# Barry Eisler signs with Thomas and Mercer



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

http://jetreidliterary.blogspot.com/2011/05/bea-2011-day-three.html

"Barry Eisler announced today during his presentation at Publishers Launch Conference, an event held alongside BEA, that he has signed "within the hour" a deal with Thomas and Mercer, the new crime imprint at Amazon.

In response to the moderator's question, Eisler also revealed he was receiving an advance "comparable to the one offered by Minotaur" which is widely rumored to be near $500,000."


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

Jamie Case said:


> http://jetreidliterary.blogspot.com/2011/05/bea-2011-day-three.html
> 
> "Barry Eisler announced today during his presentation at Publishers Launch Conference, an event held alongside BEA, that he has signed "within the hour" a deal with Thomas and Mercer, the new crime imprint at Amazon.
> 
> In response to the moderator's question, Eisler also revealed he was receiving an advance "comparable to the one offered by Minotaur" which is widely rumored to be near $500,000."


Very intersting. Thanks for the post.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Hmm, yes that is interesting.

Vicki


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Intriguing, as Eisler and Konrath (who's also got a book coming out with Thomas and Mercer, as I recall) have been two of the most ardent advocates of self-publishing. Eisler said recently on Konrath's blog, in reference to turning down a half-million dollar advance:



> I know it'll seem crazy to a lot of people, but based on what's happening in the industry, and based on the kind of experience writers like you are having in self-publishing, I think I can do better in the long term on my own.


I wonder why these authors don't want to sign with one of the Big Six, but are willing to sign with Amazon? Does Amazon give them more leeway in cover design and editing and so forth?

In any event, it just goes to show you that self-pubbing and signing with publishers can co-exist.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Intriguing, as Eisler and Konrath (who's also got a book coming out with Thomas and Mercer, as I recall) have been two of the most ardent advocates of self-publishing. Eisler said recently on Konrath's blog, in reference to turning down a half-million dollar advance:
> 
> I wonder why these authors don't want to sign with one of the Big Six, but are willing to sign with Amazon? Does Amazon give them more leeway in cover design and editing and so forth?
> 
> In any event, it just goes to show you that self-pubbing and signing with publishers can co-exist.


The near 70% ebook royalties just MIGHT have something to do with it. On that link he also hints that he may have more control or at least that you'd have to see his contract to analyze it.

Edit: Let's get real here. How many of us would turn down 1/2 a million bucks AND 70% ebook royalties? Really. Nor does this say that everything he writes or has ever written has to be included in the deal.

It's all about options and the ability to do what is best for oneself. DWS and Kris Rusch have long been giving that advice.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Seems we had two models. One was legacy, and the other was self-publishing. Now the Amazon system makes it three models.

If print royalties are similar between Amazon and legacy, and retail price is similar, then Amazon will be making very good money from print.


----------



## Sarah Woodbury (Jan 30, 2011)

AND they cut out the middle-man:  which used to be them!  Such a deal for the writer and the 'publisher' (aka Amazon).


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh, I don't disagree it's a good deal, for sure.  But it changes the landscape a little.  As Terrence says, now there are three models, not two.  It kind of changes everything Konrath has been talking about-- now the choice isn't necessarily between self-pubbing for 70% but no advance on one hand and lower royalties/advance on the other, but we also have the added possibility of high royalties/high advance/someone else to handle cover and editing.  (Not to imply that every author they sign will get an advance of $500,000, but even if their average author only gets $5000, that would be a nice thing to have along with 70% royalties, wouldn't it?)


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

I have to say that I understand why someone would take such a deal.

With traditional publishing, it seems that there is little control over anything but less responsibility.

With self-publishing, it seems that there is great control over everything and great responsibility.

With Amazon's imprints, it seems that that there is good control and not that much responsibility. After all, Amazon does the promoting for the author.

There's also the fact of royalties. When someone purchased a book from Amazon, the money was split three ways: Amazon, the publisher, and the author. You get a bigger cut when you remove one of them from the picture.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

It will be interesting to see how prevalent Konrath and Eisler's ad placements are on Amazon. My guess would be the "publisher" will foot the bill of advertising on itself . 70% royalties on eBooks, full control over editors/artists, and any type of preference in the world's largest book retailer?

Curious to hear about the actual offers from Amazon. The big 6 have a BIG reason to worry if Amazon can offer this full service.


----------



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

Reading these responses makes me feel like a hardened cynic.

If a higher royalty rate was all it took to get Eisler to sign on the dotted line, then this was never about a revolution. It was about renegotiating the terms of his contract in light of new developments. And kudos to Eisler, he managed to bag that new and improved contract. But it does make a lot of what was said before ring hollow. Because no matter whose name is on the letterhead, the math still holds true...he stood to make more as a self-pubber than as a traditionally published author. 

What's interesting is the fact that the success of Amazon's publishing venture hinges on the health of the print market and the bookstores that service them. Konrath has been predicting the collapse of both of those things to anyone with an RSS reader. I'm not too surprised that he and Eisler don't see Amazon as a legacy publisher. Saves them the trouble of having to eat their words.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I agree that it's kudos to Eisler. We have no way of knowing the details of the contract or the degree of control he managed to negotiate. I suspect it's more than with a legacy publisher, but how can we know? 

Where I don't agree is your dismissal of the financial consideration. The difference between 14% into the author's pocket and 70% is ... *shrug* It's nothing to be dismissed. 

I think DWS and Kris Rusch have in some ways a much more balanced view of the whole process that we're seeing an evolution of publishing which doesn't mean that publishing companies will disappear but that the ones that survive will have evolved. And that there is now room for the self-published who can no longer be dismissed out-of-hand.

Edit: If he is getting nearly the same royalty as self-pubbed on ebooks (which is what the article says) AND getting print books into bookstores, I think you are quite wrong that he would have done better remaining completely self-pubbed. It looks as though he may well laugh all the way to the bank.

At any rate, whatever he may have said in the past, he has every right to do what is best for his own career. I assume that's what he did and that's what we should all do.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Jamie Case said:


> Reading these responses makes me feel like a hardened cynic.
> 
> If a higher royalty rate was all it took to get Eisler to sign on the dotted line, then this was never about a revolution. It was about renegotiating the terms of his contract in light of new developments. And kudos to Eisler, he managed to bag that new and improved contract. But it does make a lot of what was said before ring hollow. Because no matter whose name is on the letterhead, the math still holds true...he stood to make more as a self-pubber than as a traditionally published author.
> 
> What's interesting is the fact that the success of Amazon's publishing venture hinges on the health of the print market and the bookstores that service them. Konrath has been predicting the collapse of both of those things to anyone with an RSS reader. I'm not too surprised that he and Eisler don't see Amazon as a legacy publisher. Saves them the trouble of having to eat their words.


Except Amazon is making just as much on the eBooks with Eisler self-publishing as they were with him going through a big 6 OR self publishing. What you are seeing here is Amazon responding to authors and changing the game. You want more control over your contracts? Okay. You want an almost identical return on eBooks which you see as the future? No problem. When Eisler and Konrath left traditional publishing, there was no such other option.

What you are seeing is Amazon convincing hardened skeptics of traditional publishing that there is a third option that wasn't discussed because the only player that could realistically offer this kind of deal was Amazon. Part of me is scared for what this could do to competition (there is literally no way that big 6 can compete with this contract), and another part of me is fascinated that such an option could exist. If we are reading these reports correctly, Amazon has offered these guys full control, 70% eBook royalty, and potentially direct access to the world's largest retailer.

