument that just doesn't hold up.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

...Feel like you sucker-punched me to waste five minutes on that, Louis. Thought the article might actually have something to say. (Not your fault!)

Nah, it is the same old nonissues, irrelevant points, and straw-man arguments. _Deja vu _all over again. Even the replies to these digs at self-publishing no longer contain surprises.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

My bank account implies otherwise.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

:Yawn:

Same old stuff. I love it. "Oh no- you'll actually have to work if you self-publish!!! Oh NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Stupid.

Anyone who starts a business and *doesn't plan* on taking on almost all the duties required to run said business, has more money that I did when I started mine. More power to you.


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

I couldn't get through the first page. I think maybe EUGENIA WILLIAMSON should be more worried about her own future prospects as a writer than those of self-published authors.

Self-publishing is hard--it's not get rich quick scheme. But it's more than possible to make a living at it, with hard work, perseverance, *and a bit of luck*.


----------



## Nicole Ciacchella (May 21, 2012)

I love this kind of stuff because it just makes me laugh.  My ultimate goal with self-publishing is to make a modest living wage--and by that I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of the mid 20's per year.  Would I complain if I became the next Amanda Hocking and sold a million copies of my books?  Um, are you kidding?  But I know that's a pipe dream and I treat it as such.  I think that, like pretty much everyone I've seen here, I went into this thinking of it as a business and knowing it was going to make a lot of demands on my time.  If this means I can reach a place where I can refer to "author" as my career, then I'll be successful.  Hell, even selling 60 copies of my book in a month leaves me giddy.  I'm not losing sight of the fact that people pay actual money to read something I wrote.  It blows my mind every time I look at my sales figures.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

What do these opponents of self-publishing gain? I mean really? Why is this person so invested in discouraging writers from the indie path? 
@Shelley, I also noticed that bit in the article about successful writers financially supporting the less successful. You know, really it's about profiting from the creations of writers. The traditional publishing system allows many people to profit from a single writer's creation.  Under the indie system we can keep more of the profits for ourselves. If we're smart we can take a single work and profit from it in so many different ways -- merchandising, film, TV etc. so I really have no idea where the writer of this article is getting his information.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> @Shelley, I also noticed that bit in the article about successful writers financially supporting the less successful.


I think most didn't read it as far as we did. 

But I don't see the evidence of the profits from the bestsellers nurturing new authors today, anyway. It seems that happens far less than it did 50 years ago, or 30, or 10.



> I really have no idea where the writer of this article is getting his information.


I know exactly where he's pulling it from, but I'm not supposed to say that word in this forum. It ends up with a pretty little *.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

These articles just never take into account how many people pursue traditional publishing and fail.  How much time and yes, money, is invested in that pursuit.  The workshops.  The conventions.  The postage (although email has lessened this expense tremendously). 

I've actually invested less money in my writing career since I've focused on self publishing rather than chasing a traditional deal.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> I know exactly where he's pulling it from, but I'm not supposed to say that word in this forum. It ends up with a pretty little *.


Is communism a bad word here? Huh. Never knew.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> @Shelley, I also noticed that bit in the article about successful writers financially supporting the less successful.
> 
> I think most didn't read it as far as we did.


I just don't really get what the author is saying, I think. As a genre author, I never had the impression that New York might take on one of my books and take a chance on it in order to "nurture" me. They hoped to make money off me. If my book didn't do well, I'd get dumped (which is exactly what happened). There was no nurturing involved. Self-pubbing, on the other hand, can be just as brutal-- if the book sucks or doesn't hit a chord with readers for whatever reason, it won't sell-- but I still have a chance to publish other books, and keep at it till I hit on a winning formula (or give up on my own).


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

I think some people are just afraid to admit that self-publishing actually *works.*


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> What do these opponents of self-publishing gain? I mean really? Why is this person so invested in discouraging writers from the indie path?


Well, I noticed the point where I was supposed to cry a river at the idea that editors might have to become independant contractors and pay for their own health benefits. Oh noes!


----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

Link bait.

Maybe they need to improve their traffic flow because ad revenue is failing or something.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

People who attack self published authors always ignore the blatant fact that most traditionally published authors are midlist authors, at best, sell no more (and often fewer) books than many self published authors, and even make less per book (though maybe they get an advance on sales) than self published authors. People have romanticized what traditional publishing actually is for most authors, and ignore that the authors whose names have become household words are the rare few.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

Adam Pepper said:


> These articles just never take into account how many people pursue traditional publishing and fail. How much time and yes, money, is invested in that pursuit. The workshops. The conventions. The postage (although email has lessened this expense tremendously).
> 
> I've actually invested less money in my writing career since I've focused on self publishing rather than chasing a traditional deal.


Same here. And I'm making more money as a writer now that I'm a self-published author. Of course, that was easy to accomplish, since I never made a book sale using the traditional approach.



> I think some people are just afraid to admit that self-publishing actually works.


Those who a part of the traditional system often feel threatened by the new world of self-publishing. A common response to such a threat is denial of its existence, something like kids pulling a blanket over their heads because they're afraid of the dark.

TW


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Self-publishing is not a dead end, it is a pleasant cul-de-sac, filled with money trees and geese that plop golden eggs.

You see, it is really, really easy to make money self-publishing, as long as you follow this one simple rule that has publishers and literary agents fuming. (click here.)


----------



## Melisse (Jun 3, 2012)

I can do basic math. I know how much money I put into my recent self published release, I know how much my cover cost, I know how much money I've made in six weeks.  It's more than I made all last year with two books and a couple short stories. So I don't care so much if its a dead end as long as that's where the money tree grows.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

RM Prioleau said:


> I think some people are just afraid to admit that self-publishing actually *works.*


It's not fear that it works. They know that it works.

