# Are slower writers doomed?



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

I currently can't churn out four-plus complete novels a year. I'm working on getting up to two, but I'm just not there yet. My sales have absolutely tanked--plummeted--and I don't know why. I have many terrific reviews. My last big release was April; I have a small release coming up in the next couple of weeks. Everyone says "just keep writing." And I'm going to do that. I have too many people waiting for the rest of the History series.

But are slow writers doomed? Should I even bother paying for good covers and just put these things up for friends or whatever instead? I did really well last year, and I'm just stunned. I keep saying, this is the worst month in three years...and then the next month turns out to be the worst month in three years...


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I feel your pain. And yes, I believe slow writers are doomed. 

Doomed to write slowly and suffer the slings and arrows of a small list. Because though we write slowly, we can't seem to stop.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Write at the pace you're comfortable with. If you force yourself to write to the point where you no longer enjoy it you might as well give up and go and work in a bank.


----------



## Shayne Parkinson (Mar 19, 2010)

I can only give you my own example, but for what it's worth: I'm a very slow writer, and am not feeling any sense of doom. 

I have five books out, one of which is a perma-free, so I have four that I actually sell. It's been well over a year since my last new release, and while I'm working hard on my current one, it's still months away.

My wonderfully patient readers are very kind about waiting for me. I'd like to require a bit less patience of them by releasing books more frequently than I currently do - perhaps when life gets a bit simpler than it currently is. If I could finish a book a year I'd be delighted - I honestly don't think I'd ever get any faster than that (I spend a lot of time on research for each book, for one thing).

While I'm still very much an unknown, and am highly unlikely ever to appear on a major bestseller list, my writing continues to bring me results that I hardly dared dream of, including a livable income.

Please don't give up hope. I agree with Chris: write at the pace you're comfortable with. If that pace is a slow one, it might be harder, but it doesn't have to mean doom. I do think there's room for a variety of writing paces.

I hope things look up for you, but in the meantime, please don't lose sight of this:


> I have too many people waiting for the rest of the History series


You obviously have readers who love your work. Ups and downs in sales don't change that fact.

-
Edited to remove details that evoked an unintended (and unexpected) response.


----------



## ingrid avluv (Feb 15, 2013)

Shayne Parkinson said:


> averaging around 15,000 sales/month.


Fantastic numbers. Even if you're selling your books at .99 cents that still puts you up above the average US income, a great feat for a self-published writer. If you are selling books at 2.99 all I can say is wow. A one-month income for you would then be more than about 97% of the world populations YEARLY income. Congratulations.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

Shayne Parkinson said:


> While I'm still very much an unknown, and am highly unlikely ever to appear on a major bestseller list, my writing continues to bring me results that I hardly dared dream of.


I hate to burst your bubble, but I've seen your books ranked pretty highly on a few of the kindle bestseller lists. Good work!


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

I think you are fine.  2 books a year is all I shoot for. You gotta write at the pace that makes you fulfilled and produces the best stories.  Don't worry about what others are producing...be in competition only with yourself.


----------



## Tim_A (May 25, 2013)

Yep, I'm in the same basic position, and selling currently less than 1 a week. Everyone I can reach on Twitter who's going to buy it has bought it. Ditto with Facebook. My mailing list has grown by 50% though (which sounds good till you realise it went from 2 to 3!). Not enough reviews for the decent paid promos, and those I *can* afford do zilch. Book 2 is still 20k away from finishing the first draft, so it'll be the end of the year at least by the time it's edited and out. (mind you, book 1 came out in May, so it's not very far off 2 books a year)

I'm wondering about writing some shorts (pushing the novel even further back), just to get something else out there...

Working in a bank would be great... especially if they give staff discount!!!


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> I currently can't churn out four-plus complete novels a year. I'm working on getting up to two, but I'm just not there yet. My sales have absolutely tanked--plummeted--and I don't know why. I have many terrific reviews. My last big release was April; I have a small release coming up in the next couple of weeks. Everyone says "just keep writing." And I'm going to do that. I have too many people waiting for the rest of the History series.
> 
> But are slow writers doomed? Should I even bother paying for good covers and just put these things up for friends or whatever instead? I did really well last year, and I'm just stunned. I keep saying, this is the worst month in three years...and then the next month turns out to be the worst month in three years...


I had a release early this year, and I am pushing hard to get a release for Christmas. I want to get to 2 books a year... but have yet to pull that off. I did MUCH better last year in sales then this year, and can not com up with any reason why. But I carry on.... mainly because I love to write. Partly because I do have some fans clamoring for the next book. So that helps 

I think it is harder for slower writers to make it , but not impossible so I would not use the word "doomed" but its a steeper hill to climb for sure.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

John Irving writes at a slow pace. About 3-5 years between novels, on average. He seems to be doing okay. He didn't have his first big hit until his fourth novel, a decade into his career, however.

I think there's the fast-splash kind of success, and the quality over time kind of success. One would like to achieve both, but the latter (quality over time) tends to favor slower writers, although faster ones (Stephen King) can achieve that as well.

JOHN IRVING'S BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Setting Free the Bears (196
The Water-Method Man (1972) (4 year gap)
The 158-Pound Marriage (1974) (2 year gap)
The World According to Garp (197 (4 year gap)
The Hotel New Hampshire (1981) (3 year gap)
The Cider House Rules (1985) (4 year gap)
A Prayer for Owen Meany (1989) (4 year gap)
A Son of the Circus (1994) (5 year gap)
The Imaginary Girlfriend (non-fiction, 1995) (1 year gap)
Trying to Save Piggy Sneed (collection, 1996) (1 year gap)
A Widow for One Year (199 (2 year gap)
My Movie Business (non-fiction, 1999) (1 year gap)
The Cider House Rules: A Screenplay (1999) (0 year gap)
The Fourth Hand (2001) (2 year gap)
A Sound Like Someone Trying Not to Make a Sound (2004) (3 year gap)
Until I Find You (2005) (1 year gap)
Last Night in Twisted River (2009) (4 year gap)
In One Person (2012) (3 year gap)
Avenue of Mysteries (forthcoming) (1 year gap and counting...)


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

I release two per year. It's all I can do and still maintain quality. The majority of my sales are made in the first three months. I then see a gradual decline. I've come to the conclusion that two per year is the number to shoot for.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I don't really buy that "write faster" theory.

If your books sell five copies a day, then I suppose having two books out means you sell ten copies per day.
Maybe.

To some degree, if you're writing a series and people are just dying for the next installment, then writing faster makes sense. 
Otherwise, there are millions of readers out there. You won't suddenly run out of them if they don't get your new book by a week from Tuesday.

In marketing terms, it's reach over frequency. A new title will get you on that 30-day list which is a bonus but in the end it comes down to how many people see your title and decide whether or not to purchase it.
To increase your reach you can do marketing to get those eyeballs. When I look back over my sales history, a major promo (i.e. Bookbub) has spiked sales as much as a new release.

(Also keep in mind that "books" is a loose term around here when talking numbers. It can mean full-length novel or a 24-page quickie.   )


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> John Irving writes at a slow pace. About 3-5 years between novels, on average. He seems to be doing okay. He didn't have his first big hit until his fourth novel, a decade into his career, however.
> 
> I think there's the fast-splash kind of success, and the quality over time kind of success. One would like to achieve both, but the latter (quality over time) tends to favor slower writers, although faster ones (Stephen King) can achieve that as well.
> 
> JOHN IRVING'S BIBLIOGRAPHY:


Interesting, thanks!


----------



## SarahCarter (Nov 8, 2012)

Unfortunately it seems like I can only manage one book a year! And I do wonder if maybe I should forget about publishing for now, and concentrate on writing more until I have a good few books ready to go, then release everything I have over a period of time.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Are slow writers doomed? I hope not. 

I set my calendar for my releases. I missed by a mile. Book 2 isn't out yet, and I was supposed to be done with Book 3 by the end of the year. (Maybe I forgot to specify which year.)

Just write. If you're meant to go faster, you will. If you're meant to go slowly, so be it. As for sales increases and decreases, it seems the pace has its own mind.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

I sure hope we're not doomed!

My current pace allows for just 1.5 to 2 books a year, and that is pushing it.

If ever the opportunity to write full-time came, I think I could bump that to 4 or 5 a year.


----------



## maineavalanche (Mar 22, 2013)

As a reader, I don't tend to trust a writer who writes four books a year.  I write very fast, but it takes me months to edit my books and I'm good for about 1-2 books a year (I also need a break here and there), so someone writing four makes me suspicious as to how much editing they did or how long the books are.  I know there are people who can do it without the dip in quality, but I think they are few and far between.  If you're writing a series, writing slow could be a bad thing if you're taking two years between releases, but otherwise, books take time.


----------



## hs (Feb 15, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> I currently can't churn out four-plus complete novels a year. I'm working on getting up to two, but I'm just not there yet. My sales have absolutely tanked--plummeted--and I don't know why. I have many terrific reviews. My last big release was April; I have a small release coming up in the next couple of weeks. Everyone says "just keep writing." And I'm going to do that. I have too many people waiting for the rest of the History series.
> 
> But are slow writers doomed? Should I even bother paying for good covers and just put these things up for friends or whatever instead? I did really well last year, and I'm just stunned. I keep saying, this is the worst month in three years...and then the next month turns out to be the worst month in three years...


I have the same sales experience as you starting in July, where sales just fell off a cliff and haven't recovered to pre-summer levels yet. I don't know how much of it has to do with how quickly you're releasing new books vs. a general downturn in book sales.

It also takes me nearly a year to write a novel. I have three out (and some short stories), with my last novel published in March and my next one scheduled for January 2014. I wish I had more books available, but the way I see it is, if I keep writing, eventually I'll have a sizable catalog. I'm less than three years into this journey, which I hope will last another thirty! If you can publish two books in a year (my goal as well), then you'll have ten new books in five years and twenty in ten years. Eventually, things will start to click for you. At least that's what I'm planning on.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

I went through the drive-thru at McDonalds this morning to get breakfast (I know, bad *****). I had my food in under three minutes. McDonalds seems to be doing rather well.

Tonight, our company is doing an employee dinner at a place called Rembrandt's. We had to make reservations a week in advance and prepare a menu so that everything can be ready when we arrive. This place also, however, seems to be doing rather well.

If McDonalds made people make reservations for their food, they would fail. If the restaurant tried to churn out food as quickly as McDonalds, it would fail. They serve different purposes and different needs and different markets.

The problem is when you are a Rembrandt's and you try to market your restaurant like it is a McDonalds. If your business depends on high volume/low margins, then you have to produce a huge quantity of product quickly to make money. If your business depends of higher margins, then you need less volume and you don't need to produce product as quickly. 

Being a slow writer, therefore, is not the issue. Trying to market as a fast writer is where you will get in trouble.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The problem is when you are a Rembrandt's and you try to market your restaurant like it is a McDonalds.
> ...
> Being a slow writer, therefore, is not the issue. Trying to market as a fast writer is where you will get in trouble.


Now _that _is food for thought!


----------



## John Hamilton (May 6, 2010)

Shayne Parkinson said:


> I can only give you my own example, but for what it's worth: I'm a very slow writer, and am feeling quite healthy.
> 
> I have five books out, one of which is a perma-free, so I have four that I actually sell. It's been well over a year since my last new release, and while I'm working hard on my current one, it's still months away. I've sold over 350,000 books, and my sales are fairly steady from month to month, bouncing only a few percent up and down while averaging around 15,000 sales/month.
> 
> ...


Shayne, this is just the boost I needed to hear this morning. Thank you!


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

maineavalanche said:


> As a reader, I don't tend to trust a writer who writes four books a year.


I don't, because I notice that I'm writing more usable words now than last year. Plus, I'm working on my fourth novel and my third is nearly ready to be published, while I started publishing about a year ago. Meanwhile, I spend a lot of time doing other things than writing, while I know that those with high output often spent more time writing than I do. And they often use other people for their editing, etcetera.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

As the slowest writer on the board, I can assure you we are doomed, because I know I decide which books to read based on how many the author has published.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

what a great question. this has been my fear. sometimes it seems that the indie world is geared to people who can write a lot of books. my bestselling books are my thrillers, but it takes me up to a year to write one. that amount of time spent on one book scares the hell out of me.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> I currently can't churn out four-plus complete novels a year. I'm working on getting up to two, but I'm just not there yet. My sales have absolutely tanked--plummeted--and I don't know why. I have many terrific reviews. My last big release was April; I have a small release coming up in the next couple of weeks. Everyone says "just keep writing." And I'm going to do that. I have too many people waiting for the rest of the History series.
> 
> But are slow writers doomed? Should I even bother paying for good covers and just put these things up for friends or whatever instead? I did really well last year, and I'm just stunned. I keep saying, this is the worst month in three years...and then the next month turns out to be the worst month in three years...


1.You are a great writer, Meilin. For you, I would focus on trying for a breakout book which may mean writing very tight to market. OR take a book to a publisher (a big one, no small press b/c there's no $) and go hybrid. I think that could end up favoring slower writers. One book trad a year and one self pub isn't a bad balance. If you can squeeze in a few short stories to keep readers engaged, that would be good too.

2.Slower writers do have smaller back lists and I think it is a disadvantage early on, but I have to believe at some point it evens out. A back list of 50 books over X years is still a large back list for readers to read.

Things I have done to deal with my slow writing pace:

1.I try to work three months ahead, so it will actually look like I'm writing and releasing every month when I'm not.

2.I work across multiple projects, 2 to 3. When I need a break from one, I work on another. This round robin approach keeps me moving forward on multiple books and there's less dead time.

3.My novels are short. My novellas are long. If I ever write a 100k novel, I will release it in two parts, maybe even peel of 10k to release alone as a perma freebie leading to the first novel.

4.I package, bundle or break novels up into novellas to take up as much search engine real estate as I can. I released a novel this year in two parts (it wasn't planned, the writing process just worked out that way) and when I released the novel, I expected novella sales to die. They didn't. The novellas have their own spot in the search engine and continue to sell. The novel also sells. They all hit Top 100 (for genre). I thought readers would be mad, but no one has complained to date. In reality I ended up with three strong performers...from one book. It was an interesting result from an accidental experiment.

Doing all this, in 2013 I've released/will release 2 novels, 7 novellas, 1 short story and 2 short story bundles. 1 novel was preceded by 2 novellas. 3 novellas from 2013 will be packaged as a novel for 2014.

5.Mailing list, mailing list, mailing list. And learn the ropes of FB advertising as well as sort out what other paid marketing actually works for you. You have to be good on the promo side when you don't have so many books.

Upshot: When your back list is small, become more strategic to work with what you have.

Also, you should pm me about the fantasy group I'm trying to get off the ground. It's been slow going b/c I had a surprise surgery this fall, but I have high hopes for the future.

HTH


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

I believe in quality over quantity. Sure it feels like a punch in the gut when we see our writer peers releasing 10 books a month and making huge money, but we are not them, nor should we try to be. That is one lesson I've learned throughout this writing journey I've begun 2 years ago. If you try to be a fast writer, when you KNOW you're not a fast writer, readers will see it in the finished product.



Shayne Parkinson said:


> I have five books out, one of which is a perma-free, so I have four that I actually sell. It's been well over a year since my last new release, and while I'm working hard on my current one, it's still months away. I've sold over 350,000 books, and my sales are fairly steady from month to month, bouncing only a few percent up and down while averaging around 15,000 sales/month.


I'm not sure what you are saying/implying here, or if this is just some hidden bragging rights or something, but 15k sales a month is not something people should be complaining about. Please don't take my comment the wrong way.


----------



## S.A. Mulraney (May 20, 2011)

It took me 5 years to write my first, 2 to write my second. I'm hoping to get #3 out in a year, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

RM Prioleau said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying/implying here, or if this is just some hidden bragging rights or something, but 15k sales a month is not something people should be complaining about. Please don't take my comment the wrong way.


I'm pretty sure that it was meant to be comforting to the original poster. If writing less than one book per year can lead to 15k sales a month, then a slow writer is not _necessarily_ doomed. (We still have to write engaging books.)


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> As the slowest writer on the board, I can assure you we are doomed, because I know I decide which books to read based on how many the author has published.


Sorry, we've talked amongst ourselves and have concluded that you're not actually writing.
You're set up in your lair with your typewriter and your scotch and a thoughtful frown while "the wife" is stuck with the housework.
C'mon, you can admit it.


----------



## Howietzer (Apr 18, 2012)

God I hope not... I'm still working on my first book (a year and a half in, lol)... have you checked your categories, keywords and all that jazz recently? I saw a post where some authors where having some real trouble with that. Apparently Amazon did some changes and it shifted a bunch of tags around...