I mean, let that sink in for a moment. This is astounding. The full advertisment and algorithm channeling power of Amazon directly at the fingertips of authors AND 70% eBook royalties? Along with what is probably a huge discount to CreateSpace print publishing?

These are authors, not revolutionaries here. This was always an issue about creative control along with eBook royalties. Konrath's spite was against the traditional publishers who wouldn't change to meet the eBook revolution. Amazon is NOT a traditional publisher.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I asked Blake Crouch about the Amazon deal on my blog http://ghostplanestory.blogspot.com/2011/05/5-questions-for-blake-crouch-about.html. He says he and Joe went with Amazon because they're doing a lot "involving price, true collaboration with their authors, and their ability to reach readers is tremendous."


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Anyone who's followed Konrath's blog for any length of time knows full well that he does not believe his future is in print publishing. In the _new_ publishing paradigm, he considers print a subsidiary right. He's stated many times that print is dead, and in the future will only exist as a niche market. He claims he can make far more money self-publishing ebooks. He claims, in fact, that he has gotten "rich" from his ebooks.

Beyond that, Barry Eisler is on the Konrath team, so to speak. Along with Blake Crouch and a few other regulars who participate over at The Newbies Guide. They all espouse the same mantra. I'm not judging that, or even saying that it's wrong. But it does make this latest news an interesting development for sure.

When you position yourself at the head of a movement, as Joe has done, and speak your opinions so loudly and vehemently, well then you set yourself up for a lot of scrutiny. That's when the true "agendas" become clear. Remember, it's not what someone says that counts, it's what he does.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh, hey, I didn't know Blake Crouch had signed with them, too. Awesome-- I loved _Run_.



> They all espouse the same mantra. I'm not judging that, or even saying that it's wrong. But it does make this latest news an interesting development for sure.


The fact that all three of these guys have signed with Amazon's new imprint says something about where they feel the future of publishing is, I think. They have seen the future and it is Amazon, apparently.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Oh, hey, I didn't know Blake Crouch had signed with them, too. Awesome-- I loved _Run_.
> 
> The fact that all three of these guys have signed with Amazon's new imprint says something about where they feel the future of publishing is, I think. They have seen the future and it is Amazon, apparently.


Yes, this much is clear.

So I wonder, does Thomas and Mercer handle the print _and_ ebooks? I mean, they are the publisher, right?


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> Oh, hey, I didn't know Blake Crouch had signed with them, too. Awesome-- I loved _Run_.
> 
> The fact that all three of these guys have signed with Amazon's new imprint says something about where they feel the future of publishing is, I think. They have seen the future and it is Amazon, apparently.


He and Joe are co-writing *Stirred*. Blake's villain, Luther, meet's Joe's Jack Daniels.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh, the Crouch/Konrath book.  Yes, of course I did know about that.  It's late at night and my brain is dead. 

JT, I thought I had heard that AmazonEncore print books were being put into the bookstores through another (Big Six) publisher, but I'm not sure the same is true for the new imprints.  (ETA: What I read is that AmazonEncore sold the trade paperback rights for a couple of Karen McQuestion's books to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.  No idea if this is standard for the imprint or not.)


----------



## Tom Junior (Apr 4, 2011)

I don't think this changes things that much. It makes sense...Amazon lets anyone self-publish. If any of their self-publishers really strike it big, Amazon offers to go into partnership with them. The keyword being 'partnership'. Konrath et al, can still publish their own e-books. Big distributors will never go out of style, but they will need to bargain more with authors. 

Self publishing is still nothing to scoff at. Many writers are making a living, or gaining an audience who wouldn't have before. Also, would Konrath or even Amanda Hocking have been noticed at all if it weren't for ebooks? Chances are they probably would both be laboring away in obscurity. The number of options becoming wider, is a good thing..for everyone.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

T.J. Dotson said:


> I don't think this changes things that much. It makes sense...Amazon lets anyone self-publish. If any of their self-publishers really strike it big, Amazon offers to go into partnership with them. The keyword being 'partnership'. Konrath et al, can still publish their own e-books. Big distributors will never go out of style, but they will need to bargain more with authors.


Why do you say "partnership"? I know Konrath has said he gets more control and better terms compared to traditional publishing deals, but I don't read that as a partnership. At the end of the day, I gotta believe this deal is slanted towards Amazon, if even just a little bit.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"At the end of the day, I gotta believe that this deal is slanted towards Amazon, if even just a little bit."_

How would you measure that?


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

jtplayer said:


> Why do you say "partnership"? I know Konrath has said he gets more control and better terms compared to traditional publishing deals, but I don't read that as a partnership. At the end of the day, I gotta believe this deal is slanted towards Amazon, if even just a little bit.


Now I recognize you. I kept thinking that your username was familiar, and then I read the comments on a few of Joe's blog.


----------



## kCopeseeley (Mar 15, 2011)

Jamie Case said:


> If a higher royalty rate was all it took to get Eisler to sign on the dotted line, then this was never about a revolution. It was about renegotiating the terms of his contract in light of new developments. And kudos to Eisler, he managed to bag that new and improved contract. But it does make a lot of what was said before ring hollow. Because no matter whose name is on the letterhead, the math still holds true...he stood to make more as a self-pubber than as a traditionally published author.


But see, that IS the revolution. That a writer can demand a higher royalty rate and more control and actually GET it. If it weren't for the revolution, Eisler wouldn't have that option. He'd be stuck shopping around for the same old deal all the trad pub authors get. I think Konrath (and Eisler) have both been frank in their blogs about the fact that they will always go where the best deal is. For now, it seems that is with Amazon. But Konrath said himself in his newest blog (it's in the comments, so you might have to hunt for it) that as soon as Amazon isn't the best deal, he'll move on.

The revolution is that writers are finally realizing THEY are the commodity. The fact that ebooks are allowing them more power is just one of the many stepping stones for them to prove it to everyone else.


----------



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

@JR

I agree with you. I just feel like Eisler and Konrath could have spared the internet their self-congratulatory treatise on THE WAY THINGS ARE if they were just going to turn around do the opposite in less than two months.

@Rex

Amazon is offering a higher royalty rate on e-books only. The print royalty rate is comparable according to the link. Whether that royalty rate is net/gross is unspecified. Until I see them throwing in free healthcare or something that substantially sets them apart from their competitors, I'll refer to them as tradpubs. You can accuse me of being shortsighted if you want.


----------



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

It could also be a way of Amazon keeping successful ebook authors off other platforms. I wonder if Mercer's books through the Amazon imprint will be available through B&N or iBookstore (B&N announced a new epaper nook today, for $140). Keeping the gap between the Kindle and the rest would definitely work in Amazon's favour and having all the best ebook authors in popular genres available exclusively through Amazon would sway many people towards the Kindle.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"At the end of the day, I gotta believe that this deal is slanted towards Amazon, if even just a little bit."_
> 
> How would you measure that?


I'd have to see the actual terms of the deal to measure that. I'm just going on a gut feeling here. I've read nothing that says these deals are a "partnership".


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> The near 70% ebook royalties just MIGHT have something to do with it. On that link he also hints that he may have more control or at least that you'd have to see his contract to analyze it.
> 
> Edit: Let's get real here. How many of us would turn down 1/2 a million bucks AND 70% ebook royalties? Really. Nor does this say that everything he writes or has ever written has to be included in the deal.
> 
> It's all about options and the ability to do what is best for oneself. DWS and Kris Rusch have long been giving that advice.


Why do you think he's getting 70%? Amazon gets 30% anyway. My guess is he's getting less than 70% but more than his traditional publisher was willing to pay him. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a 50-50 deal.