These articles are a deliberate attempt to undermine self publishing and boost up trade publishing, *because* self publishing works, and works well, and trade publishers are having a great deal of difficulty competing with self publishers.


----------



## Hilary Thomson (Nov 20, 2011)

It's gotten to the point where I'll no longer even click on articles like that.  Stockholm Syndrome is painful to witness.


----------



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

I've just been browsing for publishers of science fiction that accept unsolicited manuscripts. They are very thin on the ground, like the July snows of Texas. 

It's heart-breaking to be able to write well, and yet I can't afford forty bucks to send a full manuscript to DAW for example. I don't hate them, but if I can never join them, the temptation to beat on them is all too real. I prefer not to do that. The word is I can get a pretty good marketing image for as little as $35.00.

I read Konrath and Dean Wesley Smith, and Kristine Kathryn Rusch's blogs from time to time. What they say about agents and publishers isn't complimentary. In some ways they are telling us what we want to hear...I get that, not being born yesterday. 

Many are called and few are chosen. That's just the way it is. 

Should I drive a stake through the heart of my own dream? I'm not the suicidal type...I'll tell you that much.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The article's headline was, "_The Dead End Of DIY Publishing."_

But the article tells us far more about the death of traditional publishing. I don't think either the author or the headline writer knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Theresaragan (Jul 1, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> These articles just never take into account how many people pursue traditional publishing and fail. How much time and yes, money, is invested in that pursuit. The workshops. The conventions. The postage (although email has lessened this expense tremendously).
> 
> I've actually invested less money in my writing career since I've focused on self publishing rather than chasing a traditional deal.


So true.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Greg Banks said:


> People who attack self published authors always ignore the blatant fact that most traditionally published authors are midlist authors, at best, sell no more (and often fewer) books than many self published authors, and even make less per book (though maybe they get an advance on sales) than self published authors. People have romanticized what traditional publishing actually is for most authors, and ignore that the authors whose names have become household words are the rare few.


Exactly! And it's worse than that. The vast majority who pursue the traditional route never get published at all. They never secure an agent or win an honest read of their manuscript. This vast group of traditional hopefuls are rarely factored into self/trad conversations.

It's like taking the top 1% of the traditional route and comparing it to the 100% of the self-pubbed route. I think this is something we should all take very seriously. We should try and inject this fact into all of these conversations, just to keep them honest. We either need to take the top 1% of self-pubbed success stories to compare with all traditionally published books, or we need to add the entire slush pile to what we see in the bookstores. Anything else tells a skewed story.

Right?


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Exactly! And it's worse than that. The vast majority who pursue the traditional route never get published at all. They never secure an agent or win an honest read of their manuscript. This vast group of traditional hopefuls are rarely factored into self/trad conversations.
> 
> It's like taking the top 1% of the traditional route and comparing it to the 100% of the self-pubbed route. I think this is something we should all take very seriously. We should try and inject this fact into all of these conversations, just to keep them honest. We either need to take the top 1% of self-pubbed success stories to compare with all traditionally published books, or we need to add the entire slush pile to what we see in the bookstores. Anything else tells a skewed story.
> 
> Right?


It's amazing how many people with the 'New York Times Bestselling Author' title I've talked to and read about who have done away with traditional publishing and went indie/self-pub.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> We either need to take the top 1% of self-pubbed success stories to compare with all traditionally published books, or we need to add the entire slush pile to what we see in the bookstores. Anything else tells a skewed story.
> 
> Right?


Of course. There are two entry points to the market. One is a query letter where an author tries to sell the book to a publisher. The other is the KDP upload button where an author tries to sell the book to consumers.

The book is offered for sale under both options.


----------



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

Hugh is right, the narrative is skewed. But if we ignore the top one percent of traditionally published authors, and ignore the top one percent of self published authors, I'm not sure it is comparable either. I think that's why traditionally publsihed authors grab that advance. It doesn't matter if it's two grand or twenty grand. But when a mid-list author is dropped by their publisher, that has to be heart-breaking to them as well.

That's their dead end, until they publish their own work.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Louis Shalako said:


> Hugh is right, the narrative is skewed. But if we ignore the top one percent of traditionally published authors, and ignore the top one percent of self published authors, I'm not sure it is comparable either. I think that's why traditionally publsihed authors grab that advance. It doesn't matter if it's two grand or twenty grand. But when a mid-list author is dropped by their publisher, that has to be heart-breaking to them as well.
> 
> That's their dead end, until they publish their own work.


No? On another loop I frequent there is a current conversation about midlisters turning down NY offers. Many of them stating they are making far more going the self route than they ever had going the NY route. These are authors who have previously published and are *gasp* turning NY down.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

All I know from my entire one book's worth of experience is that I've made twice as much in two years self-publishing than I made in seven years with a mass market paperback from a NY publisher that sold for six months and then disappeared for the next several years.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Louis Shalako said:


> Hugh is right, the narrative is skewed. But if we ignore the top one percent of traditionally published authors, and ignore the top one percent of self published authors, I'm not sure it is comparable either. I think that's why traditionally publsihed authors grab that advance. It doesn't matter if it's two grand or twenty grand. But when a mid-list author is dropped by their publisher, that has to be heart-breaking to them as well.
> 
> That's their dead end, until they publish their own work.


If they can get the rights back, which most probably won't. It'll take a while, but I think most writers will eventually discover that the $2,000 - $5,000 advance in the short term doesn't match up with the lifetime earnings of a self-pubbed e-book. If it's good enough to get an advance from a publisher, chances are it'll sell a few thousand copies over a dozen or so years, at the bare minimum.