----------



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

Shayne Parkinson said:


> I can only give you my own example, but for what it's worth: I'm a very slow writer, and am feeling quite healthy.
> 
> I have five books out, one of which is a perma-free, so I have four that I actually sell. It's been well over a year since my last new release, and while I'm working hard on my current one, it's still months away. I've sold over 350,000 books, and my sales are fairly steady from month to month, bouncing only a few percent up and down while averaging around 15,000 sales/month.


Shayne, your success continues to amaze me. Stay the course. It's working beautifully.


----------



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

> As the slowest writer on the board,


How dare you presume to claim that laurel for yourself!

I challenge you sir...to a *SLOW OFF*!


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

No, you are definitely not doomed.  And yes, you should continue to invest in the best branding you can buy for your books.

Look at it this way: authors working with a traditional publisher put out new releases about as often as you do (many of them slower!) and they aren't doomed.  In part that's because they get advances, and that helps them keep going.  You're earning around the same amount of money, but it's strung out over many months in smaller chunks.  HOWEVER, your books will stay in print indefinitely, and that means that by the time you do have a large list built up (however long that takes), you'll be well placed to earn a good living from it.

You're taking things slower than many indies, and probably a little faster than most TP authors.  But going slower doesn't mean you won't get there (wherever "there" is, on your personal list of goals.)  

By the way, I love the cover for Machine God.  It's beautiful!!


----------



## Trevor H Cooley (Jun 29, 2012)

I recently quit my day job and am able to write full time. My goal is to write 3-4 books a year. I find that the first three months after release are good, then the numbers slide dramatically. I hope that by releasing more often, I can keep the paychecks steady and more predictable.

If I wrote one book a year, I couldn't support my family. Unless my books took off or I had a major publishing deal. I feel like my writing flows better when I work at a faster pace. My goal is 10 pages a day (or 3000 words) when I am working full-time. 

So far it has been going well. I released the last book in my first series at the end of September and right now all five books have crept back into the top 100 in Epic Fantasy.

This isn't to say that slow writers are doomed. I think it depends on whether book sales are your chief source of income. The way Amazon works (promoting your book for the first two months.) faster is better. 

Look at Morgan Rice. She pits out a book like every month and a half. I haven't read them so I can't say anything about her quality, but she is raking in the dough.

I can't keep up her pace, nor do I want to try. I like the road I am heading down and I am excited to keep telling the stories stuck in my head.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

Add my name to the one-book-a-year club. My plots are complicated and would make no sense if rushed. I just can't do it. Plus, I have a life and don't write 24/7. As others have said, you have to promote and promote hard while you're writing the next book so that the existing ones stay alive. 

It seems that what's "hot" now is to write a 75,000 word novel and then break it down into five or ten installments and call it a serial. Check out H.M. Ward's 10 volume (so far) "Arrangement" series which sells for $2.99 each and has readers panting for the next. Brilliant marketing.


----------



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

Anne Frasier said:


> what a great question. this has been my fear. sometimes it seems that the indie world is geared to people who can write a lot of books. my bestselling books are my thrillers, but it takes me up to a year to write one. that amount of time spent on one book scares the hell out of me.


Same is true for Historical Fiction. It's impossible to crank them out at lightning speed, because the research can take just as long as writing the book.

I was lucky starting out (funny how perspectives change), in that during those years that my agent was trying to get me a deal, I kept writing. By the time I gave up on getting a traditional deal, I had five novels at various stages of draft. So when I did start releasing them, it _looked_ like I was putting one out every six months, while in reality it took at least 18 months to write each one.

Last year I pared down on outside responsibilities and holed myself up for the winter so I could do nothing but write. Instead of churning out more words and finishing a book in just a few months, I stalled. I lost joy in the process because I had no outside life. There was no balance. It simply didn't work for me.

I now have a part-time seasonal job - coaching. I love it, even though it pays a pittance. I use my time better. When I sit down to write, I don't worry about word count. I just immerse myself in the story. I'm still earning enough so I don't have to go back to teaching full time (the stress!) and I'm thankful that I get to do the two things I love almost every day.

I admire the folks who have the focus to write several thousand words a day and put out multiple books per year. But you can't compare yourself to one group and decide that is the only way to be 'successful'. Yes, you can still gain fans and earn a living putting out books more slowly. Do what suits you. Do what your life and family situation allows.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Thanks for all the responses.

ElHawk, thanks, that cover _is_ gorgeous and it's sold some books on its own. The artist is expensive and a bit of a pain, but I'll be using her for all my Drifting Isle books. You should see the print cover! It 100% stacks up against anything New York puts out, I mean it's jaw-dropping. She did amazing work for me.

Howletzer, yes, I check that stuff obsessively.

mrv01d, thank you.  The History books are doorstops. This next one may actually benefit from breaking into two pieces; one of the three plot threads doesn't mesh as well--well, actually, all three plot lines that MUST continue this time don't mesh as well. I have thought about putting them out as three short novels. I will PM in a bit. I've grown my mailing list to 275, I'm shopping short stories to paying markets (sold one to an anthology coming out end of this month) and I've tried to get into Bookbub to no avail. Even with fantastic reviews, they won't take Lovers and Beloveds (too much sex, I think) or Machine God (I have no idea--10 great reviews, knock-out cover--I dunno). FB ads haven't done anything for me, but I may not know what I'm doing. 

I should note that I have about eight titles on the shelf; I'm not running off one or two books.

TK, the History series started out as a webserial, so I'm used to that technique. 

Anyway, will check back/respond more later. Thanks, everyone. This has not been a great year on a nu bee of levels. I'm just trying to salvage something from it.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

MeiLin: Are you doing this full time? If so, what are you doing besides writing? To put out 4 novels a year, you need to produce, say, 400K words. If shorter novels, at 80K a pop, call it 320K. Split the dif, and you're at 365K. That's 1000 words a day of first draft, with maybe another half an hour to an hour per day for editing/rewrite. Put simply, that's about two hours a day of writing-related work, assuming you can write roughly 1000 words an hour, mas o menos. For the record, I can manage maybe 700 of decent quality heavier stuff, 1200 of lighter stuff. 

I recommend splitting your time 25% marketing related chores (which is everything related to your book selling business EXCEPT writing the books) and 75% writing. I have never advised anyone to "just keep writing." To me, that's terrible advice. Amazon is filled with books that don't sell because their authors haven't gotten the memo that books don't sell themselves. If you want to sell books, you have to invest time, energy and money in selling them. If you are part time and you spend two hours a day, that would mean spending roughly half an hour on forums, covers, emails, blogging, twitter, etc. and an hour and a half of writing. In my model above, that would be writing 1000 words (assuming 1K per hour), editing/rewrite for half an hour, then doing marketing related stuff for half an hour.

That seems pretty sustainable.

If you're doing this full time, you need to do it full time, which where I come from is an eight hour day, minimum. Six writing, two marketing related stuff. If you still can't get out more than two novels a year in that case, it's still not the end of the world - some authors just work slower. However, if you're ignoring the marketing part, you have a deficient model, not a writing speed issue. You won't sell because readers have no idea your work exists. Period.

So first off, are you part time, and are you saying that as a part time thing, you can't seem to get out more than two books a year? If that's the case, I would ask why your expectation would be to be able to compete with all those doing it full time, but only working part time hours? In what other business would you have that expectation? Whatever the case, I'd also, besides setting realistic goals, counsel you not to ignore the 25%/75% guidance, because you'll still be unknown, even if your books are brilliant.

I find these threads frustrating, in a way, because I am unclear on whether I'm hearing part time people complaining that they can't compete with full time production levels (no sh#t!), or full time people complaining about their output. Not that you're complaining. 

You can be successful with low output. If you're extremely lucky, your book finds an audience that adores it, and you market like crazy to gain visibility (and effectively, not just with busy work). But since the issue is discoverability, the more novels you have out, the more shelf space you have, and so the more discoverable you theoretically are. Having said that, having 20 crap books out is no more a solution than putting your work into a bottle and tossing it into the Amazon sea in the hopes someone finds it. 

FWIW, comparing the output of trad pubbed authors working in a completely different environment in a different era to what it takes to develop a successful writing and book selling business on Amazon, etc. is about as useful as planning your career strategy around what record and video stores buy en masse. While it may reassure some to look at the book length of The Great Gatsby or Lord of the Flies, or the output of Irving, it doesn't have a lot to do with the reality you're faced with. Sure, there will always be the exceptions - if you're George Martin, take your time. Dan Brown? No worries. But if you're trying to compete with those who work 14 hour days, who can and do generate high quality work in prodigious quantities, the answer is always the same: Work the same hours, the same way, and then perhaps you'll have the same competitive ability. If you can't or won't put in those hours, set realistic goals based on what you can do. Otherwise you'll be miserable.

Having said all of this, I still believe the 25%/75% approach is the most sane, and enforces necessary segmentation of writing, and book selling-related tasks, which are completely different tasks and require different skills, investment, and effort.

And if that's the case, and your sales are plummeting, I'd ask what did you do this week, in terms of promotions, ads, hype, to make them sell? And what did you do last week? And what do you have slated for next week? That's the 25% of the time you need to invest in book selling, versus book writing. If the answer is, not much, then you're at another serious disadvantage compared to self publishers who are working very hard to sell books, not write them - promote, advertise and market them in order to gain visibility.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> MeiLin: Are you doing this full time? If so, what are you doing besides writing? To put out 4 novels a year, you need to produce, say, 400K words. If shorter novels, at 80K a pop, call it 320K. Split the dif, and you're at 365K. That's 1000 words a day of first draft, with maybe another half an hour to an hour per day for editing/rewrite. Put simply, that's about two hours a day of writing-related work.


I think trying to apply a one-size-fits-all formula is where this falls down.
The fact is, you can't. There are some authors that will sit down and pound out their 500-1000 words a day and then go fishing. Or Twitter or whatever, knowing the job's done. I think even Stephen King recommends this like there's no other way.

Then there are the sort of authors that CANNOT write on some days (and will churn out 3000 good words on another). Nothing to do with getting the washing done or the kids to school. It's just not there. 
I'm one of those that can't bleed 200 words onto a page just for the sake of writing _something_, when I know they're not good words.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I went through the drive-thru at McDonalds this morning to get breakfast (I know, bad Julie). I had my food in under three minutes. McDonalds seems to be doing rather well.
> 
> Tonight, our company is doing an employee dinner at a place called Rembrandt's. We had to make reservations a week in advance and prepare a menu so that everything can be ready when we arrive. This place also, however, seems to be doing rather well.
> 
> ...


This is officially the most tired, clichéd, worn out point of view on the Internet.

I think everyone should do whatever they want...write however quickly they want, publish as many books as they can and want to. That said, if I see one more McDonalds/Walmart/bargain bin analogy I'm going to puke. Do you want to be ridiculed because other people can write faster than you? No? Then how about dropping the constant snide innuendos in every one of these threads suggesting that faster writers are pumping out garbage? It's baseless and obnoxious.

No one is inherently a better or worse writer because they write faster or slower. Faster and slower are ludicrous descriptions anyway, as the "faster" writers are usually writing more hours a week rather than ripping through words like a rocket. Regardless it doesn't matter. But it would be nice one day to read one of these threads without someone trying to seize the qualitative high ground.

As far as the OP's question, no one is doomed.

But there is little of value to be gleaned from listing some bestselling author's production. They are in a different position from most of us on here. Just write the next "To Kill a Mockingbird," and you can live off it the rest of your life. Easier said than done, both as a writing project and a marketing one.

The fact is that higher production does increase your chances of building a strong audience. It is not a guarantee, not even close. But it is far and away the most effective strategy at this time. To whatever extent you are able to produce an extra release, you will probably increase your chances of achieving the sales level you desire. If not, then so be it...your books can still find their market if they are good. It will just be harder. But there is no advertising or marketing that I have found that replicates the power of a new release. So you just do the best you can with the books you publish, and maybe they will start to grow.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> MeiLin: Are you doing this full time? If so, what are you doing besides writing? To put out 4 novels a year, you need to produce, say, 400K words. If shorter novels, at 80K a pop, call it 320K. Split the dif, and you're at 365K. That's 1000 words a day of first draft, with maybe another half an hour to an hour per day for editing/rewrite. Put simply, that's about two hours a day of writing-related work.
> 
> If you're doing this full time, you need to do it full time, which where I come from is an eight hour day, minimum.
> 
> ...


I agree with Russell on all of these points. I don't think slower writers are doomed, but it's much more of an uphill climb. If growing your sales is a priority, then it would be helpful to allot more hours to writing in your day.

Also, I can't believe we're still discussing this, but... Putting out a book every three months (or two months) (or every week) has nothing to do with quality. I don't have anything to do on most days but write, and it's the job that pays all of our family's bills. I would have no excuse if I weren't putting out books with pretty good frequency.



Quiss said:


> Then there are the sort of authors that CANNOT write on some days (and will churn out 3000 good words on another). Nothing to do with getting the washing done or the kids to school. It's just not there.
> I'm one of those that can't bleed 200 words onto a page just for the sake of writing _something_, when I know they're not good words.


What are "good words"? Don't you edit?



Jay Allan said:


> This is officially the most tired, clichéd, worn out point of view on the Internet.


And everything else here. Thank you for saying things more cogently than I possibly could.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Quiss: If someone is a full time writer, and doesn't invest full time hours, then they are putting in part time hours while telling themselves they are full time. In order for terms to be useful, I seek a definition of terms. By full time writer, I mean someone who works at writing and book selling for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week. Someone who "can't seem to get around to it" for six of those eight hours because of chores, or choices like going fishing, isn't investing full time hours in being successful. They are working part time hours, and doing other stuff the rest of the time.

I'm not being dogmatic. I'm being logical. For terms to have meaning, they need to have consistent meaning. I don't know any "full time" writers who are investing eight hours a day in writing (as opposed to all the other stuff that isn't writing) who can't seem to cobble together a few thousand words a day. Every one I encounter, when I drill down, doesn't actually sit down and write for eight hours. They have countless things that prevent them from doing that, including that they "don't feel like it" or the "the muse doesn't work that way." Which is fine, but then they need to realize they're not investing full time hours, any more than someone who goes to the office and spends most of their day not doing actual work, but instead chatting, or playing on the internet, or in meetings that go nowhere, is investing full time hours in their business. They may be in the building, but they're only throwing a few hours at the actual business of work, and spending the remainder of their time...not working.

To me that's rather obvious.

So, you want to generate the kind of output someone who does actually sit at their desk with the internet off, doing nothing but writing, generates? My suggestion would be to sit at your desk for eight hours, the same way, doing nothing but writing. Call me crazy, but that's my logic. I find the more hours I write, the more words I generate. And I'm not a particularly fast writer. I just choose to invest a lot of hours in doing it. Even when my muse isn't dancing. I drag her to the desk, and force her to dance. Just like ANY other kind of full time work, I don't just go in when I feel like it, work as long as I feel like, and expect to make the full time wage. To me, that's silliness.

I think one of the reasons many authors are disappointed is that they have unreal expectations based on what they are willing to do. They invest an hour or two a day, and find themselves at a disadvantage to those that invest ten? Where else would it be reasonable to believe you can do one tenth of the work and compete? In what business? Assuming identical skill, etc.? It's madness, of a kind.

If you only invest part time hours, expect to make part time money. That seems obvious. Unfortunately, if you do invest full time hours, it still doesn't mean you'll make full time money, but that's the nature of the gig. At least you'll have better odds.

Am I off the reservation with this?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> I currently can't churn out four-plus complete novels a year. I'm working on getting up to two, but I'm just not there yet. My sales have absolutely tanked--plummeted--and I don't know why. I have many terrific reviews. My last big release was April; I have a small release coming up in the next couple of weeks. Everyone says "just keep writing." And I'm going to do that. I have too many people waiting for the rest of the History series.
> 
> But are slow writers doomed? Should I even bother paying for good covers and just put these things up for friends or whatever instead? I did really well last year, and I'm just stunned. I keep saying, this is the worst month in three years...and then the next month turns out to be the worst month in three years...


God, I HOPE not. I will certainly never turn out four or more novels a year.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I would say for my response, once again, that Julie (Bards and Sages) nailed it.

In particular: "slow" writers (on the internet) are doomed to seeing people talk about how fast they write -- and to getting supposedly generic advice that really only applies to certain kinds of writers, but may not apply to you at all.

I am a proponent of fast writing ... but fast writing doesn't mean rushing. It doesn't mean matching, word-for-word, the jack rabbits among us.  It only means putting in the time and challenging yourself to keep finding the optimum pace.  To take Julie's metaphor: a fancy restaurant won't try to match MacDonald's pace, but you can be sure that the chefs in that restaurant are very efficient.

That said....

I'd like to address the idea of writing "for your friends."