Konrath said he wouldn't do all his books with Amazon's new imprint even if given the chance. To me that says he's getting less per sale but he expects to make up some of that loss in volume, but also expects the exposure to boost sales of his other books.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Ryne Billings said:


> Now I recognize you. I kept thinking that your username was familiar, and then I read the comments on a few of Joe's blog.


Yes, I post over there pretty regularly. And you?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> It could also be a way of Amazon keeping successful ebook authors off other platforms.


Almost certainly, that's part of it. I recall that Amanda Hocking was reported not to take a deal with Amazon partly because it would mean her book wouldn't be available on B&N.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

jtplayer said:


> Yes, I post over there pretty regularly. And you?


I'm a regular reader, but I don't post there too much. Going through the comments, I was shocked to find that at least a third of the people that comment are on KB. It's pretty neat.

Anyways, I think you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not in agreement with you about any of this, but that doesn't make either of us wrong.


----------



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

kCopeseeley said:


> But see, that IS the revolution. That a writer can demand a higher royalty rate and more control and actually GET it. If it weren't for the revolution, Eisler wouldn't have that option. He'd be stuck shopping around for the same old deal all the trad pub authors get. I think Konrath (and Eisler) have both been frank in their blogs about the fact that they will always go where the best deal is. For now, it seems that is with Amazon. But Konrath said himself in his newest blog (it's in the comments, so you might have to hunt for it) that as soon as Amazon isn't the best deal, he'll move on.
> 
> The revolution is that writers are finally realizing THEY are the commodity. The fact that ebooks are allowing them more power is just one of the many stepping stones for them to prove it to everyone else.


This makes sense. Trouble is that's not what they wrote. What I read in that Eisler-Konrath post was that no publisher in the world would be able to offer terms that could beat what they could make on their own. I get that intellectual honesty means diddly on the internet, but sometimes I can't help but hope.

Still I haven't seen the contract, so maybe Amazon is treating this as a loss leader and offering a 90/10 cut or something.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

One other thing to consider is that Amazon may be getting into the bookstore business. There are rumors they are one of the bidders for Borders. Having their own imprints would be a nice little boost for their stores. The other advantage of the stores might be that they want to compete with the Apple stores because Amazon is probably getting into the tablet business and may even launch a phone, if rumors are to be believed.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

jtplayer said:


> Yes, this much is clear.
> 
> So I wonder, does Thomas and Mercer handle the print _and_ ebooks? I mean, they are the publisher, right?


So I answered my own question by checking the Kindle store for _Stirred_, and yes, it is being released by Thomas & Mercer.

I find it interesting Konrath is going this route. He claims he's making major bank on his self-pubbed ebooks. He can release _Stirred_ completely on his own and make the 70% royalty, just as he's doing now. He doesn't need Thomas & Mercer to do that. In fact, from what I can see, they bring nothing to the table.

_Unless_ we're talking about print. That's where the picture changes. And it begs the question to Joe: I thought print was dead?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> In fact, from what I can see, they bring nothing to the table.


Except, one presumes, a honkin' big advance. I realize Konrath has pooh-poohed advances in the past, but in this case he is (presumably) getting the big advance AND the large royalty. That's hard to beat.

(Also, JT, you do recall he's already had one book with Amazon, right? _Shaken _was released through AmazonEncore. So this isn't really a change in tactics for him.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I find it interesting Konrath is going this route. He claims he's making major bank on his self-pubbed ebooks. He can release Stirred completely on his own and make the 70% royalty, just as he's doing now. He doesn't need Thomas & Mercer to do that. In fact, from what I can see, they bring nothing to the table."_

Amazon has the ability to bring a great deal to the table. They control a very powerful and sophisticated marketing machine. There seem to be three major aspects. 1) Public ads we all see on Amazon, 2) personal recommendations only the account holder sees, and 3) email recommendations. Nobody else has that reach.

And print? Nobody says it's dead. They say it is dying and has a bleak future. However, there is a lot of money in it on the way out.


----------



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Except, one presumes, a honkin' big advance. I realize Konrath has pooh-poohed advances in the past, but in this case he is (presumably) getting the *big advance AND the large royalty.* That's hard to beat.
> 
> (Also, JT, you do recall he's already had one book with Amazon, right? _Shaken _was released through AmazonEncore. So this isn't really a change in tactics for him.)


If the book earns out...

Well as interesting as this conversation is, I have to tap out. Can't stay up all night gossiping about other people's money.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Why do you think he's getting 70%? Amazon gets 30% anyway. My guess is he's getting less than 70% but more than his traditional publisher was willing to pay him. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a 50-50 deal.
> 
> Konrath said he wouldn't do all his books with Amazon's new imprint even if given the chance. To me that says he's getting less per sale but he expects to make up some of that loss in volume, but also expects the exposure to boost sales of his other books.


I think he is getting close to 70% because the article said so:



> Eisler said the print royalties were commensurate with what he'd have received in his contract at Minotaur and the ebook royalty rates were much higher, near 70%...


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> And print? Nobody says it's dead. They say it is dying and has a bleak future. However, there is a lot of money in it on the way out.


You must not read Konrath's blog much. Lot's of folks over there believe just that. And Joe has said so much himself.


----------



## skyrunner (Dec 28, 2010)

Besides the better royalties- think what Amazon can do pushing it own writers from favored positions on the website etc.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Except, one presumes, a honkin' big advance. I realize Konrath has pooh-poohed advances in the past, but in this case he is (presumably) getting the big advance AND the large royalty. That's hard to beat.
> 
> (Also, JT, you do recall he's already had one book with Amazon, right? _Shaken _was released through AmazonEncore. So this isn't really a change in tactics for him.)


Yeah, I knew about that. It seems at the time the print aspect of that deal was kind of downplayed.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jamie Case said:


> @JR
> 
> I agree with you. I just feel like Eisler and Konrath could have spared the internet their self-congratulatory treatise on THE WAY THINGS ARE if they were just going to turn around do the opposite in less than two months.


I can't argue with you there and some other bloggers such as Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Rusch have always taken a more moderate view that a combination of both indie and traditional (or at least being open to both) was in an author's best interest. Publishing companies are not going to disappear. Evolve, yes. Disappear, no.

I am not sure I would buy that Amazon is a "traditional" publisher. A traditional publisher doesn't control distribution the way Amazon does. I think it may be a part of the evolution process and a different kind of company. Better? Worse?

Man, we'll have to see how all this shakes out. How is Amazon going to like competition from indies further down the line? Who knows?

Lots of imponderables and unknowns but so it is in "interesting times".


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Well, if this means my beloved print books will live on, then I'm all in.  While I enjoy my Kindle, and I've picked up a handful of very cool indie ebooks, I'm still a paper book and bookstore guy 

While I'd love to see my own novel published, I'm just not sure the indie e-route is right for me.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"You must not read Konrath's blog much. Lot's of folks over there believe just that. And Joe has said so much himself."_

Any of us can walk into a B&N and see lots of paper books selling. We can also look at the PW listings to see the number of eBooks, hardbacks, trade, and mass market paper books. Amazon just announced their eBook sales had surpassed their paper sales, but they haven't abandoned paper. Even if paper is only 40% of Amazon sales, it would be unwise to turn one's back on that 40% while it lasts.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"You must not read Konrath's blog much. Lot's of folks over there believe just that. And Joe has said so much himself."_
> 
> Any of us can walk into a B&N and see lots of paper books selling. We can also look at the PW listings to see the number of eBooks, hardbacks, trade, and mass market paper books. Amazon just announced their eBook sales had surpassed their paper sales, but they haven't abandoned paper. Even if paper is only 40% of Amazon sales, it would be unwise to turn one's back on that 40% while it lasts.