I'd love to see the real comparison we're postulating, if it were somehow possible. I think with the top 1% removed from both routes, self-pubbing would compare favorably with all manuscripts submitted to the slush piles. The only thing traditional publishing still has that self-pubbing doesn't are the mega-earners. I can't see anyone earning a billion dollars from self-pubbing the way a Collins or Rowling can. But these cases are rare enough to ignore. My hope is that many writers will be able to pay their bills doing what they love. There are enough KB'ers doing this to make me think it isn't a dead end.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

This article reminds me of the tv show hosts carrying on about ZOMG all the kids do their socialising on Facebook, and they could be in contact with bad people and ZOMG!! Also the journalist who wrote a patronising article about how Twilight was bad for girls without actually having, y'know, read the books.

In other words, if you're going to tut-tut over some new social phenomenon, at least make an effort to know what the [redacted] you're talking about.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Not even 1% make it big with publishers. On an average year over the last 6 years maybe 110 authors sell more than 100K books in a given year. That is way less than 1%. I'm leaving MMPBK's out because the royalty is so small.

The odds of being in that +100K club are like lottery odds. The odds and $ are better being indie once you breakout the #'s and you're much better being a midlister on Amazon than with a publisher.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I suspect the whole point of these articles is that whatever the KDP authors make, the agents, publishers, publishers' employees, and bookstores get none of it. If you are one of them, and look up, pieces of the sky really are falling.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I see the caption on the JAK pic in that article says 'Kornrath' - a more apt typo might have produced Konwrath

Joe


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I thought that was a particularly stupid article. Here's the comment I added to it:

You know, the real question is this: "How many authors who could've published their books through traditional routes but choose to publish independently end up making as much or more through self-publishing?" Books that could've gone the traditional route are the only books that can be used in comparing indie success rates to traditional success rates. Why? Because all the other books -- all those that were rejected by traditional publishers or would've been rejected, had they been submitted -- could only ever make exactly $0.00 through traditional publishers. If those "not good enough" books, when self-published, make a single red cent, that's 100% gravy because they never would've gotten the chance to make anything if indie weren't an option. And boy have some of those "not good enough" books made a whole pile of red cents.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I suspect the whole point of these articles is that whatever the KDP authors make, the agents, publishers, publishers' employees, and bookstores get none of it. If you are one of them, and look up, pieces of the sky really are falling.


Book > Amazon > Reader > Author's % (70% of retail)

Traditional Way

Book > Publisher > Printing > Distribution > Bookstores > Returns > Agent gets 15% of Author's Royalty > Author Paid


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

The newspaper business is in worse shape than traditional publishing. This thread has been read more times than the article in question. Why elevate this story?


----------



## Joseph Flynn (Sep 29, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I think most writers will eventually discover that the $2,000 - $5,000 advance in the short term doesn't match up with the lifetime earnings of a self-pubbed e-book.


Two-to-five grand for an advance? Yeesh. Has it really come to that? A while back, I contacted a former agent with a question about editing software. He asked what I was doing. I told him and he said he could submit my work. He mentioned getting a 25K advance for a client recently. I thought that was modest money. I politely said no thanks.

Unless Thomas & Mercer come calling, I'll keep self-pubbing. I've worked both sides of the street and I like it better over here. Anyone who says self-pubbing is a dead end for a writer with talent and persistence is dead wrong.


----------



## Laura Lond (Nov 6, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> But his article completely skips the point that for every Amanda Hocking, there are tons of people making a smaller but decent income.


This. What I make is peanuts compared to many indies who have posted here and shared their numbers, but those peanuts have helped to pay off hospital bills, buy something here and there that I wouldn't be able to afford otherwise, etc.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

And yet I have more and more clients moving from trad pubbing to self, or going hybrid, etc.  I would never tell someone not to go trad, but to say that self-publishing is a dead end... misleading at best, downright dishonest at worst.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I think that making any money is better than having all that writing sitting on the hard drive.  Most people pay to do a hobby, with self-publishing it can be the other way around.  Sure, only a tiny percentage will make a living, but then most traditionally published writers have day jobs too.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Reminds me of some articles I've read that all alternate medicine is bunk.  Self-publishing will die when no one purchases self-published books, which does not seem to be happening at the moment.  A non-article.

If this is the same Boston Phoenix circa late 1960s, then I will mention one of the best/worst full page headlines of all times.  Totally consuming the front page, in the spirit of the times, were four four letter words, as follows:

F
S
P
C

I believe, in that order.  Like my baseball cards, this one was not saved.  D!


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm a hybrid - self-pubbed at first, then trade published for a few years, and now a bit of each. Where print is concerned trade publishers have a huge advantage, what with distribution and publicity, although you do want to ensure your contract has a termination clause so you don't end up with your trade paperback turned into a POD when the initial print run(s) are done. That way it would never go out of print.

The biggest advantage I can see with going into self-pub followed by trade pub? You get to keep the ebook rights. Ebook sales are feeding my family right now, whereas the royalties on my paperbacks published 4-7 years ago have all but dried up. If the publisher/agent/foreign publisher/etc all had their fingers in my ebook pie I'd be in a pretty bad state.

On the other hand, if you go all out for traditional publishing deal up front ... good luck keeping your ebook rights. (Bear in mind if you DO secure a trade publishing deal and your novel is edited & proofed by said publisher, I very much doubt they'll hand over the proofed, edited text so you can make your own ebook from it - even if you manage to keep the ebook rights.)