As a writer who can be fast, but who is bored stiff by "best sellers" and can't stick to a genre to save her life, as well as someone who started in publishing a long time ago, and was trained in the old school: I think old attitudes -- the idea that there is professional writing and amateur writing "for your friends" -- stick with us long after they are useful.  It's not a division any more, it's a gradation.  And there are an awful lot of "semi-pros" out there now.

And the next wave of new, cool, interesting (and in a very few cases, best-selling) material is going to come out of the ranks of the semi-pros and amateurs.  (50 Shades came from fanfic, remember.  And before Steampunk was a genre, it was a style.)

I'm going through the same thing you are, for different reasons.  Creatively, I have my own thing I want to do.  It is not commercial.  That doesn't mean I don't want to make a living at it, but I have finally come to the realization that my idea of what it is to be a writer (which was formed under traditional publishing) is a pair of shackles that hold me in a void.  By setting up that mental wall between pro and amateur, I make myself neither fish nor fowl - when I could be a pickle-winged fish*.

The truth is, my best chance to break out is to stop worrying about breaking out, and to stop trying to fit in.  I need to invent my own path.


For you, the question is what you want and whether your inclinations suit it.  If not, what does suit your inclinations?  There may be a beaten path out there to follow other than the one you find here.  (Not everybody is going to have to invent their own.)

(*that's a reference to "Pish-Posh Said Hieronymous Bosch" -- a truly great out-of-print kids' book.)

Camille


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

I had a very wise woman once say to me, "Don't compare your insides to people's outsides." People have been saying to me lately, "Gosh! You write like the wind!", but the fact of the matter is that most of my recent releases I started last year, and now that I'm writing full-time, not making my word counts means homelessness. It puts writing in a way different light. Writing is a business when you're doing it full-time.

Yes, it is very hard to make a living as a writer if you are writing two books a year. Not impossible, but difficult. Take a look at the big publishers. They are releasing at least a book or two a week to keep their doors open. As indie authors, we are our own publishing houses, and having frequent offerings is necessary if we want to stay in business. A clothing store would have a tough time if they only stocked stocked their shelves with new designs once a year.

I found this book to be very helpful in increasing my word counts:



BUT! Writing doesn't have to be a business. If it takes you six months to a year to put together a book you are proud of, take the time to get it right! This is your legacy. These books will be around long after you're dead and gone. Make sure that you are producing something that will make your grandchildren (or grandnieces and nephews or grandfriends) smile and go, "This is my ancestor."

If your goal is to make a living as an indie writer, yes, writing slow makes it harder. But if your goal is to write something you love and to enjoy the journey, you're doing just fine at whatever pace you're taking.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

Jay Allan said:


> I think everyone should do whatever they want...write however quickly they want, publish as many books as they can and want to. That said, if I see one more McDonalds/Walmart/bargain bin analogy I'm going to puke. Do you want to be ridiculed because other people can write faster than you? No? Then how about dropping the constant snide innuendos in every one of these threads suggesting that faster writers are pumping out garbage? It's baseless and obnoxious.


Who said anything about quality? If you want to take it personally, I can't help that. I'm merely talking about basic economics of profit margins. In general, authors who produce lots of titles a year also tend to use a low-price/high-volume strategy. It's a perfectly fine strategy. It works in lots of industries. It isn't a value judgment. It's a reality.

If you want a less upsetting comparison, let's look at video games. You have things like Marvel Avengers on Facebook that make money on micro-transactions. Then you have games like Skyrim that make money on selling $60 games. Both work. But Marvel Avengers would fail if it tried to get people to pay $60 up from to play on Facebook. And Skyrim wouldn't have been able to pay for its development if it depended on micro-transactions. I love both games (I have spent more hours than I should admit playing both...). It isn't a "quality" issue. It's a matter of how the games generate content. Marvel Avengers pushes out new missions and events every few weeks. Skyrim has had three DLCs since it was released a couple years ago.

If you want to be offended, that is your decision.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

KateDanley said:


> BUT! Writing doesn't have to be a business. If it takes you six months to a year to put together a book you are proud of, take the time to get it right! This is your legacy. These books will be around long after you're dead and gone. Make sure that you are producing something that will make your grandchildren (or grandnieces and nephews or grandfriends) smile and go, "This is my ancestor."


Aw, I like this a lot.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> MeiLin: Are you doing this full time? If so, what are you doing besides writing? To put out 4 novels a year, you need to produce, say, 400K words. If shorter novels, at 80K a pop, call it 320K. Split the dif, and you're at 365K. That's 1000 words a day of first draft, with maybe another half an hour to an hour per day for editing/rewrite. Put simply, that's about two hours a day of writing-related work, assuming you can write roughly 1000 words an hour, mas o menos. For the record, I can manage maybe 700 of decent quality heavier stuff, 1200 of lighter stuff.
> 
> I recommend splitting your time 25% marketing related chores (which is everything related to your book selling business EXCEPT writing the books) and 75% writing. I have never advised anyone to "just keep writing." To me, that's terrible advice. Amazon is filled with books that don't sell because their authors haven't gotten the memo that books don't sell themselves. If you want to sell books, you have to invest time, energy and money in selling them. If you are part time and you spend two hours a day, that would mean spending roughly half an hour on forums, covers, emails, blogging, twitter, etc. and an hour and a half of writing. In my model above, that would be writing 1000 words (assuming 1K per hour), editing/rewrite for half an hour, then doing marketing related stuff for half an hour.
> 
> ...


You're making one heck of a lot of assumptions there about what are the writing related tasks, Blake. My research counts. Yes reading _The Scotichronicon_ a 15th-century chronicle, by the Scottish historian Walter Bower and Froissart's Chronicles by Jean Froissart, describing the conditions that created the Hundred Years' War are as much a part of my writing as the writing itself.You have NO idea how many books I read (multiple times taking extensive notes) for this latest novel or my other ones. Add to that internet research on minor points (what IS the shape of the windows in the White Tower) and begging an online friend to double check my French or yesterday's panic when I realized I needed an English translation of one of Bertran de Born's poems and couldn't manage it on my own, etc.

Many, many books aren't just a matter of how many words a day you can turn out.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> If you only invest part time hours, expect to make part time money. That seems obvious. Unfortunately, if you do invest full time hours, it still doesn't mean you'll make full time money, but that's the nature of the gig. At least you'll have better odds.
> 
> Am I off the reservation with this?


No, you are absolutely not off the reservation with this.

You and I have very different ideas of what it is to be a writer, but that one nails it.

The problem is that there are people who have to spend a whole lot more time than you do on that 1000 words.

Camille


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm a slow writer. I write 2-3000 words a day. Part of it is me, part of it what I write (lots of research). I am envious of those who can write super-fast. I'm getting faster, but I doubt I'll ever be as fast as SM Reine or others. They just have a gift for that part of the process.

I doubt I'll ever be able to write 4 or 5 novels a year for years on end. I'm shooting for 3. I'm close. Because I put in a lot of time. I have daily goals that have to be met. It's a job. An awesome one, but a job. 

It's taken me a long time to fret less about what others are doing. I still fall off that wagon. But I know that as long as I'm working hard, and that means writing when I don't want to, when it's like squeezing blood from a stone, I'll be okay. I'm doing my best and always trying to improve both quantity and quality.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

I can't begin to write until I know the story. It frequently comes out of my fingers somewhat differently than what I start with, but I need to know the general outline, and more, I need to know the voice of the story.  I've had a story outlined for a few months that I know will go fast when I actually sit down to write it, but I haven't found the right voice for it yet, and won't be able to write it until I do. Right now I'm reading books about fairy tales (written by the amazing  Jack Zipes), and reading other fairy tales, hoping that I'll be able to catch the right voice, so I can begin to set fingers to keyboard.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I usually spend a month or so plotting and researching. That's writing time and work as well. I try to treat it the same way and put in the hours every week.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

MeiLinMiranda: I'm also a slow writer, and I definitely don't think we're doomed, I just think it leads to a different sort of career trajectory. I went full-time a year ago, and went from a 12 hour-a-day, high-demand technical environment to being a full-time writer, one with a chronic illness. I published one book last December and have sold over 6,000 copies, and I'm fine with that number. I don't think I'll ever make anywhere near what I used to, but that money didn't make me happy anyway, and what I've earned from being a writer is the sweetest income I've ever had. My next book is coming this December, and I might be able to squeak in 2 books next year, but then again...I might not. I'm still amazed I was able to write a book in 10 months, this year.

I despair a little, too, when I read all the advice about being an indie and being prolific, so thank you for posting this thread .

--Maia


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

JR: Obviously, if you are doing heavy research, that would count against your writing time. But very few books involve heavy research. If you choose to write in a genre where they do, then you need to adjust.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that if you are a full time writer, you should be writing most of the time. Not considering writing. Not hoping your muse comes to you. Not cruising the web looking for ideas, or taking hours to research something that really should take 10  minutes. None of those are writing. 

Don't take umbrage at my view. If you disagree with it, fine. I tend to be very nuts and bolts. If I hire someone to paint my house in a week, and I come back after a week and they have only painted 15%, because of all the time they took researching the paint types, and considering the best ways or techniques to paint it, I will fire them and hire someone more efficient. That's how the market generally works. It rewards efficiency. That's not to say spending months researching a novel that's incredibly dense and research driven (say, historical fiction) isn't writing related. It clearly is. If you're doing that 8 hours a day, five days a week, then you're investing the time it takes, working efficiently, to be a full time writer. If you're counting reading as part of that, that isn't research, we have to disagree. I read for style, to get ideas, to sharpen my craft, but I don't count that as writing time. Because it isn't. That's prep time. Ongoing education time. Some will disagree. Again, I'm just sharing my view. If that view doesn't work for you, find one that does. Ultimately, the success or failure of a view will come down to two things: the quality of the work, and the utility of the view in generating a positive result. 

Views that don't generate a positive, useful result aren't of interest to me. Everyone's got an opinion. I'm interested in opinions that will work, right now, to make a material difference in my work or my business. I filter those I don't see as useful, and what remains is my approach. Many probably disagree with it. They are welcome to. The market will allow them to try their hand at implementing their approach, and will reward them or punish them for it. I strive for efficiency in my business. In my bookselling business, I strive for things that will generate max return with minimum effort. That's efficiency. In my book writing business, I strive for the same efficiency - I try to write prose that requires as little tuning as possible, thereby reducing rewrite time. I'm getting better at it. I outline for the same reason - I can get to Miami way easier from here if I have a map. If all I have is the idea I'd like to get to Miami, I may well get there eventually, and I may find some of the journey more interesting, but it won't be nearly as efficient as if I figure out how to get there beforehand, and do some planning for the trip.

This is not an argument over right or wrong ways. The market determines what is working and what isn't. We simply express our opinions over what we think will work or won't. I'm sharing a worldview that works for me. So far. I'll adjust it if and when I encounter a superior model, or the market tells me it's deficient. Until then, this is my opinion on how to increase output and hopefully sell more. Take what you like, and leave the rest behind. Everyone's different. If you find a way to skin the cat that differs from me, I'll try to learn from it, and incorporate it, not argue against it.

No hard feelings.

Now I've officially exhausted my non-writing time for the day.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Quiss: If someone is a full time writer, and doesn't invest full time hours, then they are putting in part time hours while telling themselves they are full time. In order for terms to be useful, I seek a definition of terms. By full time writer, I mean someone who works at writing and book selling for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week. Someone who "can't seem to get around to it" for six of those eight hours because of chores, or choices like going fishing, isn't investing full time hours in being successful. They are working part time hours, and doing other stuff the rest of the time.


You're confusing number of hours spent with words written (and by "good words" I mean those that don't then require a re-write. Note: that's NOT the same as editing).
I was specifically NOT talking about "getting around to it". I was talking about writing when the words aren't there. If I try that I end up with MacDonald's. If you can crank 'em out at the drop of a hat, then bless you.
I just cannot equate writing with doing piece-work in some sweatshop. Especially after a full day at work. Or, for someone else, dealing with the kids all day. It's easy for full time writers to say "Well, just write full time". It's just not practical, for the obvious reasons.

There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here.
The OP wasn't "how can I write full time". It was: "am I doomed because I cannot". The reasons for that aren't all that relevant.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Different people will write at different speeds and some of that is determined how much research etc they need to do. Each person has to experiment and find out what works best for them...mileage will vary. Once you get into genres like Historical Fiction there can be a big curve of research which I would include as writing time. But most genres don't need THAT much research time.

I like Blake's points.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> (Re: Julie's comparison of MacDonalds and expensive restaurants) This is officially the most tired, clichéd, worn out point of view on the Internet.


Jay, I think you're mistaking which debate we're in. This isn't the quality vs. quantity debate. Julie isn't one of those people who say "Fast writers write nothing but junk." That's a very different issue. And you are right, people who make that declaration are trying to justify themselves at the expense of others.

None of us are saying that fast writing is bad. We're not talking about the writing itself, but the business side. How you handle your business (and measure success, and how you thrive) depends on the nature of your business.

Besides, as a connoisseur of french fries, I gotta say, very few sit down restaurants -- even the incredibly wonderful ones -- can make a fry like MickyDs. And Big Macs are tasty. People who use fast food as a way to denigrate kinds of writing have no taste (buds).

Camille


----------



## Trevor H Cooley (Jun 29, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> MeiLin: Are you doing this full time? If so, what are you doing besides writing? To put out 4 novels a year, you need to produce, say, 400K words. If shorter novels, at 80K a pop, call it 320K. Split the dif, and you're at 365K. That's 1000 words a day of first draft, with maybe another half an hour to an hour per day for editing/rewrite. Put simply, that's about two hours a day of writing-related work, assuming you can write roughly 1000 words an hour, mas o menos. For the record, I can manage maybe 700 of decent quality heavier stuff, 1200 of lighter stuff.
> 
> I recommend splitting your time 25% marketing related chores (which is everything related to your book selling business EXCEPT writing the books) and 75% writing. I have never advised anyone to "just keep writing." To me, that's terrible advice. Amazon is filled with books that don't sell because their authors haven't gotten the memo that books don't sell themselves. If you want to sell books, you have to invest time, energy and money in selling them. If you are part time and you spend two hours a day, that would mean spending roughly half an hour on forums, covers, emails, blogging, twitter, etc. and an hour and a half of writing. In my model above, that would be writing 1000 words (assuming 1K per hour), editing/rewrite for half an hour, then doing marketing related stuff for half an hour.
> 
> ...


Here here. For an indy writer to expect to make the kind of money the big-money writers make, they need to treat it like a job. You can bet that most of the big-money guys do.

But writing is not about competition to see who makes the most money. If you can't or don't like investing that much time. There is no reason you need to. In my opinion, the quality of the book is what's important. Are you putting out a level of writing that you will be proud to see your name on several years down the road? If you can do that fast, great. If you can't, you'll likely lose readers.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> No, you are absolutely not off the reservation with this.
> 
> You and I have very different ideas of what it is to be a writer, but that one nails it.
> 
> ...


Yes today I've spend 3 hours on 926 words. I'm not sure why either. I thought it would flow better. I showed up but the words didn't. However, while some books come out a 1k to 4k words a day pace, I have found that it's not a specific word count that gets a book done, it's me showing up and doing what I can every day that I work.

Edit: Now 1500 words. Guess I just needed to procrastinate on KB. 
M


----------



## Nomadwoman (Aug 25, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> If you only invest part time hours, expect to make part time money. That seems obvious. Unfortunately, if you do invest full time hours, it still doesn't mean you'll make full time money, but that's the nature of the gig. At least you'll have better odds.
> 
> Am I off the reservation with this?


FASCINATING thread - and no youre firmly in your teepee but as someone else said, it's the edit, booking the edit, booking the formatter, probs with format that drags out the time. Ive been haranguing myself since someone in an author group said my problem was my last book was out a year ago - I had been pretty impressed with writing one a year! Realizing how off the reservation I am, been looking at productivity and after reading a great book (Rettig) on perfectionsim, am working that stuff thourgh now but that still doesn't produce the sales.

I am blown away by the person who said to split 75k into a series - REALLY?? Be great to have more opinion on this - I would have thought it's schlonky marketing liable to piss readers off


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Quiss: At no point do I say, just write full time.

I'm saying don't confuse writing full time, with writing part time.

The reasons why you don't write full time are irrelevant. Whether due to circumstance, or choice, or whatever. 

What I'm saying is that if you are writing part time, for whatever reason, don't expect to generate full time results. To me that seems obvious. Defending why you don't write full time isn't relevant. Just as my articulating why I do write full time isn't relevant.

In the end, I'm saying base your expectations for what you get out of a business what you invest into that business. If you have a side business you do a few hours a day, you're setting yourself up for misery and disappointment if you expect the result of someone who is investing 10 hours a day, seven days a week. With better expectations, based on what you actually do (whether due to ability, or time, or whatever), you can have more fulfillment with your work, and can more accurately gauge whether you're performing or not. 