You'll get no argument from me on that. I honestly don't see why both can't peacefully coexist


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"I find it interesting Konrath is going this route. He claims he's making major bank on his self-pubbed ebooks. He can release Stirred completely on his own and make the 70% royalty, just as he's doing now. He doesn't need Thomas & Mercer to do that. In fact, from what I can see, they bring nothing to the table."_
> 
> Amazon has the ability to bring a great deal to the table. They control a very powerful and sophisticated marketing machine. There seem to be three major aspects. 1) Public ads we all see on Amazon, 2) personal recommendations only the account holder sees, and 3) email recommendations. Nobody else has that reach.
> 
> And print? Nobody says it's dead. They say it is dying and has a bleak future. However, there is a lot of money in it on the way out.


Agreed. Amazon can simply display its own books instead of third party books more frequently and boost sales. That is the type of promotion writers dream about, and the type of promotion that NY publishers simply don't deliver for midlist writers.

I think Amazon could take just about any indie's book and rework the cover and description and then simply display it in front of readers with great frequency and turn it into a top 500 Kindle book.


----------



## skyrunner (Dec 28, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Agreed. Amazon can simply display its own books instead of third party books more frequently and boost sales. That is the type of promotion writers dream about, and the type of promotion that NY publishers simply don't deliver for midlist writers.
> 
> I think Amazon could take just about any indie's book and rework the cover and description and then simply display it in front of readers with great frequency and turn it into a top 500 Kindle book.


Yes, or something close to it. Naturally Amazon will chose authors that are proven sellers with the public,. Some will win big, but how will things change for the remainder of indie authors when Amazon has its own authors it has invested in ?


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

skyrunner said:


> Yes, or something close to it. Naturally Amazon will chose authors that are proven sellers with the public,. Some will win big, but how will things change for the remainder of indie authors when Amazon has its own authors it has invested in ?


Amazon always wants to make a sale, so it will never sacrifice a sale just to show one of its books instead of a third party book. The danger is when its algorithms tell it that for a given customer one of its books is just as likely to sell as an indie book. What will Amazon choose to recommend?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Eisler's previous contention that he would make more money self-publishing was primarily based on e-books sales - he knew his print sales would fall a lot with this switch, given the extra hurdles with print self-publishing and getting your books into stores (and at a reasonable price).

With this deal with Amazon, he makes the same royalties from e-sales, has increased print distribution, reduced costs (they will foot the bill for production of both versions), and tons of free advertising.

The advance is a wash as he will have to pay that back before he receives any royalties, but it is a expression of faith from Amazon, and I would imagine he will earn out reasonably quickly.

According to Konrath, the terms of the Amazon deal allow for the release of the e-book versions months before the print version, so the "time to market" drawback of trade deals vanishes.

Win-win for Eisler, and anyone else who signs with Amazon on similar terms.

This kind of deal will increase the competition between agents and publishers for spinning off print deals for successful self-publishers.

And for every author that makes the transition from self-publishing to some form of trade publishing (or mixes the two), there will be an existing trade published author who will want better terms, and will be in a stronger postition to demand them.

Good for Eisler, good for everyone.

Dave

P.S. jtplayer - Eisler said his Amazon contract was the most (and the only) author-friendly publishing contract he has ever seen. He said he signed it straight away. He also said that he didn't give up any creative control.


----------



## skyrunner (Dec 28, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Amazon always wants to make a sale, so it will never sacrifice a sale just to show one of its books instead of a third party book. The danger is when its algorithms tell it that for a given customer one of its books is just as likely to sell as an indie book. What will Amazon choose to recommend?


To follow through on the question " _just as likely to sell _" The Algorithm will choose the Amazon book. Just say the algorithm goes by genre first; then that's easy; the algorithm will choose books that amazon authors have in that genre first, because presumably they will also be good sellers, because if not, Amazon would not have an arrangement with that author in the first place. So the bias towards Amazons group of authors, will be there right from the start ( on a page that says for example, customers who like this book also liked this one - and they will be Amazon authors ) yes ?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

skyrunner said:


> To follow through on the question " _just as likely to sell _" The Algorithm will choose the Amazon book. Just say the algorithm goes by genre first; then that's easy; the algorithm will choose books that amazon authors have in that genre first, because presumably they will also be good sellers, because if not, Amazon would not have an arrangement with that author in the first place. So the bias towards Amazons group of authors, will be there right from the start ( on a page that says for example, customers who like this book also liked this one - and they will be Amazon authors ) yes ?


They _could_ game the system, but I'm not sure that they will.

I used to work for Google's advertising division - AdWords. Google ran its own ads all the time, but they never gamed the system to make their ads come first. They knew that doing so would undermine the public's confidence in the system, i.e. that it was equitable and results appeared at the top because they were the most useful ads related to that keyword (they had the the highest click-through rates).

The reason Google's ads came top (most of the time), because the people writing the ads (us), understood how the system worked and because those ads were what people were looking for anyway (you would be surprised how many people google "Google".

Same with Amazon. I imagine that they don't want to game the system and make Konrath's and Eisler's books come top for every search. That would undermine the "purity" of the system, would become pretty obvious to anyone, and would affect overall user confidence in the equity of their system. However, they will understand the importance of things like selecting the appropriate categorisation and tagging (which a lot of major publishers still don't have a clue about).

They will also have access to reams of data about what kind of product descriptions, covers, titles etc. perform best, and tweak their ads accordingly.

There will be no need for the algorithm to "choose" the book, it will appear top (for appropriate searches) because it will be the best ad/listing.


----------



## Marcin Wrona (Apr 28, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Same with Amazon. I imagine that they don't want to game the system and make Konrath's and Eisler's books come top for every search. That would undermine the "purity" of the system, would become pretty obvious to anyone, and would affect overall user confidence in the equity of their system. However, they will understand the importance of things like selecting the appropriate categorisation and tagging (which a lot of major publishers still don't have a clue about).
> 
> They will also have access to reams of data about what kind of product descriptions, covers, titles etc. perform best, and tweak their ads accordingly.


Almost certainly. Amazon are one of the smartest companies in business today, and they'll do this right.

By way of analogy, those of us who are PC gamers are almost certainly aware of Steam, and those of us who have been around long enough will remember that Steam was developed first and foremost as a distribution vehicle for a single developer - Valve. Does Valve boost its own games at the expense of the million billion other products it offers? No, or if so, invisibly.

This isn't just a question of customer confidence. Steam - and Amazon - carry lots of $-marked laundry bags to the bank because they do such a good job of selling _everything_. Why would they undermine everybody else's extremely profitable products to disproportionately push their own? You can only sell one book, or one game, to so many people. If you take a cut of everything, it makes sense to sell everything.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I agree Marcin - spot on.

I wrote a blog post today about all this: http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-third-way-barry-eisler-signs-trade-deal-with-amazon/

For the click-lazy, it says that this is a smart move by Amazon and an even smarter one by Barry Eisler.

He will make at least the same from e-book sales (but probably a lot more given the huge marketing push that Amazon will have to give him given that the fortunes of their new imprint are tied, in part, to his success). He will sell way more print books. Plus he gets an advance, all production costs covered, and retains creative control.

As for Amazon, they get an international bestseller with a big media profile for their frontlist. And if he exceeds expectations (and I think he will beat out that advance quite quickly), they can use him as a poster boy to snare even bigger fish.