----------



## James Bruno (Mar 15, 2011)

You know what is a dead end? It's writing your best, maybe even landing an agent and then getting rejected by the traditional publishing apparat. In the pre-self-publishing world, that amounted to a dead end. Self-pubbing opens the doors to those of us who can write a solid story. Suddenly, you see the Dead End sign taken down and the playing field is now level. Then you are at the mercy of the general readership marketplace and not closed cabals of corporate bureaucrats who miss at least as often as they hit gold.

I read the entire article and came away with the distinct impression this guy really hasn't investigated the self-publishing scene of today and is simply cobbling together crap he's been fed by friends in traditional publishing. I, like many here, invested a modest amount of money in getting my books self-published and got that money back and then considerably more after publication. Boston Phoenix? What the hell is that anyway? Never heard of it.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Blah, blah, blah.

Amazon self-publishing _is_ a dead-end: ETF funds dead-end into my checking account every month. 

I hope the myths continue. It's healthy for my bank account.


----------



## J.R. Thomson (Mar 30, 2011)

Hmm... could it be a hit piece put out by the big publishers?  I wonder.... 

I do have one fear about the Amazon and self publishing as it is now.  I fear that as every month/year goes by the volume of new ebook submissions will force Amazon to put up more hurdles to publish an ebook on Amazon.

What if instead of anyone being able to publish on Amazon, they essentially become a giant publishing house... requiring an agent to be published there?

Me hopes not


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

Absolutely no need. The phenomenon is called 'the long tail', and Amazon are masters at it.

They don't need new warehouses to store digital files, and there's very little server processing time required to sell one or two copies of a 500kb book every now and then.

Plus you might go there to look at Aunt Daisy's family history in twelve volumes and buy a BBQ, a new TV set and a set of inflatable steak knives.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> Hmm... could it be a hit piece put out by the big publishers? I wonder....


GASP...Noo! They're the guardians of literature! The literati, intellectual elite! They'd _never_ debase themselves to such dishonest and cowardly deeds.

BTW, I wonder how that Kardashian, YA novel is coming? I wonder of the "hot" female protag on the cover, in black, spray on leather pants and halter top, will resemble Kim? Hmmm?


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Well, I noticed the point where I was supposed to cry a river at the idea that editors might have to become independant contractors and pay for their own health benefits. Oh noes!


Well you know they also forgot to mentioned the point that there is a whole industry of folks, editors, cover designers, layout artists that suddenly got an influx of work. Some of which never would have been able to fit in the publishing industry.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The article's headline was, "_The Dead End Of DIY Publishing."_
> 
> But the article tells us far more about the death of traditional publishing. I don't think either the author or the headline writer knows what he's talking about.


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The title and the text didn't go together. I still don't get what the point of the article was other than that Konrath is making money selling books.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> Book > Amazon > Reader > Author's % (70% of retail)
> 
> Traditional Way
> 
> Book > Publisher > Printing > Distribution > Bookstores > Returns > Agent gets 15% of Author's Royalty > Author Paid


One problem with that is that are adding extra levels of variables there. You are comparing an ebook & self-publishing to a print book & traditional & agented.

Not that a self-publisher doesn't win out. But if you are comparing a self-published ebook to a traditional ebook, then you have the same lack of returns (or have it just the same), plus MANY authors still don't have agents.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I do have one fear about the Amazon and self publishing as it is now. I fear that as every month/year goes by the volume of new ebook submissions will force Amazon to put up more hurdles to publish an ebook on Amazon.


I'd suggest that as each month and year passes, we see more evidence that Amazon doesn't need to erect hurdles. Sales continue to increase without hurdles.


----------



## JTCochrane (Feb 6, 2012)

I actually love these articles.  They only motivate me.  I'm one of those who love to prove people wrong.  I am at 7000 total books sold, which is not huge, but I know there are thousands of traditionally published authors who haven't sold that many.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

You know one thing to think of is when they say dead-end, do they mean you will never get another gig in traditional publishing?

So far as I know, that isn't the case. There are many instances of authors doing hybrid publishing. Meaning they self-publish as well as get traditionally published still. And we have instances of some of the best-selling self-published getting traditional gigs.. more than there have been in the past.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> I think his larger point is that self-published authors are destroying the literary world, because each one that _does_ become successful helps only himself, where if they were published by a big house, some of that revenue would go to help newer, less-successful authors. So not only are most self-published authors going to fail, those who succeed are failing by not being part of a team. To which I say bollocks.


This is not true. Since self-publishing is the upstart, any self-published author that becomes hugely successful is aiding in changing the perception that all self-published material is not worth reading for X, Y, or Z reasons.

If someone picks up any self-published book and enjoys it, they are infinitely more likely to try another. And if that work becomes so wildly successful as to be picked up in the mainstream press, it has a huge positive effect in dispelling another myth.

Believe the point this article is really making, is how self-publishing affects the old guard. That is the old guard's decision as to how they want to handle the influx of new reading choices, not ours. And I'm really, really sorry that they can't pocket any of the money made.

Who do they think they are? Congress?


----------



## James Bruno (Mar 15, 2011)

I have two friends who are NYT bestselling authors. One has asked me to help her navigate her way through self-publishing her latest book. A veteran novelist, she is beyond disgusted with traditional publishing for all the reasons we're familiar with. And she has no interest in going back to the old ways. My other friend is very prominent in the media. He's about to release his latest novel through a Big 6 house. When I told him over dinner recently about my 70% ebook royalties and 50% for print, his jaw dropped and wanted to hear more. The fact is, King, Rowling, Eisler and other traditionally published highly successful authors are smelling the roses and crossing over, turning down huge advances from the biggies to take their chances in indie publishing. That dork who wrote the article in the Boston Phoenix (whatever that is) basically skirted around this fact. They join herds of ostriches in burying their heads below-ground.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Laura Lond said:


> This. What I make is peanuts compared to many indies who have posted here and shared their numbers, but those peanuts have helped to pay off hospital bills, buy something here and there that I wouldn't be able to afford otherwise, etc.