I compare my output to people who work 10 hours a day, seven days a week at it. To compare it to those who work two a day is useless for me. And the only reason I compare at all is because I'm afraid I might be missing something important, so I study what's working for others investing the same time, energy and money. That's my way. 

My expectations are to make a full time living from investing full time hours. So far so good. If I were investing two hours a day, I would be delusional to expect to make full time money. Because I'm not investing full time hours, for whatever reasons.

Having reasonable expectations are key, in my opinion, to satisfaction, in business. And selling books is a business. Writing them is art/craft. But when you write to put food on the table, it becomes business as well. So if you expect to put food on the table, my advice is to treat it like a business.

That's all.

Nomad: That's where striving for greater efficiency with each step becomes critical. Inefficiency robs you of valuable efficient time. I've spent years now trying to fine tune the process so that I don't have any wasted motion in the process. It's never easy - entropy conspires against us all. But our goal should always be to be better/faster/cheaper, even if it seems impossible.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Nomadwoman said:


> I am blown away by the person who said to split 75k into a series - REALLY?? Be great to have more opinion on this - I would have thought it's schlonky marketing liable to p*ss readers off


Look at the reviews of Holly's books (HM Ward), esp The Arrangement serial. There are tons of people complaining about it being released in episodes. And there are tons and tons more who love it that way and can't wait for the next episode. I think comparing a novel to a serial is like comparing a movie to a TV show. Different stories work for different formats. The Buffy movie sucked. The Buffy series went on for seven years and was heaven.

As a side note, I'm now convinced (and a lot of people will say "well, duh, LK") that my sales are slower than they need to be because I keep starting new series without finishing the ones I have going. I've sabotaged my efforts. My goal now is to get my house in order in that regard.

Though I'm writing a new serial right now at the same time I'm finishing up the 3rd and 4th book in the Tethers series. argh.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> Views that don't generate a positive, useful result aren't of interest to me. Everyone's got an opinion. I'm interested in opinions that will work, right now, to make a material difference in my work or my business.


I think the problem is illustrated right there: we're not talking about YOUR work or YOUR business.

You're leveraging who you are and how you think and what you write into a very personal and specific business model. You do a great job of sharing insights from intense observation of your own business methods and techniques.

But it's impossible to replicate that without actually becoming you.

Here's an example:

When you write quickly without research, without muse time (as in musing -- not waiting for the muse), you naturally write very consistent stories that line up into a series. When I write fast... I don't even stay in the same genre within the same book.

And that's fine, that's actually what I want to do -- so I don't object to fast writing -- except that your other absolute don't break it rule is to pick a genre and stick with it. If I write six books one after another, they will not go together. So what is it? Consistent genre or writing fast?

We're trying to help Meilin find what's useful to her business. And your example is great, but she's got to ignore it if it doesn't work for HER business.

Camille


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Nomadwoman said:


> I am blown away by the person who said to split 75k into a series - REALLY?? Be great to have more opinion on this - I would have thought it's schlonky marketing liable to p*ss readers off


I look at sales, not complaints. If complaints affect sales, then I revisit. So far, it has not been a problem for me.

RE: HM Ward, she's at a level where I wouldn't take any complaints seriously. They come out of the woodwork once you're popular enough. Clearly, she's selling just fine.

If you can split things up and sell, then do it.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

I think Blake and Julie are both getting at the same thing from different perspectives, which is something like:

What are your goals? What are your expectations?

When I read MeiLin's original post, I hear a lot of disappointment in herself. I don't know what's behind that, but you sound like you're expecting something from your writing and your life that you're not achieving. That's a hard situation to be in, and probably not something that can be resolved by simply writing faster or writing more. If I felt that way, I'd ask myself what I was disappointed about, and whether my expectations were realistic or whether I could do something more to achieve them.

As for me, I turn 60 this month. I am a terribly slow writer. Words come slowly anyway, and I have paralyzing fear about the act of putting my stories out in the world. The chances that I'm ever going to get rich or make a big splash are pretty much nil.

But I don't feel doomed at all. I don't feel disappointed. I've never been happier in my life, because I'm doing exactly what I've wanted to do my whole life long. I would love to make a ton of money (not so interested in the fame part), but I won't be sad if I don't. Because my life is what I want it to be.

What would make your life what you want it to be? If you wish for fame and fortune, then you may be doomed to disappointment because those are things you can't entirely control.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Daring: I have those rules for those who wish to maximize their chances of being financially successful. Not for being artistically the most satisfied. I developed them because I, like you, enjoy writing in multiple genres. I tried that. It failed. So I now work in one or two very closely-related genres, because I want to be financially successful at the business of selling books.

None of it is easy. Ever. 

For the record, I don't advocate fast writing. I don't advocate any kind of writing except hopefully good writing. My "speed" comes from writing ten to twelve hours a day, not at being fast. If I only did this for four hours a day, I'd be lucky to get out 3K.

If you want to be financially successful at book selling, produce a good amount of high quality work in the same genre, and spend time marketing it so people know it's available. That's my big secret. If it doesn't work for some, or if their goal is not to be financially successful at the business of selling books, then no problem. I still wish everyone well.

Now I'm outta here. This time for real.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Fast or slow, I think the key is to be a flavor. A very specific flavor. Maybe not everybody likes it, but those who do, really do.

My main issue is I crave novelty. I've got a magical realism (not even urban fantasy) story I want to write. Bless my readers, but I'm sure fewer than 5% would have any interest in reading it. So, I'm tentatively planning to write it as a novella, rather than a big, long novel that takes me months. The book would be mainly for me, and I know it won't help my career, but that's a choice I'll make.

As for speed, again, there's a vast difference between those who are writing in addition to a full-time job or other complications versus those for whom writing is their full-time job.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Mimi said:


> Fast or slow, I think the key is to be a flavor. A very specific flavor. Maybe not everybody likes it, but those who do, really do.
> 
> My main issue is I crave novelty. I've got a magical realism (not even urban fantasy) story I want to write. Bless my readers, but I'm sure fewer than 5% would have any interest in reading it. So, I'm tentatively planning to write it as a novella, rather than a big, long novel that takes me months. The book would be mainly for me, and I know it won't help my career, but that's a choice I'll make.


I know the feeling. I desperately want to break into hard science fiction, but I know that 99% of my readers wouldn't be interested. I also want to break into high fantasy - like, super D&D/Pathfinder sword and sorcery - and that would also be of zero interest to most of my readers. Whatever series I write after this one is going to be heroine-oriented urban fantasy with lots of action and hints of romance. Exact same niche I'm writing in now. And that's where I'm staying until I have enough money to retire or I stop making enough $$$ off of it to survive, at which point I'll reassess.


----------



## xoxo (Sep 6, 2013)

I'm not a marketing genius, so I apologise if the following is so dumb it makes you weep:

If one publishes 1 book per year, in five years they have 5 books out, correct? What is the difference with having published those 5 books in 5 years versus having published them in a year? I mean the end result, financially?

I thought the whole idea behind this publish-a-lot-of-books-as-quick-as-you-can approach was specifically to build a backlist. Isn't the backlist going to be there whether you go fast or slow?

I actually have no idea how fast I am as a writer. I can be fast, depends how well I know what I'm going to type (I'm a pantser-plotter hybrid). But what _does_ take a lot of time is the post-production part. A thorough revision, edit, making covers, second edit, formatting, double checking things. I'm definitely a slow publisher. A novel a year is likely the best I can do.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> Jay, I think you're mistaking which debate we're in. This isn't the quality vs. quantity debate. ***** isn't one of those people who say "Fast writers write nothing but junk." That's a very different issue. And you are right, people who make that declaration are trying to justify themselves at the expense of others.


Thank you. It was never about quality. It was about volume of content. The quality of that content only matters when compared to other content of the same type. I'm not arguing that Rembrandt's has better quality than McDonalds. Like you, I doubt the restaurant's red bliss potatoes will rate as highly as McD's fries  But you can't compare them on a _quality_ scale because they serve two completely different markets and have different customer expectations. Ye gods know I've been to plenty of high brow dining establishments that were so fancy I couldn't stomach the food. 

To add to the conversation, some genres also lend themselves to faster writing. As has been noted, if you are writing historical fiction, you get slowed down because you have to do a lot of fact checking. If you write hard sci-fi, you spend a lot of time checking your fiction against the science to make sure it is plausible. Some plots require slower writing. If you need a flow chart to keep track of all of your characters and plot strings (I'm looking at you, George R.R. Martin) then you are going to produce much slower than someone with a straightforward railroad plot line.

I can churn out game content at the drop of a hat. Heck, I wrote 4,000 words last night for a mod I created for Skyrim (WOOT! I successfully created my first mod! Be afraid, people!). And not to boast, but for what it is, I consider it rather high quality content in relation to other game mods.  But I can't always churn out that volume for my full length stuff because it requires a lot of plotting and fact-checking.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> Now I'm outta here. This time for real.


To summarize the absolute point of agreement -- the above is probably the most critical bit of advice: Get off the internet and get to work.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

tkkenyon said:


> Or steampunk-dragon erotica. That might be the next-next thing.


I don't read erotica, but even I would be tempted to read that if for no other reason than the train-wreck effect...


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

PiiaBre said:


> I thought the whole idea behind this publish-a-lot-of-books-as-quick-as-you-can approach was specifically to build a backlist. Isn't the backlist going to be there whether you go fast or slow?


But, if you write fast, the backlist will be there faster and there'll be more of it. One book a year, you'll have ten books after ten years. Five books a year, you'll have fifty books after ten years.

That doesn't mean the fast writer will make more money, but they have a better chance of doing so.

Asimov, for example, wrote five hundred books. He'd have had a hard time doing so at one a year.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Mimi said:


> Fast or slow, I think the key is to be a flavor. A very specific flavor. Maybe not everybody likes it, but those who do, really do.
> 
> My main issue is I crave novelty. I've got a magical realism (not even urban fantasy) story I want to write. Bless my readers, but I'm sure fewer than 5% would have any interest in reading it. So, I'm tentatively planning to write it as a novella, rather than a big, long novel that takes me months. The book would be mainly for me, and I know it won't help my career, but that's a choice I'll make.
> 
> As for speed, again, there's a vast difference between those who are writing in addition to a full-time job or other complications versus those for whom writing is their full-time job.


Mimi - I love this. I think your flavor is joie de vivre


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

smreine said:


> I know the feeling. I desperately want to break into hard science fiction, but I know that 99% of my readers wouldn't be interested. I also want to break into high fantasy - like, super D&D/Pathfinder sword and sorcery - and that would also be of zero interest to most of my readers. Whatever series I write after this one is going to be heroine-oriented urban fantasy with lots of action and hints of romance. Exact same niche I'm writing in now. And that's where I'm staying until I have enough money to retire or I stop making enough $$$ off of it to survive, at which point I'll reassess.


If you do write either of those... let THIS reader of yours know, k? I'll be happy to snatch one up.  Esply high fantasy.


----------



## I&#039;ve been burned (Jul 26, 2013)

mrv01d said:


> I look at sales, not complaints. If complaints affect sales, then I revisit. So far, it has not been a problem for me.
> 
> RE: HM Ward, she's at a level where I wouldn't take any complaints seriously. They come out of the woodwork once you're popular enough. Clearly, she's selling just fine.
> 
> If you can split things up and sell, then do it.


I think this greatly depends on genre. I have yet to see the serial aspect really take off in, say, paranormal romance. Some people write cliffhangers, but that is a different thing than a serial. If I'm wrong, then someone please point out some PNR examples, as I'd love to take a look.  My writing style for my AMT series has so many twists and turns that it *could* possibly be broken up into a serial, but I'm afraid to do that and nothing happens...

Also, someone mentioned not trusting authors who write 3-4 books a year? Even in traditional publishing, that's the norm for romance!


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> To add to the conversation, some genres also lend themselves to faster writing. As has been noted, if you are writing historical fiction, you get slowed down because you have to do a lot of fact checking. If you write hard sci-fi, you spend a lot of time checking your fiction against the science to make sure it is plausible. Some plots require slower writing. If you need a flow chart to keep track of all of your characters and plot strings (I'm looking at you, George R.R. Martin) then you are going to produce much slower than someone with a straightforward railroad plot line.
> 
> I can churn out game content at the drop of a hat. Heck, I wrote 4,000 words last night for a mod I created for Skyrim (WOOT! I successfully created my first mod! Be afraid, people!). And not to boast, but for what it is, I consider it rather high quality content in relation to other game mods.  But I can't always churn out that volume for my full length stuff because it requires a lot of plotting and fact-checking.


Yeah, there are two questions here, and very often what you have to do is find out what you can write faster and more consistently, and then find out whether that is marketable or not.

Here's a question for you: you turn out game content quickly -- is that something you can make a living at?

I'm looking at doing more nonfiction. (And actually playing with "writing game" materials too.) I have no idea how marketable my nonfic will be, but I can write it at a speed that even moderate sales would make it worth doing.

Camille


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Jessie Donovan said:


> I think this greatly depends on genre. I have yet to see the serial aspect really take off in, say, paranormal romance. Some people write cliffhangers, but that is a different thing than a serial. If I'm wrong, then someone please point out some PNR examples, as I'd love to take a look.  My writing style for my AMT series has so many twists and turns that it *could* possibly be broken up into a serial, but I'm afraid to do that and nothing happens...
> 
> Also, someone mentioned not trusting authors who write 3-4 books a year? Even in traditional publishing, that's the norm for romance!


I did a three part novella serial in pnr that did surprisingly well, but I don't link my books on KB so you'll have to take my word on it, or not.

Also, just hit the 2k mark. Sometimes the internet helps lol.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> Yeah, there are two questions here, and very often what you have to do is find out what you can write faster and more consistently, and then find out whether that is marketable or not.
> 
> Here's a question for you: you turn out game content quickly -- is that something you can make a living at?
> 
> ...


I publish both RPGs and spec fiction. My RPG stuff is sold exclusively through RPGNOW in digital format. I do well enough  Where I get bogged down production-wise is the playtesting. That takes much longer than the actual writing. We playtested _Post-Apocalyptic Blues_ for a good four months to work out the bugs. And the line editing is always a bear because stat blocks are a pain in the backside. But the writing itself? I finished the entire campaign book in about a month and a half. It is everything else that takes forever!


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

Ditto to what Russell wrote (in his second post).


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Quiss said:


> Sorry, we've talked amongst ourselves and have concluded that you're not actually writing.
> You're set up in your lair with your typewriter and your scotch and a thoughtful frown while "the wife" is stuck with the housework.
> C'mon, you can admit it.


It's more like Nicholson in The Shining. "All work and no play makes Fred a dull boy. All work and no play makes..."


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Thank you for all the replies, guys. Here's my situation. I don't have an outside job, so technically I'm fulltime. I have fibromyalgia and a rare heart condition; the latter is well-managed but the former still lays me up some days. I forget sometimes that of the last ten months I've been flat on my back for three--pneumonia, labyrinthitis and then minor heart surgery, a month apiece.

I also have two teenaged daughters, one of whom just started a demanding high-school-to-college program after homeschooling her whole life--MAJOR shift in everyone's routine--and I feel like I've spent more time in the car/away from my desk the last two months than in the last year. I'm on my iPad from the youngest one's one-day homeschool program at the moment, and I'll be here all day.

I'm very dependent on Scrivener; my main series is this sprawling family saga/epic fantasy and I've got lots of continuity issues and research in that file. When Scrivener issues its iPad app (sooooon pleeeaaase!) it'll be easier.

I have 2k to 10k and I agree--a totally awesome book. I've determined my prime writing time is 8 am to 2 pm...the exact hours when I'm having to deal with all my family stuff. Right now if I can squeeze out 500 words a day I'm doing good. I'm working on clearing more morning time. It'll be easier when the oldest doesn't need so much support in the morning. I need a wife.

Things are settling down, but even when things are more stable I turn out a History book in 13-18 months, with maybe two short stories and a novella in that time as well. This latest one is taking longer, but in the time since the last one came out I've written another novel, a novella, about half a second novella and two short stories. The novel and finished novella are out, one short story has sold to an anthology, the second I'm shopping to SWFA markets both for the cash and potentially to qualify for SFWA. Not sure I want to join but want the option.

I have yet to figure out my marketing. I have a mailing list I'm just now figuring out how to use. I hate FB and love twitter, but I'm on the latter for personal reasons; I don't think it's for selling books but building relationships. I blog intermittently. I've never had an ad work out. Select did nothing for me. The fans I have are rabid and supportive, perhaps 75-100 I can count on to buy pretty much anything I write, and I'm not related to nor do I know the vast majority of them--maybe five. Until the last six months or so my own husband hadn't read me.