A win-win for both parties.

I also think that this is a vindication of self-publishing, and confirmation that the smartest writers will leave all doors open, and mix a traditional and self-publishing approach, if the deal is right.

Finally, I think this is further confirmation that the rise in self-publishing is good for ALL writers, even those who have no interest in self-publishing. Why? Because it (along with other recent developments) makes Amazon a serious player in trade publishing. Authors will be keen on a trade deal with juicy e-royalties. Agents can use this as leverage in trade negotiations. And publishers are going to have to work harder to keep their stars happy.

It's a great time to be a writer, and it's getting better every day.


----------



## Marcin Wrona (Apr 28, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I agree Marcin - spot on.


That said, I've rethought my tweet about the B&N thing last night. If Amazon is indeed contracting its authors to pull out of B&N and other distribution networks, B&N will likely retaliate by not stocking their books.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Marcin Wrona said:


> That said, I've rethought my tweet about the B&N thing last night. If Amazon is indeed contracting its authors to pull out of B&N and other distribution networks, B&N will likely retaliate by not stocking their books.


It's all up in the air. If both parties can come to a mutually-beneficial arrangement they will do so. I accept that that is a big "if".

B&N have their own imprint - Amazon can retaliate there too.

Is it a sustainable strategy for B&N (or anyone) to not stock any Amazon authors? Already Amazon have signed Blake Crouch, Joe Konrath, and Barry Eisler. Granted, none of those are real household names, but they sell enough. What about when Amazon have 10 such authors, or 50? The numbers start to pile up.

Plus, if Eisler is a success, and they snag someone bigger, surely B&N couldn't keep it up.


----------



## Marcin Wrona (Apr 28, 2011)

It's hard to say. Everybody's leery of handing too much to "the other guy". 

I certainly believe that a mutually beneficial deal can be worked out, but efforts towards that seem to have started off on the wrong foot. Enlightened self-interest is one thing, but businesses still make poor decisions because of pride, stockholder fears of feeding competitors, etc. It may be that a balkanization is as likely as a compromise.

It's also worth remembering that Amazon is a more global concern than Barnes and Noble. Nobody wants to make difficulties for themselves in the US market, of course - it's too big to ignore - but when it comes down to it, even if an accord can't be struck there, Amazon has other options (within the US and, of course, without).

But I don't hand out lottery numbers, because things are entirely too unpredictable. We'll just have to wait and see and adapt.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

You're right. It's a global business (estimated at $80bn to $90bn) and a lot of people forget that.

For my part, I can't understand Barnes & Noble's reluctance to go international. They seem to have little interest, and given Amazon's lack of focus, there are opportunities there (as Kobo have realised).

Amazon will partner with an existing trade house to produce the paperback (just like they have with Houghton Mifflin for the hardback). Whether that makes a difference to any purported boycott, I don't know.

Interesting times.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2011)

Jamie Case said:


> If a higher royalty rate was all it took to get Eisler to sign on the dotted line, then this was never about a revolution. It was about renegotiating the terms of his contract in light of new developments.


Eisler is a master of the non-statement. His commentary is consistently riddled with "wiggle words" that lead you to think one thing but don't actually say much. What does "Near 70%" mean? Everyone here is reading that *AS 70%*, but NEAR 70% could be anything. Also, I'm willing to bet that his royalty is a TRUE royalty and not the gross profit Amazon pays to indies. His advance with Amazon is "comparable" with the other publisher, which was "rumored" to be $500,000. Nobody has seen the contracts.

And of course there is the distinct prospect that this deal is nothing more than a promotional tool for Amazon and not reflective at all of what the typical deal will look like. Last year, Lulu.com make a big show of John Edgar Wideman (O Henry Award winner, National Book Critics Circle nominee, National Book Award finalist) signing a deal with them to publish his book. Lulu made a huge deal out of it, and how this legitimized self-publishing and blah blah blah. Turns our Wideman's son works for Lulu's marketing department, and is the one who approached his dad to help them launch their special VIP program.

He's great at marketing himself, so more power to him. He positioned himself as a "self-publishing messiah" in order to obtain leverage that allowed him to negotiate a deal with Amazon that no doubt is meant to promote both their self-pub service and their new publishing initiative. I think anyone who is feeling a bit cynical about the whole thing has every reason to.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

It's possible that his whole move into self-publishing was a ploy.

It's also possible that he intended to experiment with short stories and see how it went.

Either way, I see a great deal for a writer, and I'm happy for him.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> And of course there is the distinct prospect that this deal is nothing more than a promotional tool for Amazon and not reflective at all of what the typical deal will look like.


I think this is highly likely. Amazon is signing a few relatively big-name authors here in order to make a splash. Lesser-known authors may get lesser royalties, and certainly a more typical advance.



> He positioned himself as a "self-publishing messiah" in order to obtain leverage that allowed him to negotiate a deal with Amazon that no doubt is meant to promote both their self-pub service and their new publishing initiative. I think anyone who is feeling a bit cynical about the whole thing has every reason to.


I don't blame anyone for going for the money (I sure would), but if you announce loudly to the world that self-publishing is the best way to go, and then go another way... well, you shouldn't be surprised if people are taken slightly aback.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> I don't blame anyone for going for the money (I sure would), but if you announce loudly to the world that self-publishing is the best way to go, and then go another way... well, you shouldn't be surprised if people are taken slightly aback.


But self-publishing and trade publishing are not two exclusive paths.

He self-published some shorts. He is trade publishing his next novel. I'm sure he will self-publish more stuff in the future.

Hocking is doing something similar.

What's the big deal?

Writers should keep all doors open and always do the best deal for them. He didn't "owe" the self-publishing community anything. Personally, he helped make my decision to self-publish, and I will always be grateful for that.

Dave


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> But self-publishing and trade publishing are not two exclusive paths...
> 
> What's the big deal?


Totally agree. There IS no big deal. I'm all for keeping one's options open, and always have been. The only problem for me is that certain authors have been very much on the _self-publishing is the only way to go, if you sign with a publisher you're flushing money down the drain, every author should absolutely self-publish!_ train And then they... sign with a publisher. I am all for going where the money is, but I think this could be a lesson in moderating one's tone so one doesn't look a little silly if one changes direction.

Hocking, OTOH, never said that self-publishing was the only sensible path. In fact she was pretty clear that it wasn't for everyone.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Totally agree. There IS no big deal. I'm all for keeping one's options open, and always have been. The only problem for me is that certain authors have been very much on the _self-publishing is the only way to go, if you sign with a publisher you're flushing money down the drain, every author should absolutely self-publish!_ train And then they... sign with a publisher. I am all for going where the money is, but I think this could be a lesson in moderating one's tone so one doesn't look a little silly if one changes direction.
> 
> Hocking, OTOH, never said that self-publishing was the only sensible path. In fact she was pretty clear that it wasn't for everyone.


This.