This is the article that needs to be written. Stop focusing on the same two or three mega success stories and cover all the modest successes. Unfortunately, you never really read about the guy who won second prize in the lottery. Even though he may not be filthy rich, it can be a nice, tidy windfall...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I actually think we need an article saying all independents can achieve the same success as Hocking or Konrath. Then the folks who like to refute that idea will really have something to refute.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I actually think we need an article saying all independents can achieve the same success as Hocking or Konrath. Then the folks who like to refute that idea will really have something to refute.


Better add Bella Andre and Hugh Howey to those lists. They both might do more than Hocking and Konrath this year.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I actually think we need an article saying all independents can achieve the same success as Hocking or Konrath. Then the folks who like to refute that idea will really have something to refute.


Understand your point, but does anyone actually think that all traditionally published authors are as successful as King or Rowling?

Here's a link to an excellently written article that tells exactly what most authors can expect from being traditionally published:

http://sactowriters.com/make-money-part-1/

It gives numbers stating that 95% of all traditionally published books sell less than 500 copies.


----------



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

I read a similar article, about how self-published authors rarely sell more than 500 copies. But what is interesting is what's left out. Did they take a pdf to a local printer and then try to sell books out of a local independent bookstore? Did they go on the road for years? That was my original plan. It would have cost
$1,000.00 for about a hundred or a hundred and fifty books. I would have lost my shirt in the process. 

No matter who is talking, no matter what the subject or incident under discussion, we will never get more than half of the story. An old adage that I made up myself.

Anyway, that's not how e-books are sold in my opinion.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

tensen said:


> You know one thing to think of is when they say dead-end, do they mean you will never get another gig in traditional publishing?


That's true, good question. What did the dead-end part mean? I thought it meant we'd never make money at it, or at least enough to live on.

But maybe that (your point) was the point? That no publisher will want us? Which seems contradictory, like you said. All in all this author did not do her job well. We're just confused by her article.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

WPotocki said:


> http://sactowriters.com/make-money-part-1/
> 
> It gives numbers stating that 95% of all traditionally published books sell less than 500 copies.


I think it more likely that even if this number were proven to be true it is affected greatly by the number of literary fiction out there. But even they expect a few thousand copies to sell.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

WPotocki said:


> Understand your point, but does anyone actually think that all traditionally published authors are as successful as King or Rowling?
> 
> Here's a link to an excellently written article that tells exactly what most authors can expect from being traditionally published:
> 
> ...


What kind of books? Mass market paperbacks? I think not.


----------



## Rachel Baum (Jun 5, 2012)

Years ago there was a lot of negativity towards artists who started selling their work online - "You won't be respected if you aren't in a gallery." Who cares about respect?!?! I made a full-time living for two and a half years selling my artwork and I learned from my mistakes along the way - and yes I made many that I hopefully won't make again. However, being self-employed and having direct contact with people who bought from me was AWESOME! I'm not gonna lie! The best two and a half years of my working life. 

There is room for more than one business model out there. Publishing houses will still exist and self-publishing will continue to exist too.

Also - the article starts out discussing the book "Still Alice" which Lisa Genova self-published. This book is in my top five favorite books of all time. It would have been downright criminal if this book had never gotten out to the readers of the world and it did so through self-publishing. 

I have nothing against publishing companies, but I have nothing against people taking as much control over their own destinies as possible and self-publishing either. You can sit by the phone waiting for the publishers to tell you they picked up your book or you can strike out on your own and blaze your own trail.


----------



## Herman (May 3, 2011)

Self-publishing is the future. 
First comes the product and a test-run (indie phase), then as the book evolves and shows its potential you are ready to go to the next level.
It´s not a dead end, it is the new entry level for new authors. A path that has been blocked by the traditional bookindustry for decades.
Proof that your ebook can make it, then you are ready for the next step. It´s like a CV - you need to write that before you get the interview. Once you got that, you are in the game...


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2012)

Rachel Baum said:


> I have nothing against publishing companies, but I have nothing against people taking as much control over their own destinies as possible and self-publishing either. You can sit by the phone waiting for the publishers to tell you they picked up your book or you can strike out on your own and blaze your own trail.


I am totally with you on this one.

You are producing a product. You don't need permission. Naturally, it would be wonderful to have some giant conglomeration pouring money into it and helping you out.

And I should say that I applaud anyone that has been published because it is an accomplishment, but that doesn't mean you can't dance!


----------



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

The consensus is that self-publishing is not a dead end but a different way to begin. Thanks for your responses.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

WPotocki said:


> This is not true. Since self-publishing is the upstart, any self-published author that becomes hugely successful is aiding in changing the perception that all self-published material is not worth reading for X, Y, or Z reasons.
> 
> If someone picks up any self-published book and enjoys it, they are infinitely more likely to try another. And if that work becomes so wildly successful as to be picked up in the mainstream press, it has a huge positive effect in dispelling another myth.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but I still don't get what the "dead end" in the title is supposed to be. This is why titles are important, people.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Better add Bella Andre and Hugh Howey to those lists. They both might do more than Hocking and Konrath this year.


Add Theresa Ragan and Gemma Halliday while you're at it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Yeah, but I still don't get what the "dead end" in the title is supposed to be. This is why titles are important, people.


Think it's a scare tactic and a false hypothesis based on inaccurate information.