As for flavor, I may be acquired. I have a distinct 19th century cast to my writing, and I don't open with car chases and explosions. I don't want to open with car chases and explosions...


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

I can crank out first drafts like there's no tomorrow, but turning them into something I'd be comfortable publishing takes me LOTS of time. An almost infinite amount, it seems some times. Two novels/year seems to be my pace, at least for now.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

WilliamEsmont said:


> I can crank out first drafts like there's no tomorrow, but turning them into something I'd be comfortable publishing takes me LOTS of time.


I'm finding the more I write, the less I need (or want) to do after the first draft.

If I spot a major problem during the first draft, I go back and rewrite whatever I need to fix, if I spot a minor problem, I make a note to fix it later. Then it's just any other changes from beta reader feedback, then copy-editing, and it's done. The writing may not be up there with the masters of literature, but, by that point, I really don't think I could make it much better without starting again from scratch... better to write something else than keep fiddling with it.

I've also found that, when I have made multiple drafts and rewritten a lot of the story, I would eventually go back and put in a lot of what I removed from the first draft because it was better than the later versions.


----------



## minxmalone (Oct 28, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Being a slow writer, therefore, is not the issue. Trying to market as a fast writer is where you will get in trouble.


+1

I am not a fast writer. When I had a full-time job I could only write at night (when I wasn't too tired) or on the weekend (when I could get away from the hubby and kids). I was lucky to get out one 50,000 word short novel in a year. If I was lucky.

Once I started writing full-time, I thought it would be a piece of cake to do 10x that amount of words. After all, I used to only have a few hours a week to write and now I have 40+ hours a week to write. I'm sure you can guess what happened. I'm not really writing much faster than before. I will have 3 releases this year instead of the 10 that I thought would be so easy. Oh how I laugh at myself sometimes...

Anyway, the thing is - my characters have to roll around in my head for a long time before I know what to do with them. Some people can write fast because their stories gel quickly and they know what they want the characters to do. Unfortunately my characters just skulk around my brain like those avatars in the Sims game.

There are ways to keep your readers engaged between new releases. For example, I'm releasing a Christmas novella next month that was originally going to be a part of my December book. But I realized the story could easily be reworked into a novella and that would give me a 4th *release*. I've also started a Facebook group for the series where I post sneak peeks and behind-the-scenes info. Fans post pictures of actors they think could play my characters and ask me questions about my writing process. That keeps them engaged between books.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

minxmalone said:


> +1
> 
> Anyway, the thing is - my characters have to roll around in my head for a long time before I know what to do with them. Some people can write fast because their stories gel quickly and they know what they want the characters to do. Unfortunately my characters just skulk around my brain like those avatars in the Sims game.


Yep. I have to mull things over a lot and sometimes it's slow even when the characters are talking to me. Also, I refuse to get out of bed at midnight and write just b/c they have things to say. Maybe when the kids don't need an alert mother in the morning, I can keep crazy writer hours, for now I need to be competent to drive as of 7am.

As for speed, I'm getting faster at pulling stories together, believe it or not. I don't think you can judge your future output by your first year full time. You're still a rookie when it comes to full time, you'll acquire productivity tricks and figure out how you work moving forward.

M


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

+1 for mulling it over. 

I live a chapter in my mind for days sometimes before I sit to type it. Sometimes I open the manuscript thinking I am further along in my typing because I have lived the story that deeply. Then I open the manuscript and panic "where is those chapters!" until I release... they have not hit the paper yet! heh.


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

I'd take the first act of the greater history first book and spin it off as a perma-free. Make sure it ends on a cliffhanger. Make it clear that it's a free excerpt. James Patterson does this, see Daniel X: Armageddon - FREE PREVIEW EDITION (The First 9 Chapters). Some readers will complain about a cliffhanger ending, but since the excerpt is free, I personally wouldn't worry about it. If that doesn't sit right with you, you can load up the one short story prequel you have with the act one excerpt. And have that be perma-free.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

This thread is scaring me into a writer's block.

If slower writers are doomed, then I am in the worst possible state:
- I write part time.
- I write full-length novels. Episodic serials do not appeal to me as a writer. (Edited: I do read serials. I just can't write them. Don't have the ability to do it.)
- I spend an enormous amount of time in research before I write - sometimes a year or two, sometimes more.
- But when I am done with the research, I write fast. It's getting to that point that's the problem.
- I write many drafts.
- I self-edit ad infinitum.
- After I'm done, it will take 2 months for my editors to work and that doesn't include proofreading.

Doomed 'R Us?









http://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483190667453/


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2013)

JanThompson said:


> This thread is scaring me into a writer's block.
> 
> If slower writers are doomed, then I am in the worst possible state:
> - I write part time.


If you would have asked that question before self-publishing took off people'd probably say you're doing everything right. It's a race now it seems, for better or worse.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Greg Strandberg said:


> If you would have asked that question before self-publishing took off people'd probably say you're doing everything right. It's a race now it seems, for better or worse.


Yes. I hope I don't end up being a spectator, but at the same time I want to be careful about balancing life and writing.

I realized a little while ago (a year ago -- okay that's not a little while) that I need to speed up my research. Or write non-fiction instead.


----------



## minxmalone (Oct 28, 2012)

mrv01d said:


> As for speed, I'm getting faster at pulling stories together, believe it or not. I don't think you can judge your future output by your first year full time. You're still a rookie when it comes to full time, you'll acquire productivity tricks and figure out how you work moving forward.
> 
> M


This deserves to be repeated. It used to take me forever to come up with just a basic outline for a story. After doing it multiple times, now it's not so bad. I feel like I've learned a lot about story structure in the past two years.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> Jay, I think you're mistaking which debate we're in. This isn't the quality vs. quantity debate. Julie isn't one of those people who say "Fast writers write nothing but junk." That's a very different issue. And you are right, people who make that declaration are trying to justify themselves at the expense of others.
> 
> None of us are saying that fast writing is bad. We're not talking about the writing itself, but the business side. How you handle your business (and measure success, and how you thrive) depends on the nature of your business.
> 
> ...


With al l due respect, that is exactly what she said. If someone came on here and made as snarky a remark about slow writers there would be apoplectic fits going on all over the place.

I don't really care, but it does get tiresome.

The OP asked about the effect on sales prospects of fewer releases. No, of course it doesn't doom anyone. Yes, however, based on every scrap of available evidence out there, it does severely hurt your chances of sustaining significant sales. That's just an honest answer, not a shot at anyone.


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

> Doomed (v):
> 
> 1.Condemn to certain destruction or death: "fuel was spilling out of the damaged wing and the aircraft was doomed".
> 2.Cause to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome: "her plan was doomed to failure".


You will not be destroyed if you don't write quickly. Bombs branded "failed writer" will not rain down on you out of the sky.

You will not fail as a writer if you write slowly. The only way to fail as a writer is to not write.

Writing slowly means you have less product. That is all.

Having less product will not change whether one of your books is a break-out hit or not - we've seen enough people with only one mill river book released sell enormous numbers to know that isn't true.

Having more product does mean you have more stuff to sell, and if someone is going through your backlist reading all your books, you will get more money. Having more stuff out there means greater visibility. Having more stuff to sell is likely (but not guaranteed) to increase your overall income. Having more stuff to sell will not guarantee you a break-out hit, or even sufficient income to write full time.

But unless "must have full time comfortable income from writing this year" is your criteria for "not doomed", then where is the down side to writing at your own pace? Write. Put books out. Enjoy yourself.

I'd love to write full time, but my books currently earn only a quarter of my day job salary. And I look at that and go: "Isn't it AMAZING that I get all this extra money from something I'd do anyway!"


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Who said anything about quality? If you want to take it personally, I can't help that. I'm merely talking about basic economics of profit margins. In general, authors who produce lots of titles a year also tend to use a low-price/high-volume strategy. It's a perfectly fine strategy. It works in lots of industries. It isn't a value judgment. It's a reality.
> 
> If you want a less upsetting comparison, let's look at video games. You have things like Marvel Avengers on Facebook that make money on micro-transactions. Then you have games like Skyrim that make money on selling $60 games. Both work. But Marvel Avengers would fail if it tried to get people to pay $60 up from to play on Facebook. And Skyrim wouldn't have been able to pay for its development if it depended on micro-transactions. I love both games (I have spent more hours than I should admit playing both...). It isn't a "quality" issue. It's a matter of how the games generate content. Marvel Avengers pushes out new missions and events every few weeks. Skyrim has had three DLCs since it was released a couple years ago.
> 
> If you want to be offended, that is your decision.


OK, for reasons that are unclear to me, I'm going to try to explain what I am saying. It is extremely foolish to suggest that a book written in two months and one written in a year are ANY different from each other on that basis alone. No McDonalds, no micro payments, NO different. Yes, some books are better than others (of course), though there is enormous subjectivity there.

What is different is the volume of books out there from that author. More books are more chances to snare readers. When I put out a new book in a series, my sales on the first and other books jump too. Why? Another book, a new release gives me more exposure. Someone sees it, it catches their eye like the previous books failed to do...but they see "book 6" and start looking for book one.

A person that reads one book from you and likes it is a fragile thing. If there is nothing else for them to move to, they will forget you easily. We live in media soaked times. On the other hand, a reader who reads three or four of your books becomes invested. He or she is a fan.

There are many reasons, most of which I probably don't understand, that make more production an advantage. When someone comes on this board with marketing and sales related questions, they deserve a truthful point of view, not a rousing chorus of Slow Writers of the World Unite. No one, NO ONE, told the OP he was doomed. But Russell's points were enormously helpful. Almost anyone can find a little extra time to write if they are serious. Almost anyone can learn to be a little more organized if they are serious. I'll put myself at the top of the list. I get my books out pretty quickly, but I'm the first one to admit I could make better use of my time. A little less web surfing and daydreaming while at the keyboard and poof, I'd have an extra release.

When I first started researching KDP, there were people on this board being extremely generous with very detailed information. SM Reine was one of them. Liliana Hart was another. When people who are succeeding enormously tell you what works for them, listen. They are trying to help you, not insult you. So it might be nice not to compare them to cheap fast food. Just sayin...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> JR: Obviously, if you are doing heavy research, that would count against your writing time. But very few books involve heavy research. If you choose to write in a genre where they do, then you need to adjust.
> 
> I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that if you are a full time writer, you should be writing most of the time. Not considering writing. Not hoping your muse comes to you. Not cruising the web looking for ideas, or taking hours to research something that really should take 10 minutes. None of those are writing.
> 
> ...


I wasn't so much taking umbrage as pointing out that not all writing is the same and some of it is a heck of a lot more complicated than sitting down at a keyboard. It isn't only HF that is true of. A lot of science fiction does. A lot of adventure does if it involves far-flung locations and perhaps weapons, fighting techniques the author isn't already acquainted with, etc. (I wouldn't count reading that isn't research related as writing time, but that's me)

I don't wish HF on anyone as a choice of genres to tell you the truth. But some of us do write it and you have my permission to say we're insane. Fortunately that also means that for the non-romance type HF, there isn't as much competition as you might think so any one of us will probably get a good amount of the niche.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

It's nice to know that nothing said here applies to me. My plan is simple. Write the greatest novel ever written, then rest on my laurels. (I know they're around here somewhere--probably hanging out with those flavors Dalya mentioned.) I even have a time frame to execute my plan (based on past writing productivity) I think 15 years ought to do it. 

OP, you sound _*incredibly*_ productive, considering the stresses in your life. I'm somewhat awed by what you've accomplished so far. I do not see doom in your future.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Jay Allan said:


> I think everyone should do whatever they want...write however quickly they want, publish as many books as they can and want to. That said, if I see one more McDonalds/Walmart/bargain bin analogy I'm going to puke. Do you want to be ridiculed because other people can write faster than you? No? Then how about dropping the constant snide innuendos in every one of these threads suggesting that faster writers are pumping out garbage? It's baseless and obnoxious.


Yeah...I have to agree that I see that line touted often and it's just not reality.

I spent two years writing Baptism for the Dead. It sells like crap.

The Crook and Flail is my best-selling and highest-rated book, consistently appearing on the appropriate genre "Best Rated" lists, currently #2 in its HF category, and only because Colin Falconer just did a BookBub promo with his book that's now at #1. I wrote it in three weeks.

It simply is not true that time spent on a book correlates to its quality, no matter how you choose to measure quality: reader satisfaction or sales.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> The Crook and Flail is my best-selling and highest-rated book...


Well, duh! It has boobs on the cover!


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

> I don't think you can judge your future output by your first year full time. You're still a rookie when it comes to full time, you'll acquire productivity tricks and figure out how you work moving forward.


This is a great point. I've learned a ton in the last 10 months, and I think I'm putting together more usable words than I used to (before I went full-time, I had been writing seriously for 10 years, and had produced 2 books, only 1 of which I felt ready to publish.

Also, +1 for skulking characters and mulling. Mmmmmmmmmm...mulling...


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

EC Sheedy said:


> Write the greatest novel ever written, then rest on my laurels.


Ha!


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I don't know.

I don't write particularly fast, but have been writing for a while and have put all my back list out over the past years. This means I have nine full-length novels including two series. I think that's a decent list.

I think it's now important to consolidate on those books. With insights I've gained over the past two years, I'm upgrading some of my books, looking at pace, looking at covers, blurbs, translations, mailing lists, advertising. I think it's important to nurture your books, especially when a series is complete.

For two lone novels I have out there, the best investment I can make is to write book 2 and book 3. People want series, especially in SF/F.

So: look at what sells in your genre. Maintain your books. Don't let them sit there by themselves and expect people to find them.

I left the corporate world because I grew sick of being forced to justify my day in 15-minute slots. I wanted to be able to do what I felt most enthusiastic doing at any point in time, rather than to be a slave to deadlines and rigidly planned projects.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

First off, I am not a full time writer, so I can't compare my production to those who are. I also work in research intensive genres, historical fantasy (heavy on the historical) and science fiction. I try to make time for about two hours of writing a day, five days a week, and I know I can't compare myself to those of you who are full time writers. But I do write almost every day, and I do write even when the "muse" (which I don't particularly believe in) is absent -- I'm more of a believer in Butt In Chair.

Second off, about half a year ago, I stopped doing any major marketing for my books. Last year, my marketing efforts regularly resulted in big jumps in sales that lasted several weeks. As long as I rotated my books, I could keep sales for all my books going. 

This year, the results from marketing strategies were producing littler and littler bumps in sales, and when I did a Bookbub ad that barely broke even, I decided I had to get more books out there before I started expending the same kind of energy on marketing that I had been previously. Last year, I was doing pretty well bringing out collections of my previously published short stories, now they sell maybe one copy a month, and they don't help at all in promoting the novels. 

So now I am working on a couple of longer works I'm aiming able to publish in November and December. I don't know how much they will help, seeing as I am a slow writer, given research and time constraints, and I can't yet judge when I will have other related books / novellas available. I will do my best to promote them, though, and will turn the marketing machine back on at that time. But I still find it very hard to figure out what works and what doesn't. Doing nothing, however, is of course catastrophical (my sales have dwindled to about one a day). When the new books are out, I intend to experiment and start from scratch. While trying to improve my daily word count in the time available to me. 

And maybe writing erotica on the side. *g*


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Jay Allan said:


> So it might be nice not to compare them to cheap fast food. Just sayin...


I do like to think of myself as the In N Out Burger of indie publishing, to be fair. "Quality You Can Taste. Licking Your Kindle Not Recommended."


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

When Ernest Hemingway's first novel became a bestseller, he went out and bought a yacht.  He knew he would keep on getting revenue from that book and that he could keep writing novels at a comfortable pace for a lifetime.  That was the trad path for a literary writer back in the day, starting with the hardback.

Which would you rather do: write one big novel every 2-3 years, or 2 novels every year, to make a living?  Which path will burn you out faster, leaving hard drinking aside?

One question to consider is whether the trad model will hold up, for those who can manage to get on that path.  If it does not,  If the big hardcover launch becomes too expensive,  then all but a few top bestsellers will climb aboard the hamster wheel and run their little legs off.  Maybe.


----------



## Barrymore Tebbs (Feb 19, 2012)

Quality > Quantity


----------



## Anne Berkeley (Jul 12, 2013)

I am a slow writer, but I'm not dependent on profits so I don't push myself. I've put out two books this year. Hopefully a third in another month. But what I've noticed is that when I can't concentrate on one book, I start on another. My mind tends to wander. I have about three books in progress. Truthfully, I think it's all in the marketing. (Which unfortunately I am terrible at.) My goal for now is to finish the last of my first series and beginning marketing like crazy. Anyhow, rambling here. I read many authors who only put out one book a year. I really don't see anything wrong with that. I still buy.  As long as your writing is of quality, your fans will wait. Perhaps you need to start marketing and build your fan base?