I am always suspicious of anyone who takes a 100% fluff-n-bunnies approach to ANYTHING. Amanda was always honest about her goals and intentions. She really is a true "self-pub success story." But guys like Eisler already made their names the traditional route, then came into indie publishing not because they believed in the format, but to position themselves for future leverage. They go on and on about how much better they have it self-publishing and get everyone drinking the Kool Aid, and then leverage their indie cred for a publishing contract. These guys were NEVER representative of the average indie. They had contacts and resources and name recognition that gave them an advantage over the average indie (resource they would not have had, BTW, WITHOUT having been traditionally published). They were trad authors who already had established followings and had the marketing savvy to use that to build credibility they didn't deserve as indies. Because they were never indie in the true sense.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Totally agree. There IS no big deal. I'm all for keeping one's options open, and always have been. The only problem for me is that certain authors have been very much on the _self-publishing is the only way to go, if you sign with a publisher you're flushing money down the drain, every author should absolutely self-publish!_ train And then they... sign with a publisher. I am all for going where the money is, but I think this could be a lesson in moderating one's tone so one doesn't look a little silly if one changes direction.
> 
> Hocking, OTOH, never said that self-publishing was the only sensible path. In fact she was pretty clear that it wasn't for everyone.


You have a point. But in fairness, those guys (I presume you are referencing Konrath, Eisler, and the like) always frame the discussion saying that if trade publishers don't change their ways they will shed tons of writers and drive themselves into the ground.

I see no contradiction with one of them, or those that agreed with them, signing with a trade publisher if they changed their ways, embraced the digital revolution, and offered equitable e-royalty rates.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This.
> 
> I am always suspicious of anyone who takes a 100% fluff-n-bunnies approach to ANYTHING. Amanda was always honest about her goals and intentions. She really is a true "self-pub success story." But guys like Eisler already made their names the traditional route, then came into indie publishing not because they believed in the format, but to position themselves for future leverage. They go on and on about how much better they have it self-publishing and get everyone drinking the Kool Aid, and then leverage their indie cred for a publishing contract. These guys were NEVER representative of the average indie. They had contacts and resources and name recognition that gave them an advantage over the average indie (resource they would not have had, BTW, WITHOUT having been traditionally published). They were trad authors who already had established followings and had the marketing savvy to use that to build credibility they didn't deserve as indies. Because they were never indie in the true sense.


Even if it was all a ploy, I still applaud him. He made a smart move.

If more writers follow his lead, it will both raise the profile of self-publishing, and lead to fairer trade contracts.

Everyone's a winner.

I'm not sure what makes someone a "true indie" or not, but then I don't really see trade publishing and self-publishing as exclusively different paths. If you can combine the two, great. Does that make you less of an indie? I don't know, but is that important?

I have respect for anyone who sells books, however they do it. Personally, I have extra respect for those that were unknown and did it all themselves and made it big. But all writers were unknown at one point.

I don't know Barry Eisler's story, but Joe Konrath went through hell to get a trade deal. He also promoted the cr*p out of his books outside the efforts of what his publisher would bankroll, and allow.

In that sense, he's just as much an "indie" as anyone.


----------



## ReflexiveFire (Jul 20, 2010)

I respect a little maneuvering to get a better contract but I still can't help but feel as if Eisler acted like the Pied Piper in this case.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

ReflexiveFire said:


> I respect a little maneuvering to get a better contract but I still can't help but feel as if Eisler acted like the Pied Piper in this case.


Let's not forget that he did actually self-publish two titles.

Short stories, yes, but he made a ton of money from them (and promoted other indie writers through excerpts at the back).


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I'm not sure what makes someone a "true indie" or not, but then I don't really see trade publishing and self-publishing as exclusively different paths. If you can combine the two, great. Does that make you less of an indie? I don't know, but is that important?


It becomes important at that moment when you start drilling it into the head of others that self-publishing is the only logical alternative.

If Michael Jordan goes to a high school and say "Work hard and develop your talent, and you will be successful in whatever you decide to do" that is being motivational.

If Michael Jordan goes to a high school and says "The only way to be successful is to be a basketball player. Don't bother persuing other paths to success, because once you succeed in basketball people will bang down your door to hire you." THAT is both irrational and irresponsible.

Eisler and those like him do not promote self-publishing as one of many viable alternatives. They promote it as the *best and obvious choice*, and you should always chose self-publishing and then sit back and wait for the trads to come chasing after you. THAT is irrational and irresponsible.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Eisler actually said in that long conversation with Konrath that he would take a trade deal if the terms were better.

Self-publishing was the best option *at the time*.

Amazon have gotten into the trade publishing game with unbelievable terms. That changes things.


----------



## Marcin Wrona (Apr 28, 2011)

I can understand a certain amount of resentment when a self-styled champion of X moves on to do Y, but I think it's misplaced. Opinions change, situations change, and the right decision _in general_ isn't necessarily the right decision for an individual. I do believe self-publishing is the best way forward for writers right now, in general. That doesn't mean I wouldn't consider signing a trade contract - even a _bad_ but acceptable one - if I decided that, say, a loss leader might help drive my other sales.

I don't mean to sound cynical or to talk down to anyone when I say this: the problem here isn't what Eisler said or didn't say, it's that people made him into a champion of self-publishing (with, of course, his help), when in reality he's mainly interested in championing his own career. But that's what we should all be doing. Self-publishing is a tool to build a platform, not necessarily a platform in and of itself.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2011)

". . . the success of Amazon's publishing venture hinges on the health of the print market and the bookstores that service them."
_______________________

Hmmm.

I don't think Amazon's venture hinges on the health of bookstores.
Even if bookstores collapse, we could still buy printed books from Amazon, which is already the biggest seller of printed books.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

There's no reason to believe that these two won't still self-publish as well, right? I mean, they haven't signed their lives over to Amazon, it's just a book deal. I can definitely see the attraction of getting into the print market without a lot of hassle. That's still where the bulk of sales are. 

I really like that Amazon is offering writers better royalties and other contract terms. That's major pressure on other publishers to do the same. 
It doesn't affect me, since I'm really happy publishing outside the traditional channels, but whatever makes the world better for writers is a good thing, I think.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"If Amazon is indeed contracting its authors to pull out of B&N and other distribution networks, B&N will likely retaliate by not stocking their books."_

It might make more sense for B&N to do the same thing Amazon is doing. Business does not look for options that simply hurt the other guy. They especially shun things that also hurt themselves. They look for ways to help themselves, and if that is a competitive blow to the other guy, that's fine. They have lots of control over the things they do to help themselves. They have much less control over hurting the other guy.

History shows business is much happier when everyone is making money. Stockholders do not accept a drop in earnings simply to get the satisfaction of seeing the other guy's earnings drop more.

In the larger picture, what we see here is retailers squeezing out their traditional suppliers.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

Don't forget that Amazon is rumored to have offered Hocking a bigger deal than she signed for. She turned it down because she wanted her books to be everywhere and not exclusive to Amazon. 

I think Eisler's issue with going traditional again was in giving up ebook rights forever, basically. St. Martin's offered him 25% of the ebook sale, but that was 25% after the retailer had taken its cut. And it would be like that forever. He would never get the rights reverted. Amazon has apparently made a much more generous offer.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

The situation has simply changed. There was no reason for Konrath or Eisler to expect a new player to come into the picture and BECOME a traditional publisher that was bigger and more influential than any of the big 6. Amazon is changing the game.

The only irrational response would have been to stick to the old schism and say that self publishing is still the only game in town that makes sense. There is a new game in town... and it makes sense. Pretending that this other option existed so that people can critique Konrath and Eisler seems a bit more irrational to me than anything Hocking, Eisler, or Konrath have done.

What you are seeing is rational author response to a lucrative deal. If Eisler and Konrath are getting 50-70%+ eBook royalties and all the perks of the big 6 system with little to none of the downsides? That is EXACTLY what Konrath has been asking for, and what all authors would love. He has been railing against the big 6 because he thinks the current system is unnecessarily restrictive and oppressive to writers, and that they are forcing down the eBook royalties for authors for no legitimate reason.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

I think that the "Big Six" has just become the "Big Seven".