Anything is what you make it.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Hilary Thomson said:


> It's gotten to the point where I'll no longer even click on articles like that. Stockholm Syndrome is painful to witness.


We need a "like" button!

I like this!


----------



## Dave Adams (Apr 25, 2012)

A lot of great points here. I spent a lot more trying to get traditional publishers to look at my book than I did to self-publish. And once the first sale happened, self-publishing became a better financial deal than traditional for me. Money wasn't the driver for me to do this, but self-publishing is nowhere near the dead-end the article is trying to portray it as.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Laura Lond said:


> ...What I make is peanuts compared to many indies who have posted here and shared their numbers, but those peanuts have helped to pay off hospital bills, buy something here and there that I wouldn't be able to afford otherwise, etc.





Adam Pepper said:


> This is the article that needs to be written. Stop focusing on the same two or three mega success stories and cover all the modest successes. Unfortunately, you never really read about the guy who won second prize in the lottery. Even though he may not be filthy rich, it can be a nice, tidy windfall...


I'm a featured contributor for Yahoo! Finance. 
http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/282383/cherise_kelley.html

I would happily write this article and submit it to Yahoo! if 5 or 6 of you "Amazon mid-listers" would tell me your stories and agree to let me publish them. PM me.


----------



## bnapier (Apr 26, 2010)

Great discussion here and one that I needed to read.

I read articles like that for motivation...to prove them wrong, I suppose. But every now and then they manage to resurrect that seed of doubt in the back of my head.  "Seriously," that says.  "Five books released and where's the financial reward?  Why the hell are you going this route again?"

Granted, I've been published through two small presses.  With royalties and advances all calculated, I did manage to make more last year with my self published titles than the numbers from the traditional route.  Still, it's not much. I'm not one to post numbers/figures, but money earned from self published titles were very small. 

So yes, I think some writers from time to time do feel like it's a dead end.  My books are consistently getting 4 and 5 star reviews, so that's motivation in and of itself.  But I think I speak for a lot of self-pubbed writers when I say that I can't afford to pay $300 - $600 on a "pro" cover (I've relied on my 2 years of art school experience and done my own so far).  I also can't afford (nor do I completely agree with) the practice of paying a fee for a big name indie review site to review my books. I am constantly tinkering with sales tactics and nothing seems to work.

All of that to say: for some of us self-published writers, these article CAN be discouraging.  But thankfully discussions like this are a glaring reminder of why it's important to ignore them.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

Nicole Ciacchella said:


> I love this kind of stuff because it just makes me laugh. My ultimate goal with self-publishing is to make a modest living wage--and by that I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of the mid 20's per year. Would I complain if I became the next Amanda Hocking and sold a million copies of my books? Um, are you kidding? But I know that's a pipe dream and I treat it as such. I think that, like pretty much everyone I've seen here, I went into this thinking of it as a business and knowing it was going to make a lot of demands on my time. If this means I can reach a place where I can refer to "author" as my career, then I'll be successful. Hell, even selling 60 copies of my book in a month leaves me giddy. I'm not losing sight of the fact that people pay actual money to read something I wrote. It blows my mind every time I look at my sales figures.


My goal exactly. I'd like to make $2,000 a month. I'm doing $500 a month this year so far...with June and july going to be dips since I'm not promoting over summer...but August will pick back up...can't complain about the extra moony at doing something I love.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> I just don't really get what the author is saying, I think. As a genre author, I never had the impression that New York might take on one of my books and take a chance on it in order to "nurture" me. They hoped to make money off me. If my book didn't do well, I'd get dumped (which is exactly what happened). There was no nurturing involved. Self-pubbing, on the other hand, can be just as brutal-- if the book sucks or doesn't hit a chord with readers for whatever reason, it won't sell-- but I still have a chance to publish other books, and keep at it till I hit on a winning formula (or give up on my own).


Exactly.


----------



## bookworm77 (Mar 10, 2012)

Read this article: "How Amazon Saved My Life by Jessica Park"

Believe me self-publishing is alive and doing quite well.


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

Louis Shalako said:


> In this article in The Phoenix, the gist of it is that self-publishing is a dead end for most authors.
> 
> http://thephoenix.com/Boston/arts/140931-self-published-novelists-


lol


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Quote from: Laura Lond on July 04, 2012, 05:50:27 PM--------
...What I make is peanuts compared to many indies who have posted here and shared their numbers, but those peanuts have helped to pay off hospital bills, buy something here and there that I wouldn't be able to afford otherwise, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Adam Pepper on July 05, 2012, 09:14:09 AM-------------
This is the article that needs to be written. Stop focusing on the same two or three mega success stories and cover all the modest successes. Unfortunately, you never really read about the guy who won second prize in the lottery. Even though he may not be filthy rich, it can be a nice, tidy windfall...
--------------------------------------------------------------------



CheriseKelley said:


> I'm a featured contributor for Yahoo! Finance.
> http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/282383/cherise_kelley.html
> 
> I would happily write this article and submit it to Yahoo! if 5 or 6 of you "Amazon mid-listers" would tell me your stories and agree to let me publish them. PM me.


I need a few more Amazon midlisters' stories, in order to write this article. Please PM me.

Here are the questions I am asking everyone, but please tell me the most interesting part of your story even if it doesn't answer my questions:

What were you doing before you decided to self pub?
Did you trad pub? If so, how much was your last advance? Did your book earn out its advance? How long did that take?
How much did you lay out for covers, editing, proofreading, etc?
How long did it take you to make this money back?
How much do you make per month on your indie books?
What are you able to do with this money now that you couldn't do before you indie published?
Have you quit a day job?
Are you now a stay-at-home parent?