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Barrymore Tebbs said:


> Quality > Quantity


Sigh.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

John Irving was hyper-productive (and so are you) compared with J.D. Salinger and Ralph Ellison--each of whom produced three books, I think, in a lifetime.

I'm slow, too, probably much slower than you, and only partly because I cannot both be a freelance editor and write; when I edit, my own writing is completely shelved.

I hope it also matters not just how _much_ you write, how many words you add to the trillions out there, but also what difference your words make to your life, to the lives of people around you, to the universe.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> OK, for reasons that are unclear to me, I'm going to try to explain what I am saying. It is extremely foolish to suggest that a book written in two months and one written in a year are ANY different from each other on that basis alone. No McDonalds, no micro payments, NO different. Yes, some books are better than others (of course), though there is enormous subjectivity there.


Jay, you don't need to explain what you're saying -- we understand it an agree with it, for the most part. What's wrong is you are STILL completely misinterpreting what Julie was saying. And it doesn't help anyone when you set up a straw man and knock it down.

She is not comparing products. It has nothing to do with the products. It has to do with business models -- how you approach your audience, etc.

Maybe it would be easier for you to understand if I compare two fast food joints:

MacDonald's uses a drive-thru. Pizza places use delivery.

Burgers don't do very well with delivery. Even quick delivery causes more degradation of the quality. And many drive through customers are actually looking for food on the go, anyway. So the whole business model of MickeyD's was originally designed around food you could eat while driving. And that's also why they have a large eating area designed for families.

Little Caesar's on the other hand, was designed for people who can't or don't want to run someplace to eat. People don't want a large, sloppy unwieldy slice of pizza while they are driving. (Well, they DO, but it's not practical.) They want something that feeds a lot of people. So Little Sleazer's and Papa John's don't have a dining room in most locations.

And because they have different business models, advice for one doesn't necessarily suit the other. I know of two pizza places that put themselves out of business by trying to go for the drive thru strategy.

What Julie was saying is that ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. And that is absolutely true. If you're a fast writer, you have more flexibility in how you approach your business, but if you are slower, you still have lots of business opportunities, but you have to use a different strategy to take advantage of those opportunities.

If you're a slower writer, then you shouldn't use the same business strategies as a fast writer. That will just screw you up.

Does that make more sense to you?

Camille


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

i have to say Daringnovelist, you're consistently insightful, and without being snarky or combative either.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> Jay, you don't need to explain what you're saying -- we understand it an agree with it, for the most part. What's wrong is you are STILL completely misinterpreting what Julie was saying. And it doesn't help anyone when you set up a straw man and knock it down.
> 
> She is not comparing products. It has nothing to do with the products. It has to do with business models -- how you approach your audience, etc.
> 
> ...


Ok, here goes.

She did not simply compare business strategies. She used an analogy that compared the faster writer to a fast food chain while assigning an upscale restaurant to the slower writer. While she may have made other points in her overall post, the overall premise is unmistakable. Do you really believe the McDonalds vs upscale restaurant characterization does not suggest qualitative superiority?

What if I were to offer analogy making precisely the same point you infer...that fast and slower writers need different strategies? Let's say instead of restaurants I compared fast, nimble, entrepreneurial companies like Amazon to slow, clumsy, plodding government agencies? Clearly those two entities require different modes of operation. Don't you think that would be deliberately insulting and entirely unnecessary?

Also, I fail to see how strategies differ based on volume anyway. Clearly, expectations should be different, but how is the strategy any different? We all market our books more or less in the same way. What different strategy does someone releasing one book employ different from someone who releases four?

I'm not offended, and I don't really care, but this kind of silliness just robs the poster of his or her credibility.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I have no problem acknowledging that others can write faster than I can, and everything they write is better than anything I can write. So what? Who cares?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> Ok, here goes.
> 
> She did not simply compare business strategies. She used an analogy that compared the faster writer to a fast food chain while assigning an upscale restaurant to the slower writer. While she may have made other points in her overall post, the overall premise is unmistakable. Do you really believe the McDonalds vs upscale restaurant characterization does not suggest qualitative superiority?
> 
> ...


Well, I think what Daring and Julie mean when they say "one size does NOT fit all" is more that "*expectations* are not one size fits all." That's the takeaway here, and what Julie was getting at with the McDonald's/fancy restaurant thing, I think.

McDonald's and the micro-transaction games make their money by producing things frequently and quickly, and selling them at a low price. High volume + low prices = high sales, high profit.

What Blake, Julie, Daring, and others are getting at (again, I think) is that low volume + the same pricing strategy means it is going to take that much _longer_ to reach the same level of sales/profit as the authors who write faster. That's all.

So the OP and other writers (like myself) who write slowly are not superior, but they can't really expect the same results as the faster writers. It's a different business model.

Blake makes a good point that some of us can probably produce more than we think we can; JRT makes an equally good point that all processes, fast or slow, are valid, and that expectations should be fine-tuned to realistically match one's own process. 

I know it's easy to assume that the McDonald's vs Fancy Restaurant analogy is one of quality, but Julie was NOT using it that way, as she has said -- to continue to argue against a claim that was never made is at best useless, and at worst rather annoyingly combative.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> Ok, here goes.
> 
> She did not simply compare business strategies. She used an analogy that compared the faster writer to a fast food chain while assigning an upscale restaurant to the slower writer. While she may have made other points in her overall post, the overall premise is unmistakable. Do you really believe the McDonalds vs upscale restaurant characterization does not suggest qualitative superiority?


You're the one making that analogy, not her. The restaurant industry and publishing are not identical. We're talking about "fast" and "slow" here. So she picked the most obvious examples of fast and slow from the restaurant industry came to mind. Maybe it makes sense if you don't know her, and don't know where she has stood on this issue before, but that interpretation is utterly not in her post.

You're arguing against someone else here.



> Also, I fail to see how strategies differ based on volume anyway. Clearly, expectations should be different, but how is the strategy any different? We all market our books more or less in the same way. What different strategy does someone releasing one book employ different from someone who releases four?


Sigh. I actually started to compose a very long answer about this for the last post, and then deleted it because I thought the point would get lost. Oh, well. Here goes.

First understand that writing fast isn't a strategy -- it's a tactic within a larger strategy. And, imho, it's useful in just about any of them. The more you write the larger your discoverability "footprint."

However, there are certain strategies that really completely depend on it. If you can't write fast, you shouldn't be using those strategies.

For instance -- the strategy the erotica authors have been talking about on some other threads here: it's a variation of Dean Wesley Smith's short story strategy, except that it's the polar opposite in many ways.

His strategy was actually a low yield strategy -- write steadily, don't worry about genre, or immediate sales, but basically bet the field -- write anything and everything, and put the stories everywhere you can. If you write something that suits a paying magazine, submit it there first, otherwise release as widely as possible. The idea is that you won't make much money for a long time, but over time, a few sales a month on each book (over ALL venues, not just Amazon) will create a broad and relatively stable set of tiny income streams.

Some of the erotica writers realized that, with what they write, they could get a much higher yield NOW. Other genres probably don't have this option, because nobody will pay as much for a short fix as an erotica fan. They have been having success targeting very specific audiences. But they've also come across some problems. One thing a lot of them have reported is that if you don't keep releasing new books every week or two, your sales drop. While the reason this is happening to them could be a lot of things, there is one very specific reason it often happens (which I'll go into in a minute - it's relevant to everyone). The other problem is that the game changed on them -- Amazon has instituted the adult dungeon, and is also cracking down on certain, um, niches of erotica, making it harder for them to have the kinds of covers and titles that attract their audience. This means that they have to rethink their strategy -- how do you sell to an audience looking for something very specific, when you can't actually say that your story is what they're looking for?

But back to the first issue, because that's more relevant to your question and this discussion: If you're going to chase best sellers, you have to churn. That's why publishers started burning through writers so fast in the 1990s -- B&N only wanted best sellers and new books, so they simply wouldn't carry much in the way of back lists or mid list books. There audience who buys bestsellers however, behaves differently from other readers. (Well, a portion of them do -- let's call them "list followers" rather than best seller buyers.) They are actually not that big of a proportion of the audience but they are incredibly predictable and they all buy at once, causing a big surge in money.

These "list readers" find their books mainly from two lists, new and best. The book appears on a "new books" list, they all see it at the same time, and those who decide to buy it tend to buy in a short window of time. That can cause it to hit the best seller list, which does two things - it hits those who don't look at the "new" list, and it also gives the book a second shot with the people who saw it there and didn't buy it. But again, all of these people will see it at once, and they'll all buy it or reject it within a short window of time.

When the book falls off the list, there is only one other way to get the book in front of those readers: if you have another book pop up on one of those lists. Every time you have a new book crop up on one of those lists, you get another shot at enticing all the "list readers" that rejected the first one, as well as the new "list readers" that came along since your previous book. (And without a new book, you'll never get a shot at the new "list readers" because the only place they look for books is on the list.)

So... basically all the advice we get here on KB is about getting on those lists. But that advice is all about going after that one segment of the audience.

But there are other audiences. Some of them even more lucrative as the "list reader" audience ... over time. These people tend not to respond to marketing tricks, so marketers tend to ignore them. (Or they dismiss them as "niche" or "long tail" audiences -- but I don't think that's accurate.) Some of these audiences are huge. They include the audiences for backlists and classics and rarities, and often the revenue from this group goes unmeasured because they buy a lot of used books.

This audience will not buy a book when it comes out, unless they already know the author. They wait. They think about it, they read the blurb, grab a sample, think about it some more. Maybe they see a review (not on Amazon, but on a site they frequent), maybe they come across an article about the writer. Maybe someone else mentions it in a list of similar lesser known books. And once they do try a book, they talk about it. Especially if it's old.

This audience tends to give you a slower build, but a much longer term of sale. You're not going to quit your day job any time soon with this audience unless you are a very fast writer, but time works for you, rather than against you, if you are a slow writer.

So if you are a slow writer, you need to develop a strategy that works with _this_ audience. If you're faster, great, you may be able to snag this audience too.

One other note: these different audiences often have differences in taste as well as with how they find books. Within every genre, the "flavor" of the top 100 will often be different from the "steady sellers but never a bride" books that fall in the next 10k or even 100k below that. But those books are making a nice little income over time.

Okay, there's more that could be said, but I've spent MUCH too much time on this already.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

DianaGabriel said:


> What Blake, Julie, Daring, and others are getting at (again, I think) is that low volume + the same pricing strategy means it is going to take that much _longer_ to reach the same level of sales/profit as the authors who write faster. That's all.


Okay, that wasn't my point, but it is _another_ point that is what I would want to say....

I also want to clear up one misunderstanding Blake had with something I said upstream: he seemed to think that my reference to writing cross-genre stuff was about preference, and he missed the actual point.

I was saying that I can write write weird stuff fast, OR a narrower commercial genre v-e-e-e-r-r-r-y s-l-o-o-o-o-w-l-y. (Both of these are in writing 10-14 hours a day.) I don't HAVE the choice of writing a narrow genre quickly, I have to choose. I choose fast and weird. Others in my place my choose commercial and slow. Neither one is great for business, but we each have to look at LOTS of models -- and try them out -- before we find what works for us.

Camille


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Thank you for this. I vote it the most helpful post in this thread!



daringnovelist said:


> You're the one making that analogy, not her. The restaurant industry and publishing are not identical. We're talking about "fast" and "slow" here. So she picked the most obvious examples of fast and slow from the restaurant industry came to mind. Maybe it makes sense if you don't know her, and don't know where she has stood on this issue before, but that interpretation is utterly not in her post.
> 
> You're arguing against someone else here.
> 
> ...


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I second Cherise's vote.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Okay, that wasn't my point, but it is _another_ point that is what I would want to say....


As long as I didn't totally put words in your mouth! 



> This audience tends to give you a slower build, but a much longer term of sale. You're not going to quit your day job any time soon with this audience unless you are a very fast writer, but time works for you, rather than against you, if you are a slow writer.
> 
> So if you are a slow writer, you need to develop a strategy that works with this audience. If you're faster, great, you may be able to snag this audience too.


Agree - awesome post. I had to read it a couple times to fully digest!

I guess my question is then, how are writers supposed to reach this audience? I'm a non-list reader, but I find my books so haphazardly that I can't imagine how an author could actually target these readers. Is it a matter of just casting a wide net?


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

N. Gemini Sasson said:


> Same is true for Historical Fiction. It's impossible to crank them out at lightning speed, because the research can take just as long as writing the book.


My historical fiction research takes me 100x longer than writing the MSS themselves. It also depends on the era. The further back in time, the harder it is, e.g. if you have to deal with Gregorian calendar versus Julian. Or if you want to be authentically correct about some obscure period in Russian history and you don't speak Russian so you need reliable translations. Not that I'm writing those things though I did take a Russian language class once and I think I can hail a cab when needed. Just say, "Taxi!"


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

DianaGabriel said:


> As long as I didn't totally put words in your mouth!
> 
> Agree - awesome post. I had to read it a couple times to fully digest!
> 
> I guess my question is then, how are writers supposed to reach this audience? I'm a non-list reader, but I find my books so haphazardly that I can't imagine how an author could actually target these readers. Is it a matter of just casting a wide net?


It's too late and I'm too tired to say much but the answer is really only two words; Time and Google.

(It's not really that passive, but it's most of it.)

Did I do a blog series on this? It think I did do a blog series on that once. Just a minute.... Okay two posts:

Search Engines, EHow and Fiction Writers, and How to Stop Worrying and Love the Algorithm The second one is probably most of what you want to know. (Oh, and the third post in the series: How readers find books these days )

But there is no miracle for slow or inconsistent writers. It's a very slow process, and you do have to get out there.

Camille


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

DianaGabriel said:


> Well, I think what Daring and Julie mean when they say "one size does NOT fit all" is more that "*expectations* are not one size fits all." That's the takeaway here, and what Julie was getting at with the McDonald's/fancy restaurant thing, I think.
> 
> McDonald's and the micro-transaction games make their money by producing things frequently and quickly, and selling them at a low price. High volume + low prices = high sales, high profit.
> 
> ...


Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Again, I see no reasonable meaning in the McDonalds vs. Fancy restaurant comparison other than a qualitative one. And i just reread it carefully. Despite the insistence that it was not intended as such, no alternate meaning was put forth with any kind of specificity. As I said, I don't want to argue about it, and I certainly don't intend to be combative.

In the context of the original thread, however, I still don't understand what you are saying with regard to a different business model. What is different? Production level, of course, but is that a model? Or simply the result of the production capacity of the individual authors? What would a writer with fewer releases do differently? That's what different business model means...it means doing different things. As far as I can see, the vast majority of writers on here are doing more or less the same thing. There's some variation on the amount of promotion done, but that seems to slice across all production levels.

The fact that lower sales at the same price will take longer to reach the same revenues is not a conclusion. It is an obvious observation, akin to saying 10 is more than 5. Russell's comment that most people could increase production is the best piece of advice for anyone trying to achieve higher sales.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> These "list readers" find their books mainly from two lists, new and best. The book appears on a "new books" list, they all see it at the same time, and those who decide to buy it tend to buy in a short window of time. That can cause it to hit the best seller list, which does two things - it hits those who don't look at the "new" list, and it also gives the book a second shot with the people who saw it there and didn't buy it. But again, all of these people will see it at once, and they'll all buy it or reject it within a short window of time.


As a reader, I've seen this happen with my favorite tradpub authors. Preorders having begun, about a month before the release of their book, there is a big media blitz, advertisements, etc. Then around the time of the release, maybe for a few weeks, the author goes on a big book tour, media interviews, etc. That window is when he/she sells the most books. I am not sure what the sale tail looks like, but I am sure that it falls off (not the tail, but the sale). IMO their whole idea is to hit the USA Today and NYT charts. So the first week is the biggie. However, midlisters and no-namers need not apply unless they can fund their own media blitz and book tours. That's tradpub from my POV.



daringnovelist said:


> When the book falls off the list, there is only one other way to get the book in front of those readers: if you have another book pop up on one of those lists. Every time you have a new book crop up on one of those lists, you get another shot at enticing all the "list readers" that rejected the first one, as well as the new "list readers" that came along since your previous book. (And without a new book, you'll never get a shot at the new "list readers" because the only place they look for books is on the list.)


And also - I've noticed that traditional publishers that release a hardcover by an author will then release the paperback of the same book. I am not sure what the interval is between hardcover and paperback but my guess is within 6 months of each other. Then 6 months later, the next new book by the author is out. So IMO they do try to keep the author's name, and hopefully that book, fresh in their reader's minds...


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> You're the one making that analogy, not her. The restaurant industry and publishing are not identical. We're talking about "fast" and "slow" here. So she picked the most obvious examples of fast and slow from the restaurant industry came to mind. Maybe it makes sense if you don't know her, and don't know where she has stood on this issue before, but that interpretation is utterly not in her post.
> 
> You're arguing against someone else here.
> 
> ...