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Just FYI everyone,

Barry Eisler just said on Twitter that the Amazon deal doesn't change the fact that *he will continue to self-publish* other projects.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think AMZ has very long range plans and is very carefully lining their ducks up in a row.  They will make some mistakes, but they will rapidly recover and stay on track.  I am sure they will have more genre imprints coming every few months.  But unlike Big Pubs who want to sell books AMZ wants to sell a huge selection of books and especially Ebooks.  The diverse selection of Ebooks helps to sell the Kindles and the Kindles help to sell Ebooks and while that may seem to be rather clever--AMZ trumps that with it's ability to ALSO be able to sell you pots and pans, perfume, foods, clothing, shoes, phones, computers, car accessories and a GAZILLION other products.  Not only that they have a huge database and can cross-sell you across all categories of what is in their store.  You could literally spend "days" shopping in the AMZ store.

Whatever the outcome I think AMZ do well.  The Big Pubs will adjust and do well.  There are so many types of books which do well in paper and really look better in paper.  In short, it is good for the reader to have more options than ever and this could energize the normally staid publishing world.  It is also good for the writer.


----------



## DDScott (Aug 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Seems we had two models. One was legacy, and the other was self-publishing. Now the Amazon system makes it three models.


Yes...this, Terrence...this seems to be perhaps an interesting new, alternative publishing model...


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

Hi all,

This is my first time posting on Kindle Boards (probably this is one of those things that makes me less than a True Indie Author, in Julie's parlance), so please forgive any lapses in formatting or style. I've been following the discussion here with interest and gratitude for the many insights in this thread, and thought I'd add a few thoughts of my own.

Bards and Sages (Julie): "Eisler and those like him do not promote self-publishing as one of many viable alternatives. They promote it as the best and obvious choice, and you should always chose self-publishing and then sit back and wait for the trads to come chasing after you. THAT is irrational and irresponsible." (Etc)

Julie, I don't remember ever saying anything of the kind, but I've done a lot of interviews in the last few months and it could be that I'm overlooking something. Would you be kind enough to provide me with a link or two to what I've said that's led you to these interpretations? Thanks.

Jamie Case: "What I read in that Eisler-Konrath post was that no publisher in the world would be able to offer terms that could beat what they could make on their own."

Jamie, likewise, I'd be grateful for a cite. My recollection (which admittedly could be faulty) is that I said I didn't know what the number was and hadn't thought much about it, but the one thing I did expect is that it would keep going up over time (you see? If you read a little more closely, you might find there's less dishonesty on the Internet than you claim). Anyway, it would be silly for anyone to suggest that no publisher would be able to offer an author more than she could make on her own. Add enough zeroes to the advance, factor in the present value of money, and of course a publisher could offer superior financial terms, at least in theory. As for other terms, that's another story entirely, more on which below.

I've said many times is that "publishing is a business for me, not an ideology" (Google it, you'll see) and that the right deal could certainly lure me back to the legacy world. That remains true. What's more important, though, is the nature of what could conceivably lure me back. And what could lure me back is precisely what I've never been able to get from any legacy publisher -- not the two who have published me; none that I've negotiated with, either. Specifically:

1) A *much* more equitable digital royalty split. 
2) Full creative control (packaging, pricing, timing).
3) Immediate digital release, followed by paper release when the paper is ready (no more slaving the digital release to the paper release).

As it happens, all these terms are available to a self-published author, so I decided to self-publish. What some people might be missing in that simple statement, though, is that it's the *terms* that are important to me, not the means by which I achieve them. If these terms are a destination, self-publishing is undeniably an excellent vehicle for getting there. But it isn't the only vehicle. And if another vehicle comes along that offers all these terms, plus a substantial advance, plus a retail wing that can reach millions of customers in my demographic... then, as a non-ideological businessman, I'm going to change rides.

But "change" is a somewhat misleading word under the circumstances, implying as it does an overall either/or dynamic. And here's another misconception I've been seeing a lot: this notion that authors must somehow be classified into indie, legacy, or whatever. Reminds me a bit of apartheid South Africa's obsession with classifying citizens by their race -- equally strange, though admittedly the authorial version is less invidious. Anyway, here's the thing: what really matters is that we're not living in an either/or universe. I now have four low-priced, self-published digital works, and if (as some folks here have suggested) Amazon blows out the marketing for The Detachment, those other works (and the ones to come that I plan on self-publishing) will benefit enormously. In the face of all this, why would anyone want to argue for some sort of ideologically pure True Indie Author status? I don't know that there could even be such a thing, but if there could be, it would certainly foreclose a lot of potentially lucrative business opportunities.

For a single title that doesn't incumber my ability to self-publish or otherwise publish anything I want, Amazon offered me all three of the items I list above (except for pricing, but regardless of what the contract says, we agree that digital books should be priced far lower than legacy prices), plus a massive, uniquely Amazon marketing push to its retail operation and otherwise, plus an advance comparable to what SMP had offered me (note, though, that the Amazon deal is for one book; the SMP advance was predicated on two books. When I say "comparable," I mean on a per-book basis, and sorry if I wasn't clear about that in my announcement at BEA). In exchange, I've given up certain digital retail channels because the Amazon deal is exclusive to Kindle platform devices. And Amazon will sell paper versions through its retail stores and through wholesale channels to other retailers. If any of this sounds like a legacy deal to anyone here, you've been talking to legacy publishers I've never heard of.

Julie again: "[Eisler] positioned himself as a 'self-publishing messiah' in order to obtain leverage that allowed him to negotiate a deal with Amazon that no doubt is meant to promote both their self-pub service and their new publishing initiative."

I don't know you except through your comments here, Julie, so I could certainly be wrong -- but I'm getting the sense that you have a tendency not only to place words in other people's mouths, but also thoughts in their heads. From my perspective, I never felt like I was trying to position myself as anything, and certainly not as a messiah (maybe Philosopher King, though. I've always thought that would be a great title). When I see inefficiencies, I like to correct them. Legacy publishing is a massive inefficiency and I've been speaking out against its incompetencies and shoddy practices for years (take a look at the Marketing page of the For Writers section of my website -- http://www.barryeisler.com/writers.php). The opportunity authors now have to self-publish is putting enormous pressure on legacy publishing to clean up its act, and adding my own weight to that pressure feels great. It's not really more complicated or sinister than that.

Still, it could indeed be the case that my "decision" to self-publish was just a ploy, and that with fiendish foresight I foresaw my stunt would cause Amazon to make me an offer better than the one I'd walked away from. Actually, as you also noted, the offer I "walked away from" might itself have been a dodge, and this too could be possible. Let's assume you're right about my being a Master Of The Non-Statement And Associated Wiggle Words, and accept the possibility that I might not even be Barry -- I might be a sock puppet loosed here on Kindle Boards to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and to ruthlessly exploit the indie world for Barry's own selfish aims, which include world domination and prohibiting people from screaming into their cell phones in elevators and other small enclosed public spaces. Wouldn't it still make sense to expend less energy speculating about my motives and more energy testing my logic? Here are a few questions I'd recommend as being more fruitful avenues of inquiry:

Is self-publishing an objective in its own right?
Or is the objective something else, and self-publishing a means?
And if the objective is something else, what other means might be available to we authors for achieving it?