Yahoo! Finance does require concrete numbers in stories they publish, so I won't be able to use your story if you choose not to give concrete numbers. Averages and figures rounded to the nearest hundred are fine.

If I use your story, then of course I will get your approval of the article before I submit it. I will link to your Amazon author page if you give me the url, but Yahoo! might strip the link. They might reject the article, too.


----------



## Alexandra Sokoloff (Sep 21, 2009)

I am pretty (damn) sure that I am correct when I say that every traditionally published midlist author I personally know (which is a lot of authors, including me) who has committed several books to e publishing in the last year is making a better living now than before. 

Some stratospherically so.

The numbers don't lie.

Plus, we no longer have to wait six months for a check, and seriously, who can argue with that?


----------



## trublue (Jul 7, 2012)

Deanna Chase said:


> My bank account implies otherwise.


Sweet: )

I hope in time, mine will too


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

All these articles will be a wonderful resource for researchers in the future. Other industries have seen electronic become dominant, but none has had such an outpouring of angst. We know the financial results, mergers, failures, acquisitions, etc. But we never had such a record of emotion and navel gazing.

We may be heading towards a literary Battlestar Galactica, where a tiny remnant of literary heroes struggle to maintain standards in a hostile and deadly universe.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> We may be heading towards a literary Battlestar Galactica, where a tiny remnant of literary heroes struggle to maintain standards in a hostile and deadly universe.


I was more thinking along the lines of an Evil Galactic Empire brought down by valiant rebel freedom fighters.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I was more thinking along the lines of an Evil Galactic Empire brought down by valiant rebel freedom fighters.


I like the way Elle Casey put it in another thread:

We didn't overthrow the king, we simply sailed to another continent and raised our own flag.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes, it's dead, but so is every other avenue. Be glad you were here for the Golden Age.


----------



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> All these articles will be a wonderful resource for researchers in the future. Other industries have seen electronic become dominant, but none has had such an outpouring of angst. We know the financial results, mergers, failures, acquisitions, etc. But we never had such a record of emotion and navel gazing.
> 
> We may be heading towards a literary Battlestar Galactica, where a tiny remnant of literary heroes struggle to maintain standards in a hostile and deadly universe.


Holy, smokes, I never thought of it that way!


----------



## Laura Lond (Nov 6, 2010)

CheriseKelley said:


> I need a few more Amazon midlisters' stories, in order to write this article. Please PM me.
> 
> Here are the questions I am asking everyone, but please tell me the most interesting part of your story even if it doesn't answer my questions:
> 
> ...


Cherise, I just saw this invitation - thanks!! I'll answer the questions and PM them to you soon.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Laura Lond said:


> Cherise, I just saw this invitation - thanks!! I'll answer the questions and PM them to you soon.


Great!

Once you do, I will have three Amazon midlisters' stories. That is the minimum number I think I need in order to write the article.


----------



## bookworm77 (Mar 10, 2012)

Penguin recently bought Author Solutions for $116 Million. Maybe self-publishing is not dead.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

As long as there are people who think this isn't a viable option, then it means there's less competition in the water trying to do it.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Oh my gosh! I read that article, and it is so, so right. I have wasted my time, my life. It makes me want to cry. I have helped to bring down the lofty heavens that are the literary world, I have debased myself and my fellow writers, I have stolen from the mouths of babes. I should be ashamed, and I should bow my head to the dirt and throw sand over my head until my tears turn to mud at my feet. I have dared to write, publish and make a living at it.

Perhaps I should do something more credible and more helpful to all of humanity. Like write articles for a regional online site.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I've said it before...it dead ends right into my bank account...


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

The old canard that self-published authors don't make much money, so you shouldn't self-publish. It ignores the fact that most people who attempt the traditional publishing route don't make much on average either. It would be like if I said "Ford cars are dangerous at 100 miles per hour, so don't buy a Ford!" That leaves out key information, that all cars are dangerous at that speed.

I've read some good self-published books, and I don't know if they would have gotten past the gatekeepers. I like being able to make my own choices.

It does seem that in writing, some people try to put up a "Keep out!" sign. How many art supply stores are there, how many stores selling musical instruments are there? Few people will be able to make their living with their paintings or with their music, yet people aren't discouraged from painting or singing. Every year at art fairs "self-published" artists sell their work, without getting the approval of a curator. Why should books be any different?


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2012)

An author who's work is rejected by publisher after publisher, and then resorts to self-publishing -- I don't see how that could be a bad thing. Publishers don't determine if a book is worthy to be published -- it is evident in the fact that many who they have rejected are now best-selling self-published authors. People will decide if they want to purchase a book or not, and invest in the ones they like.

People get to buy books they are interested in and enjoy, which they may have never got the chance to.

Authors who are talented but unrecognized are able to publish and enjoy the success they deserve. And also get feedback on their work by readers and learn how to become better writers. 

I really like the democratic nature of self-publishing.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

Random thoughts from reading through this thread...

* In traditional publishing, "team" is a euphemism for "overhead."

* There's no "I" in team, but there are two in indie.  

* Only one company has a good idea of what percentage of ebook authors sell 500 copies over the life of the book: Amazon. And they aren't saying. 

* The life of most independently-published books is still just at the beginning.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> The old canard that self-published authors don't make much money, so you shouldn't self-publish. It ignores the fact that most people who attempt the traditional publishing route don't make much on average either. It would be like if I said "Ford cars are dangerous at 100 miles per hour, so don't buy a Ford!" That leaves out key information, that all cars are dangerous at that speed.
> 
> I've read some good self-published books, and I don't know if they would have gotten past the gatekeepers. I like being able to make my own choices.
> 
> It does seem that in writing, some people try to put up a "Keep out!" sign. How many art supply stores are there, how many stores selling musical instruments are there? Few people will be able to make their living with their paintings or with their music, yet people aren't discouraged from painting or singing. Every year at art fairs "self-published" artists sell their work, without getting the approval of a curator. Why should books be any different?