Ok, first, of course I responded to what Julie wrote in her post. What else are you supposed to respond to on a message board? And, again, I don't understand any alternate meaning. What dramatic difference in strategy is there between a writer releasing one book a year or one producing four? Both writers likely do exactly the same things, price their books similarly, take advantage of any effective advertising they can, etc. If there are differences (e.g. amount of promo), those variations cut across all production levels. So if not addressing a choice between taking time to produce a lesser amount of quality product or a larger amount of lesser material...then what? It's great to tell me how wrong I am, or to throw out a vague term like "different strategies," but I haven't seen anything specific mentioned.

As far as Dean Wesley Smith and his strategy, I believe he advocates a very high level of production, so I'm not sure how that plays in here. You say writing quickly is not a strategy (and I more or less agree with you) but referring to the DWS strategy seems to be a contradiction. Also, I think DWS's main point is that if you produce enough for long enough you can build meaningful income even on low unit sales. But who is pursuing a strategy of low unit sales? We all want to sell as many as we can, DWS included.

I certainly wouldn't argue that erotica authors who find themselves dealing with changes in how Amazon sorts their books face a need to alter strategies (and a painful choice, probably), but I don't see the relationship with the thread or this debate. Any genre facing changes in their distribution system would have to find new ways to market and sell. What does that have to do with either writing speed or qualitative differences?

You discuss traditional publishing and its history of pursuing bestsellers. I don't argue with anything you say, but I have no idea what it has to do with anything previously discussed on this thread. No one was talking about bestsellers. Most of the authors on here who have achieved strong sales have done so with good volume on their books, but nothing approaching what trad publishing considers a true bestseller. There have been a few breakouts, of course, but for the most part, I'd bet 25,000-100,000 per book is far more common that selling hundreds and hundreds of thousands per title.

You mention the process a reader goes through before buying a book. Again, I don't have any argument with any of it in particular. But how does any of that point out any differences between writers of different speeds. Are you suggesting that slower writers have a different approach to tapping this market? What? That faster writers don't want the "long tail" market? Again, to me it seems that writers approach this in EXACTLY the same way regardless of production speed.

I am posting this quote again, because I do not want to be accused of making any sort of unfair statement:

"One other note: these different audiences often have differences in taste as well as with how they find books. Within every genre, the "flavor" of the top 100 will often be different from the "steady sellers but never a bride" books that fall in the next 10k or even 100k below that. But those books are making a nice little income over time."

Now I am not putting any words into your mouth. I am simply asking respectfully what you mean by "flavor" and how this relates to production speed. If you are suggesting that slower-SELLING books that have staying power tend to have a different style that books that race to the top of the charts, I might be inclined to agree, though I feel it's a pretty broad characterization, and a lot of other factors apply. But what does this have to do with speed of writing? A book may be the "never a bride" type even if written in three weeks, and a book someone wrote over five years could take off and race to the top. I am truly, sincerely at a loss to understand what you mean by this and how it relates to the topic. I'm not being argumentative, nor am I saying you meant anything at all.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> In the context of the original thread, however, I still don't understand what you are saying with regard to a different business model. What is different? Production level, of course, but is that a model? Or simply the result of the production capacity of the individual authors? What would a writer with fewer releases do differently?


I thought I did answer that, but I'll make one more try:

If you're looking for a specific answer, realize that the best strategy will vary greatly, and that I'm just going to give you some specific examples of tactics, not a whole strategy.

1.) Stop thinking about bulk sales methods and launches. Some of those methods may give yo a little oomph, but they aren't going to work as well for you as they are for a fast writer. So, forget the big one week, 50 stop blog tour. Forget trying to get listed on some hot site. If you're going to pay for advertising, your goal is brand recognition, not a sales bump. (And I'm not going to the very long and complex difference between those two advertising strategies.)

2.) Hand selling. It can be an utter waste of time for the very commercial fast writer, but for the slow writer and the non-commercial writer, one enthusiastic fan who will talk about your book is golden.

3.) Reviewers.... the slow writer may want to go after different reviewers than the faster, more commercial writer. It isn't a numbers game for the slow writer. A fast writer will want to find top reviewers in the reviewing community, a slow writer will want to find people who have standing in their reader or subject area community. (Obviously both kinds of reviewers can help either kind of writer but most advice you find from the "MAKE A MILLION DOLLARS ON EBOOKS!" advice people will give you techniques that find reviewers of more use to the fast writers than the slow writers.

4.) Patience. The fast writer really should push marketing more to take advantage of those narrow windows of time when they hit best seller lists, etc. Slow writers should probably keep their nose to the grindstone so they have something to sell -- their audience will be more interested later anyway.

5.) Find out who your audience is and KNOW them.

There are a million small ways you may change what you do. Many of them are no so much doing something different as not bothering with things that are only of use to fast writers.

Unfortunately, there IS no golden solution for people who aren't of interest to the list readers. The rest of the world is too varied. You may need multiple strategies if you book appeals to multiple groups. Your book may have an appeal to multiple niches, and you may need a different technique to appeal to each. But for the slow writer, that can be worth it.

But more than anything, for the slow writer, you've got to write. That 25/75 ratio might be better at 10/90 or 0/100 until you have a critical mass of work done.

What I said above is not meant to be a strategy, they are just random tactics that can be part of a larger strategy.

I hope this helps. If not, I'm too tired and I give up.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> I am posting this quote again, because I do not want to be accused of making any sort of unfair statement:
> 
> "One other note: these different audiences often have differences in taste as well as with how they find books. Within every genre, the "flavor" of the top 100 will often be different from the "steady sellers but never a bride" books that fall in the next 10k or even 100k below that. But those books are making a nice little income over time."
> 
> Now I am not putting any words into your mouth. I am simply asking respectfully what you mean by "flavor" and how this relates to production speed. If you are suggesting that slower-SELLING books that have staying power tend to have a different style that books that race to the top of the charts, I might be inclined to agree, though I feel it's a pretty broad characterization, and a lot of other factors apply. But what does this have to do with speed of writing?


I may give a longer answer later, because I think it's important -- but for the most part, you got it.

What it has to do with speed: Maybe this is where you are getting confused. Strategy has to do with every aspect of your writing. One tactic is in WHAT you choose to write. And what you choose not to write. (One of the erotica writers had a lot of success chasing trends. Whatever was selling on the lists, she adjusted her writing to suit. Slow writers should not do this.)

Fast writers have the option of appealing to any group that they want to. Slow writers should think about the audiences that are open to them, and the strategy that you come up with may involve what you write as well as how you market.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> What would a writer with fewer releases do differently? That's what different business model means...it means doing different things.


That might depend on the time the author with fewer releases spends writing. Suppose we have a writer who releases four books per year, and another who releases one. It is possible both generate the same number of words per hour of writing, but devote a different number of hours to writing.

The slower writer may not be successful devoting more than X hours per year. The faster writer may be successful devoting 4X hours per year. The slower writer may not be able to produce good work devoting more than X hours per year.

In this case, the slower writer has 3X hours available to do things other than writing. So he might devote more time to marketing. If so, he is using a different strategy than the faster writer because he can devote more hours to non-writing revenue enhancing activities. He has a marketing intensive strategy. The faster writer has a writing intensive strategy since he devotes more hours to writing and fewer to marketing.

Its reasonable to develop different strategies based on the production capabilities of the plant and the resources available.

In this case, I consider a strategy to be a plan to move from one state to a target state. The target state is defined and measurable. Strategies may incorporate tactics that support the strategy.

Note this is a single example, and certainly doesn't cover all fast or slow writers. i acknowledge there are many other permutations.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> That might depend on the time the author with fewer releases spends writing. Suppose we have a writer who releases four books per year, and another who releases one. It is possible both generate the same number of words per hour of writing, but devote a different number of hours to writing.
> 
> The slower writer may not be successful devoting more than X hours per year. The faster writer may be successful devoting 4X hours per year. The slower writer may not be able to produce good work devoting more than X hours per year.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm addled right now so I didn't even think of that... but having a few books but spending a lot of time schmoozing has worked for some people. (Especially if they are very good at schmoozing, or they have some other reason they're already spending time with their target audience.)

Camille


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> It's too late and I'm too tired to say much but the answer is really only two words; Time and Google.
> 
> (It's not really that passive, but it's most of it.)
> 
> ...


Some great material there, Camille. Thanks for posting the links!


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

There is a ton of useful information on this thread and these sorts of decisions are never one size fits all. I spent many years riding the query-go-round, getting thrown off, and climbing on again. There was no legit self-pub option then and I saw no other way around it than to keep trying again with the next book. I noticed however, that the writers who were making it were the ones who produced a steady output. However, the big mistake that I made at the time was to compare my output to other aspiring writers instead of to people who were already working as professionals.

I would do the same thing now. Here is the list of KB's bestselling authors. If you go through the first few pages you will see all the people who have sold 250,000+ books. Next, check their productivity. How many books do they have? How often are they releasing new material? Does your output match theirs? Now continue to the list of 100,000 selling authors. Again, what's the output?


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

"I will work harder."


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2013)

I would just like to say that while Jay continues to view my post solely from an argument of _quality_, I can safely say that I was unimpressed with the restaurant last night and, with the exception of the white chocolate cheesecake, would have preferred McDonalds. 

Jay, go back and read my follow up post regarding Marvel Avengers vs Skyrim and see if my point makes more sense.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

RuthNestvold said:


> Some great material there, Camille. Thanks for posting the links!


Thanks, Ruth. I realize there was a third post in that series -- How readers find books these days. I haven't re-read it, but I think it's about those other audiences who don't read lists.

Camille


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I would just like to say that while Jay continues to view my post solely from an argument of _quality_, I can safely say that I was unimpressed with the restaurant last night and, with the exception of the white chocolate cheesecake, would have preferred McDonalds.
> 
> Jay, go back and read my follow up post regarding Marvel Avengers vs Skyrim and see if my point makes more sense.


Julie - I did read it. I just don't see how there is a strategic difference between writers based solely on their production speed. It doesn't make sense to me...it seems like an artificial distinction being created. I don't think most writers who produce work less frequently do so from an intentional marketing strategy...it is simply a result of having less time to write or a personal writing style that takes longer (or research or whatever). I've seen no specific difference suggested in terms of strategy. Simply saying there is a different strategy, or using an analogy of sorts, isn't something I find compelling.

That said, it's certainly nothing worth arguing about, and clearly this thread has turned into a time sink of unintended proportion.

I just think that it is a disservice to newer writers looking for advice to not be clear with them. I think Russell was in his post. If I was just starting out again, that is what I would want to read. The number one thing they can do to try and achieve stronger sales is produce more work. So if they are able to make more time to write or organize themselves better, it has a strong likelihood of benefitting them. If they cannot, or do not desire to do so, that is certainly their decision.

But I don't think there is anything much they can do differently to market and support a slower release schedule. I certainly wouldn't send them to Facebook and Twitter, etc. for hours and hours while that time could be used for writing (and I'm not saying you would either).

I remember the kinds of things I wanted to know when I started, and that's the type of response I try to give on these threads.

The truth is, I got lucky when my first book started to take off, but seeing that (and reading posts on here about the importance of new releases) I dove in and furiously finished book two (in about 4 weeks). If I hadn't done that, I believe deeply that I would be nowhere near where I am now. That was my fastest book, and it remains one of my highest rated. I don't think I'd be selling 20% of what I am now if I hadn't done that.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

What I have learned from this thread.    
1. Know your genre.
2. Slow writers are not doomed but they need different marketing strategies to stay in the limelight.
3. Writing speed does not affect quality.
4. Write a good book.
5. Good blurbs help any book.
6. The reader will have no idea how long it took you to write the book.
7. Nor will the reader care.
8. A good book with good marketing will sell.
9. A bad book with good marketing might sell but the returns might kill you.
9.1 A good book with no or bad marketing probably won't sell many
10.  If you write a bad book, writing a second bad book will not help your sales.

Oh and the most important thing:
If you are looking to get rich quick by writing books might I suggest another career because the odds are about a million to one that you will get rich quick.

Now if you can find a million people to bet a buck that you won't make it then you would get rich quick.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> Julie - I did read it. I just don't see how there is a strategic difference between writers based solely on their production speed. It doesn't make sense to me...it seems like an artificial distinction being created. I don't think most writers who produce work less frequently do so from an intentional marketing strategy...it is simply a result of having less time to write or a personal writing style that takes longer (or research or whatever). I've seen no specific difference suggested in terms of strategy. Simply saying there is a different strategy, or using an analogy of sorts, isn't something I find compelling.


Ah! There's the problem! There's what you missed!

Nobody is saying that writing slower is a strategy (or more accurately a tactic). Nobody is recommending it.

We're saying that if you're STUCK with writing slower, because you can't write faster, you have to use different strategies in how you run your business.

On this board, people tend to recommend strategies and tactics that work best for the fast writers. Julie's whole point was if you are not a fast writer, you need to use strategies that are designed for slow writers.

Does that help at all?

Camille


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> Ah! There's the problem! There's what you missed!
> 
> Nobody is saying that writing slower is a strategy (or more accurately a tactic). Nobody is recommending it.
> 
> ...


I didn't miss anything.

And you have still said NOTHING about what these "different strategies" are. If you're going to continue to insist I'm missing something, then give us a few examples of these "different strategies."

It is precisely my point that there are no different strategies and that none have been mentioned here. We have analogies, we have constant statements that different strategies are required. We've had categorizations of strategies and tactics within strategies. But no specifics whatsoever. But what are they? I write one book a year. Tell me what I am supposed to do differently than my friend who writes four.

Selling fewer copies is not a strategy, nor is being prepared for lower sales one.

I can think of only one difference. Certain advertising won't be cost effective for authors without a number of follow-up books for people to buy. But not being able to exploit a few ad types is not a strategy either.

People on this board recommend strategies that work. Period. They work better for fast writers because all marketing works better for fast writers. Again, I suggest you name a strategy that works best/only for slower writers.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but you keep insisting I'm missing something, but there's no "there" in what you are saying.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> I didn't miss anything.
> 
> And you have still said NOTHING about what these "different strategies" are. If you're going to continue to insist I'm missing something, then give us a few examples of these "different strategies."
> 
> ...


Jay, I actually get what you are saying because I had the same question. Did you see Camille's post above with links to her blog? That answered it for me, mostly.

Slower writers rely on word of mouth to a greater extent than fast writers, who appear on lists more frequently. So one strategy that could work for both fast and slow writers - but is more important for slow writers - is a focus on generating word of mouth over time. Camille also mentioned hand selling and avoiding big launches/launch blog tours. Another strategy she mentioned is using advertising for brand recognition, not for a sales bump.

Are these not *specific tactics/strategies* that benefit slow writers?

No one is saying fast writers can't do those things too, or shouldn't -- just that among the myriad of tactics that we hear do benefit a fast writer (who has a natural discoverability advantage), only some are well-suited for the slow writer. And some of those strategies might be of more use to the slow writer than to the fast writer.

The slow writer has to compensate for not having frequent releases somehow; the fast writer doesn't. To me, it makes perfect sense that a slow writer's marketing strategy would take that into account.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2013)

As a point of reference, my day job is in contract packaging. Some of our clients are trade publishers. So some of the stuff in here is based off on research and information I've seen first hand in the industry. 

Permafree does not work effectively for a slow writer. Permafree depends on having related content available immediately. Think about whenever you go to the store and they give you a free sample of something. How often do you get a free sample only to discover the product won't be on the market for six months or a year? Freebies are a valid marketing tool, but they don't work unless you already have lots of product available to coax people into buying.

99 cent pricing does not work effectively for a slow writer. At 99 cents, you have to sell 12 times what I do at $5.99. If you have a dozen books out that are all related or in the same genre that can piggyback off of each other, then you can use the 99 cent price as an effective bulk purchase tool. A person could buy your six book set for the same price as one of my books, right? But if you don't have a six book set, or if you only have one or two other books out, you don't get the same benefit from the low pricing. Again, the 99 cent price strategy depends on having other product to upsell. Even if you get a sale now at 99 cents, there is a low chance the customer will even remember that your book is on her Kindle if the next book doesn't come out a year from now. And by then, that customer has already moved on to other authors.

Fast writers can use a repeat business model at a low cost to make money. If you have a 10000 people buying each new book, and a new book is coming out every three months, then you can do well. 

A slow writer can't use the low-price/high volume business model. If you only produce one book a year, and that book sells 10,000 copies that year at 99 cents, you make $3500. But then what? It's been a year. Those 10,000 customers may not even remember you. (Your book may still be on their TBR list!). How many of them are going to buy your second book a year later? Remember, many people who buy low price books are hoarders. They snatch up dozens of books at a time, but don't generally read them immediately. I have friends with hundreds of books on their Kindles and Nooks, 80% of which they have not read yet and don't know when they will read. 