Very good points.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

DRMarvello said:


> Random thoughts from reading through this thread...
> 
> * In traditional publishing, "team" is a euphemism for "overhead."
> 
> ...


Well, we know there are bunches of us right here in the Writers' Cafe who have done that much just in one month. The problem is, selling 500 copies isn't going to pay a lifetime of bills and depending at what price points, it might be enough for a nice dinner out to the household bills covered for a month.
The question is...is self-publishing more lucrative than traditional for your average person that has completed and edited a manuscript? 
I think, YES.
Can you write enough and sell enough to make more than your average traditionally published author? YES.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm happy to concede all the potential negative outcomes to the people who feel the need to keep telling us about them. OK. It's a dead end, and I choose to mash the gas pedal to the floor. The nannies can ride with my adverbs in the back. Looking forward to more back seat driving from them..


----------



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

QuantumIguana said:


> It does seem that in writing, some people try to put up a "Keep out!" sign. How many art supply stores are there, how many stores selling musical instruments are there? Few people will be able to make their living with their paintings or with their music, yet people aren't discouraged from painting or singing. Every year at art fairs "self-published" artists sell their work, without getting the approval of a curator. Why should books be any different?


I don't think there's much of a "keep out" for writers either, but the expectations were different. After I wrote my first book, with no real thought of trying to sell it, my sister researched and dragged me off to a writers' conference. I don't know how those strike others, but my first thought was that there was obviously a whole industry set up to take money from wannabe writers. In addition to conferences, think about magazines, books, workshops, paid readers, oh, and agents. Not than any of those are bad. Art classes and art supply stores aren't bad.

While I came to see the benefit of conferences, I still think making money off of wannabes is a component, and I think we're seeing a similar industry develop to make money from wannabe indies - get your formatting here only $500; buy reviews here by the gross; how about some affordable editing by someone who knows the difference between that curved punctuation thing that goes down by the bottom of the letters and that curved thing that goes up by the top of the letters?


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

> Better add Bella Andre and Hugh Howey to those lists. They both might do more than Hocking and Konrath this year.





> Add Theresa Ragan and Gemma Halliday while you're at it.


And here's a whole bunch more: Top 100 Indie Authors

Every time I see one of these "self-publishing is terrible for authors!!!" articles, I choose to believe my bank account over their blog post.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> The question is...is self-publishing more lucrative than traditional for your average person that has completed and edited a manuscript?
> I think, YES.


I agree, and I think it goes without saying, but apparently, it still needs to be said.

I don't know what the publishing rate is for Big Publishing, but I once saw the figures for a small independent publisher, and it was right around 25%. In other words, of 100 manuscripts submitted, 25 were published. I'd be willing to bet the rate for Big Publishing is closer to 1% than 25%.

In contrast, the publishing rate for self publishers is 100%. If a self-published author sells just one book, that author made more on his/her writing than at least 75% of the writers who go the traditional route. I may never earn as much as Robin Hobb, and I'll probably never know if my book would have been accepted by a major publisher, but the $1,000 or so I've earned from it in the past few months is a lot more than I'd have earned if I were still trying to woo an agent and get a publishing deal--particularly if I turned out to be one of the 75%+.

Besides, self publishing is a lot of fun. I've never heard anyone say that about querying.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

DRMarvello said:


> I don't know what the publishing rate is for Big Publishing, but I once saw the figures for a small independent publisher, and it was right around 25%. In other words, of 100 manuscripts submitted, 25 were published. I'd be willing to bet the rate for Big Publishing is closer to 1% than 25%.


I'd say it's probably lower than that. I keep seeing agents talk about how they receive thousands of queries per year and take on maybe five to ten new clients in that same year. And I read that agents are able to sell, on average, about 50% of the books they represent. That was a couple of years ago, but I'd be willing to bet it's still valid.


----------



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

DRMarvello said:


> * Only one company has a good idea of what percentage of ebook authors sell 500 copies over the life of the book: Amazon. And they aren't saying.


Amazon has already said that there are 1000 self published authors selling 1000 books per month (this was a few months ago). Those million books per month disprove almost every argument made by those wishing to denigrate the rise of self published literature. There are people making money selling independently produced literature, and they are fairly numerous.

It is also possible to extrapolate the numbers a little further. Amazon has about 60% of the ebook market, so it can be safely assumed that those authors sell books on other platforms as well. If we stick to the numbers, an author who sells 1000 books on Amazon probably sells another 600 books through other channels. That means that there are 1000 self published authors selling, on average, 1600 books per month.

For many, 1600 books per month is not a living wage but, going from my own experiences where every sale works out to about $1 in my pocket, they probably make about $1500 per month, which is $18,000 per year.

The question is, how many trad published authors make $18,000 per year and how many books do they have to sell to get it?


----------



## Revolution (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't think any of us enter this endeavour expecting to retire in the Bahamas next fall.

To me, self publishing is the opposite of dead end, it's my only opportunity. I don't have the will nor the patience to deal with 'traditional' publishing.

I work, and don't hate my job, but I'm curious just to put my stuff out there to see what happens.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Preparation + opportunity = Luck

I'm constantly preparing (writing better and better books) so I can get lucky. 

Or if I want to get lucky faster, I just have to speak some French to my hubby.  .


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

DRMarvello said:


> Besides, self publishing is a lot of fun. I've never heard anyone say that about querying.


Love this line.


----------