This demographic doesn't work for slow writers. So you have to target a different demographic. I don't target high volume readers. My readers tend to be slower readers. They read fewer books a year for various reasons. But because they read fewer books, they are more selective about what they buy. They don't shop on price. They don't often "take chances" on books simply because they are free, because they tend to know they may never get around to reading it. They tend to care about brands. The are more concerned with their "time" expense. They are willing to spend more on a book, and because they aren't reading as voraciously as other groups, they aren't overly annoyed that the next book isn't already out. So At $5.99 and marketing to this demographic, you might only sell 2000 copies in a year. But 2000 sales at $5.99 is over $8000. 

We had a client years ago from the perfume industry. They had one brand they sold at Macy's and one brand that they sold at WalMart. It was the SAME formula, just different packaging (this is very common in the packaging industry, BTW). The Walmart packaging was less expensive, less frills, and priced for volume. The Macy's packaging was very high end construction, with the fancy box and whole nine yards. It was priced for profit. They sold less volume at Macy's, but made the same money with both stores. Now you might say "well, why not sell at a lower price at Macy's? and sell even more?" But if you really ask that question, you aren't paying attention. People who shop at Macy's have different expectations and different behaviors. They don't respond to "sales" in the same way WalMart consumers respond to sales. Bargain has a different meaning to those two groups. 

If you don't acknowledge those differences in consumer behavior, then everything I say makes no sense and I understand why you would be confused. But when you realize the different behaviors of different demographics, you begin to understand that yes, there are different marketing strategies based on volume (i.e. number of titles). And this was my point. An author with a ton of product available and who produces product quickly can employ a high volume/low margin plan (this is the typical general retail strategy used in most department stores and grocery stores). If you produce low volume, then you need to employ a high margin plan that is supported by lower volume (this is the typical retail strategy used by boutiques, specialty shops, salons). It has nothing to do with quality per se and everything to do with the demographics you cater to.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Camille, thanks for all of your replies in this thread, and for those blog posts. You've shared a lot of great info/ideas here.  

ETA: and Julie too! Seriously, you guys blow my mind with your sheer brainpower sometimes.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> What I have learned from this thread.
> 1. Know your genre.
> 2. Slow writers are not doomed but they need different marketing strategies to stay in the limelight.
> 3. Writing speed does not affect quality.
> ...


What I've learned from this thread:

Whether you're fast or slow, you're not going to be putting books upon the shelf when a lot of your time, motivation, and passion is going toward writing huge forum entries.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2013)

Here is an example of a “slow writer” strategy.

One of the common things people say around here is that readers won’t pay a lot of money for an “unknown” writer.  For a fast writer, you overcome the “unknown” writer problem with a permafree. People download the permafree, like it, and then click the link to go buy your other books.

A slow writer doesn’t have other books. So the customer downloads the permafree, and then forgets about you. 

So how do you make yourself “known” when you have no books?

I sponsor game conventions (about ten to twelve a year). I’ll send some swag to the con for door prizes or charity auctions. Or buy an ad in the program. These promos don’t generally cause an immediate boost in sales. But they do generate a lot of newsletter sign-ups and FB likes. So now I’m making daily posts to these people (or, well, a third of them depending on FB’s mood.) or they are getting a monthly email from me. By the time my book comes out, these people have been hearing from me regularly for a year or more. I’m no longer an “unknown” author. I’m an author they know very well, and my book is something they knew was coming. 
Now I may write books slowly, but that is a matter of process and not time. So I can use all of my extra time networking.  So I have my fingers in a lot of projects. I’m involves in a lot of stuff that is related to my books but not directly involving publishing. And all of these actions create a name for me.  I’m not an “unknown” author to the people who buy the type of books I write.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

I just realized, ironically, if I have read this thread discussions correctly, by what is defined as "slow writers" here on KB, then traditionally published authors are all slow writers! I don't see them doomed, do you?

After all, they only publish one book a year. Many of them take 8-10 months to write ONE BOOK, plus time for 2-3 rounds of editing from the publishing house, followed by proofreading, galley copies, cover art, etc. It generally takes an entire year to produce one traditionally published book.

One of the authors mentioned that he can't imagine writing more than one book a year. I've seen traditionally published writers write multiple books a year BUT with a co-author (e.g. James Patterson). He was amazed that indie authors could churn out 3-6 books a year. I told him that IMHO indies can because their books are mostly (not all, but mostly) shorter (20-60K) than what traditional authors produce (90-100K). For those of us writing 100K books, it takes longer to write and edit those massive tomes.

So! If you write slowly then you're on the same space-time continuum as traditionally published authors. In fact, you need to slow down even more, down to one book a year to match their speed. Or if you're like Nelson DeMille, he's sometimes even slower, only producing one book every other year. Or Tom Wolfe -- who knows what his schedule is LOL.

Otherwise, write at will! Blaze your own trail. Don't look at other authors' book count. To each her own.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2013)

Greg Strandberg said:


> What I've learned from this thread:
> 
> Whether you're fast or slow, you're not going to be putting books upon the shelf when a lot of your time, motivation, and passion is going toward writing huge forum entries.


Some of us prefer to share our knowledge freely, as others did for us when we started, instead of packaging it for $2.99 and selling it to fellow writers.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> Again, I suggest you name a strategy that works best/only for slower writers.
> 
> I'm not trying to be argumentative but you keep insisting I'm missing something, but there's no "there" in what you are saying.


Uh, there is no strategy that works best/only for slow writers.

There can't be, it's a physical impossibility: if there was some advantage, all a fast writer would have to do is use a pseudonym to mimic a slow writer.

I don't get why you are demanding that. I said repeatedly in all of my posts that the tactics would work for fast writers too. (Some of them don't work well enough to be worth a fast writer's time, but it's not that they work any worse for them than for the slow writer.)

I don't think you are missing anything, the problem seems to be that you're _inserting_ things that aren't there. You're arguing with someone else's position, not mine, and not Julie's.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Some of us prefer to share our knowledge freely, as others did for us when we started, instead of packaging it for $2.99 and selling it to fellow writers.


There's nothing saying we can't do that too.

It's actually a really well established strategy for non-fiction writers. I'm thinking the Smart Passive Income guy built his empire by putting everything on his blog, and not holding anything back. He packaged the info on his blog, and eventually started developing additional materials that weren't on the blog - but for the most part, he gives his knowledge for free and profits from it too.

I probably will turn some of the stuff I said here into blog posts (hey, I've got to get something out of the time spent). And yeah, I intend to start packaging blog posts into books (although not "how to be a success!" books). But that doesn't stop me from sharing it freely.

Camille


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

I was expecting a pat on the head and a there there write more books just write faster what's with you. Thank you all for a really valuable conversation.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Many, many books aren't just a matter of how many words a day you can turn out.


I like the point you make about research--I'm a stickler for research too, but it does take away a lot of time from writing. That just means I won't be churning out 1,000 words a day. At least I won't receive negative feedback or reviews due to my lack of research.

PS. I can imagine the sheer volume of research that goes into writing historical books. Kudos for making the effort!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I just don't see how there is a strategic difference between writers based solely on their production speed."


I agree. There is no strategy until an individual makes a plan to reach his chosen goal. Speed is simply a production factor. The successful strategist determines how he can capitalize on his advantages, and reduce the negative effects of his disadvantages. This involves far more than production speed.

I sure can't offer a strategy for a writer who releases one book per year because speed is just one factor in a larger mix of positive and negative factors each individual deals with.

One way to develop a strategy is to list positive and negative factors an individual author faces. Divide them into internals and externals. Internals are specific to individuals. Externals describe the environment in which the individual operates. (When invoicing for this stuff, it's best to call them endogenous and exogenous factors.)


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I agree. There is no strategy until an individual makes a plan to reach his chosen goal. Speed is simply a production factor. The successful strategist determines how he can capitalize on his advantages, and reduce the negative effects of his disadvantages. This involves far more than production speed.
> 
> I sure can't offer a strategy for a writer who releases one book per year because speed is just one factor in a larger mix of positive and negative factors each individual deals with.
> 
> One way to develop a strategy is to list positive and negative factors an individual author faces. Divide them into internals and externals. Internals are specific to individuals. Externals describe the environment in which the individual operates. (When invoicing for this stuff, it's best to call them endogenous and exogenous factors.)


All those words I expended and you explained it in maybe 9 sentences. (Particularly the one in the middle.)

Now you've got me thinking SWOT assessments. (For those who don't know what SWOT is: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats -- basically a study of internal positives and negatives, and external positives and negatives. But a lot of people don't like to use the word "threat" these days, so I vote for Endogenous and Exogenous Factor Assessment -- EEFA!)

Camille


----------



## alidawinter (Sep 17, 2013)

I'm glad to hear not everyone is producing 4+ books a year! I think getting 1 out a year is a great accomplishment.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Some of us prefer to share our knowledge freely, as others did for us when we started, instead of packaging it for $2.99 and selling it to fellow writers.


So I guess you won't be contributing any site links for my book "75 eBook Cover Design Sites that Increase Amazon Sales."


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

The most important takeaway for me psychologically is an explanation of why so many common tactics don't work for me. They favor faster writers. For example, free has never worked for me, ever--it almost backfires. And I think of the truly horrible ad copy KND wrote for my first book and how angry I was; while ads there at the time for others were delivering huge results, I didn't come close to breaking even and worse, the copy left a negative impression on those who read it. It sounded like he hated the book. I've never had an ad work for me, even when the copy wasn't horrible.

When these strategies and tactics haven't worked, or have even hurt me, I've wondered what's wrong with me and my work. Am I that bad? Is my style so _very_ far out of favor? I start slow, or so I'm told--I admire people like Anthony Trollope and Patrick O'Brian, and like them, I start with setting and characters, not whiz bang. It doesn't feel slow to me. Coming in on big action for me as a writer (not necessarily a reader) feels rushed and foreign, as do some marketing tactics that work spectacularly for others. It feels like when I'm at the mall trying to buy clothes and the best I can find is stuff made for 22-year-olds going to parties. I try it on in desperation; I look and feel ridiculous, and go back to my geek t-shirts and yoga pants.

I've known all along I'm a "relationship" writer. I don't have mobs of fans, but the ones I do have and I are tight; they send me baby announcements and wedding invitations, even. It's the hardest kind of audience building because it takes time, in the immediate and long runs both, but it's also the kind of writing I do. I'm not popcorn. I'm dinner. Popcorn is immediate; dinner takes time. Each has its place--I love popcorn madly, both in the literal and metaphorical sense. But I'll never be able to write a popcorn book. And understanding why popcorn tactics won't work for me helps more than you know.

This conversation and today's release of a little (7500-ish) ebook have convinced me I'm on the right track now. I've made more sales today than I have in the previous month, all direct; 100% of the money is mine. It's not even out at Amazon etc yet. The sales all came from my newsletter, FB and twitter, possibly Kickstarter since I sent out a notice to backers of another book in the series--sold the first copy in 15 minutes--from fans new and old who once they find me love me. I don't need many thousands of them, I just need one thousand. I'm about a fifth of the way there already. I just have to focus differently, bide my time and go back to my roots of deep interaction with readers.

"Just."


----------



## Lady TL Jennings (Dec 8, 2011)

In my experience: No, you’re not doomed if you’re a slow writer.

I made my living as an author for nine glorious months before I got too nervous freelancing and got a normal day job again.
Still. Nine months. And I write my stories in longhand, which is pretty slow and I tend to get lost in historical research too. 

… Having said that… I have a pretty decent back list (28 titles) so perhaps it doesn’t count?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

Lady TL Jennings said:


> In my experience: No, you're not doomed if you're a slow writer.
> 
> I made my living as an author for nine glorious months before I got too nervous freelancing and got a normal day job again.
> Still. Nine months. And I write my stories in longhand, which is pretty slow and I tend to get lost in historical research too.
> ...


Great job on having all your covers look so similar, and good!

I've been freelancing now for 9 months as well. The faster you write the more money you make. There is the anxiety of where, or when, the next job's going to come though.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> The most important takeaway for me psychologically is an explanation of why so many common tactics don't work for me. They favor faster writers. For example, free has never worked for me, ever--it almost backfires. And I think of the truly horrible ad copy KND wrote for my first book and how angry I was; while ads there at the time for others were delivering huge results, I didn't come close to breaking even and worse, the copy left a negative impression on those who read it. It sounded like he hated the book. I've never had an ad work for me, even when the copy wasn't horrible.
> 
> When these strategies and tactics haven't worked, or have even hurt me, I've wondered what's wrong with me and my work. Am I that bad? Is my style so _very_ far out of favor? I start slow, or so I'm told--I admire people like Anthony Trollope and Patrick O'Brian, and like them, I start with setting and characters, not whiz bang. It doesn't feel slow to me. Coming in on big action for me as a writer (not necessarily a reader) feels rushed and foreign, as do some marketing tactics that work spectacularly for others. It feels like when I'm at the mall trying to buy clothes and the best I can find is stuff made for 22-year-olds going to parties. I try it on in desperation; I look and feel ridiculous, and go back to my geek t-shirts and yoga pants.
> 
> ...


Glad to hear the thread has helped. But, you know, it's the fans that help more. It's a lot like the artisan approach. The fact that it's personal does mean something too.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The most important takeaway for me psychologically is an explanation of why so many common tactics don't work for me.


Tactics work best when they are part of a coordinated strategy. Think of the tactics as actions that advance the strategy. A tactic isn't good or bad in itself. Its value depends on whether it advances, retards, or has no effect on the strategy.

For example, free books are a common tactic. But how does that tactic fit into an author's strategy? How does it advance it? What other tactics does it coordinate with in advancing the strategy?

And strategies don't work unless one has a specific objective in mind. So identify an objective, analyze the positive ane negative factors mentioned above, develop a strategy, and employ tactics to advance it.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

See, there's my problem, Terrence, I'm not very tactically minded. I am the world's worst chess player. I'd be the first one killed in a fight. I zig when it's plain to zag. I got no sense, or at least that kind of sense.

I do, however, have a project manager husband with a matte black tactical pen. (Everything guys have these days seems to be matte black tactical.) We're just figuring out how to put his skills to use for me, because at heart marketing is just another project.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> I've known all along I'm a "relationship" writer. I don't have mobs of fans, but the ones I do have and I are tight; they send me baby announcements and wedding invitations, even. It's the hardest kind of audience building because it takes time, in the immediate and long runs both, but it's also the kind of writing I do.


It may not help when it comes time to pay the electric bill, but there's something pretty wonderful about connecting with readers like that.


----------



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

AmsterdamAssassin said:


> PS. I can imagine the sheer volume of research that goes into writing historical books. Kudos for making the effort!


I figure the research that goes into each HF book is comparable to doing the research for a master's thesis. It can be daunting unless you really, _really_ love doing it.

As for the observation that if you write more/faster, you'll sell more books, there's always an exception. Darcie Chan has sold over half a million of her solo book, _Mill River Recluse_. It was unique, superbly crafted and memorable. She wrote a great book and marketed it well. You bet I'm buying her next one.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

This is a fantastic thread. I've learned a lot reading the posts and thinking about the issues discussed here. Thanks so much for starting it, MeiLin, and thanks to everyone who's contributed.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

alidawinter said:


> I'm glad to hear not everyone is producing 4+ books a year! I think getting 1 out a year is a great accomplishment.


I'm thinking writing a whole novel is an accomplishment. Most people who aim to write a book never finish.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

As others have said, I don't think slower writers are doomed but I DO think they have to handle their income differently. If you release two books a year and you focus more on selling to repeat customers rather than capturing new readers, your income is going to explode during the 2-3 months after each new release and dwindle the rest of the year. So you set up a business account and put yourself on a reasonable payroll so that you drip out those higher royalty payments over many months. There's nothing at all wrong with that and it may even help psychologically as you won't "feel" like sales suck when you continue to get regular payments to your personal account.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Some of us prefer to share our knowledge freely, as others did for us when we started, instead of packaging it for $2.99 and selling it to fellow writers.


Screw that. I'm selling my knowledge. Ain't gonna get $2.99 though, 'cause it's kind of a flash non-fiction thing.


----------



## Lady TL Jennings (Dec 8, 2011)

Greg Strandberg said:


> Great job on having all your covers look so similar, and good!
> 
> I've been freelancing now for 9 months as well. The faster you write the more money you make. There is the anxiety of where, or when, the next job's going to come though.


Thank you, Greg (*blushing*).

Yes, freelancing is both a blessing and sometimes a curse. At the moment I'm very happy to write at my own pace and with no pressure and oddly enough I'm writing almost as much now (when I've a full time job) as when I was freelancing. So it's the best of two worlds for me!


----------