A last thought: while I certainly am guided by self-interest, I am also profoundly motivated by the desire to make publishing a better industry for readers and authors (again, see the Marketing page of the For Writers section of my website). During the course of our negotiations, I worked hard to persuade Amazon to jettison various legacy publishing provisions that gain publishers little and that authors loathe. It's a huge credit to Amazon that they listened to my arguments and changed their template accordingly, and it's satisfying for me to know that other authors will get the benefit of the more enlightened template I helped forge -- both from Amazon directly, as it expands its publishing wing, and from legacy publishers, who will be forced to compete with Amazon's more enlightened terms.

The main thing for me is that authors have more options now than we've ever had before. Self-publishing is one of those options, and it's a great one. But as new possibilities emerge, I'll consider them, try them, and perhaps integrate them into my overall strategy. Why would anyone do anything else?

P.S. I've been talking about this a lot on Twitter, too -- www.twitter.com/barryeisler.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

Hey Barry, thanks for posting. 

One of the things that worries some of us -- well me at least -- is that Amazon will promote the writers it signs at the expense of other books. By that I mean that if I wrote a book in your genre Amazon would prefer to display your book before a shopper over mine because they make a higher percentage per sale from your book. 

The ecosystem in the virtual bookstore is fragile. To give you an example, in early May on B&N.com a bunch of erotica titles were artificially dropped in rank by a thousand spots, and the sales of those books fell through the floor. That's how much we depend on our books being displayed to drive sales. 

I'm uneasy with the idea that Amazon will jump into publishing in a big way and its books will receive favorable treatment at the expense of books from other publishers, indie and traditional both. Any comment on this?


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks for posting, Barry. I'm not sure where the perspective got around (other than in exaggerated news stories) that you or Konrath had said you would never look at another publishing contract, even if it made sense. The reason people have latched onto Konrath's blog and your story as well is because much of what you guys are saying has been level-headed, business savvy, and quite frankly, the direction most of us believe the industry is heading. eBook royalties are important. Creative control is important. And as the physical bookstores fail, the survival of the Big 6 will depend on their ability to convince authors that they can provide the best service - instead of just harping on the fact that they are currently gatekeepers, that they completely understand consumer preferences at the moment, and we simply have to go through them to be successful.

I was stoked to hear about both yours and Konrath's contract - just as I was when I heard of Hocking's. I hope these deals eventually reverberate throughout the Big 6 with average eBook royalties approaching 50% for all Big 6 signed authors over the long term for books priced 2.99 or greater.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Hey guys, been on the road in NYC at BEA so been away from the board...I'm going to read the whole post but here's my quick comments without having read anything to date....

Thomas and Mercer is moving fast...very fast. My take is they saw Barry's self-publishing announcement and saw an opportunity to pull in a NYT best selling author. They are not pussy-footing around - and are going at this full-throttle.

If I were to guess...they made the royalty share on ebooks better...and more importantly...the contract more author friendly: more input on creative control, no restrictions on future works, a good or non-existent non-compete. I say this because the people that T&M have signed to date: Eisler, Crouch, and Konrath know what to look for in a contract and no amount of money would make them sign one that restricted them from future income potential.

If any of this is true this is good for authors as other publishers will have to change their contracts in order to compete in such an environment. All it takes is one high profile publisher to change - and then dominoes will start to fall. I've been saying for sometime that self-publishing WILL be good for all authors as even those published will get better terms now that there is a viable alternative. This is just one indication that we might be moving in the right direction.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

EllenFisher said:


> Intriguing, as Eisler and Konrath (who's also got a book coming out with Thomas and Mercer, as I recall) have been two of the most ardent advocates of self-publishing. Eisler said recently on Konrath's blog, in reference to turning down a half-million dollar advance:
> 
> I wonder why these authors don't want to sign with one of the Big Six, but are willing to sign with Amazon? Does Amazon give them more leeway in cover design and editing and so forth?
> 
> In any event, it just goes to show you that self-pubbing and signing with publishers can co-exist.


I think Thomas and Mercer is creating VERY author friendly contracts - these guys wouldn't be signing with them if they weren't.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

jtplayer said:


> Anyone who's followed Konrath's blog for any length of time knows full well that he does not believe his future is in print publishing. In the _new_ publishing paradigm, he considers print a subsidiary right. He's stated many times that print is dead, and in the future will only exist as a niche market. He claims he can make far more money self-publishing ebooks. He claims, in fact, that he has gotten "rich" from his ebooks.
> 
> Beyond that, Barry Eisler is on the Konrath team, so to speak. Along with Blake Crouch and a few other regulars who participate over at The Newbies Guide. They all espouse the same mantra. I'm not judging that, or even saying that it's wrong. But it does make this latest news an interesting development for sure.
> 
> When you position yourself at the head of a movement, as Joe has done, and speak your opinions so loudly and vehemently, well then you set yourself up for a lot of scrutiny. That's when the true "agendas" become clear. Remember, it's not what someone says that counts, it's what he does.


I'm sue many people will take Joe, Blake, and Barry's "turn" as some slap to self-publishing - but it is not. What's happneing here is Thomas and Mercer is showing the adaptability that the other publisers have yet to exhibit. They are changing their business models in ways that appreciate and reward authors appopriately. PLus they have a marketing arm that o self publishe can rival. So what they are doing is adapting to an opportunity just as they adapted to self-publishing when thatbecame vible.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

kCopeseeley said:


> But see, that IS the revolution. That a writer can demand a higher royalty rate and more control and actually GET it. If it weren't for the revolution, Eisler wouldn't have that option. He'd be stuck shopping around for the same old deal all the trad pub authors get. I think Konrath (and Eisler) have both been frank in their blogs about the fact that they will always go where the best deal is. For now, it seems that is with Amazon. But Konrath said himself in his newest blog (it's in the comments, so you might have to hunt for it) that as soon as Amazon isn't the best deal, he'll move on.
> 
> The revolution is that writers are finally realizing THEY are the commodity. The fact that ebooks are allowing them more power is just one of the many stepping stones for them to prove it to everyone else.


EXACTLY!!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Thanks for clarifying Barry.  I've read quite a few of your interviews in the last 3 weeks and came away thinking your POV distilled down to Indie was a good option for some writers, especially those with a backlist they could control and profit from.  But it's not for all writers.  Good luck!


----------



## Cheryl Bradshaw Author (Apr 13, 2011)

It would be great if the big six recognized what Amazon is doing, especially with regard to the increase in profits for writers, and then acted accordingly


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> One of the things that worries some of us -- well me at least -- is that Amazon will promote the writers it signs at the expense of other books. By that I mean that if I wrote a book in your genre Amazon would prefer to display your book before a shopper over mine because they make a higher percentage per sale from your book.


Hi Asher, the phenomenon you just described isn't new -- retailers have always given extra prominence to their highest profit items. In the book world, publishers have tried to achieve this prominence by subsidizing retailers with what's known as coop. In effect, the publisher makes certain chosen titles into the retailers high profit units by offering retailers a kickback on purchases of those titles, and in exchange, retailers move those units to the front of the store.

The phenomenon exists in digital, too, because retailers like Amazon can only display so many books on their front pages and can only email their customers so many times. So the trick for authors continues to be to find ways to incentivize retailers to give extra prominence to their titles. Some of this is a Catch-22 phenomenon, where James Patterson gets great floor space because retailers know he's going to sell, and then the floor space propels his sales. But there are things we authors can do to nudge the process along. Here's an article I wrote a while back called Recruiting Your Publisher with some thoughts on this kind of thing: http://www.barryeisler.com/writers_marketing.php


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

And thanks again everyone for the thoughts.  I'm going to try to pop in some more if anyone has any questions, but holy smokes I gotta finish the book!


----------



## sinclairbrowning (May 16, 2011)

I think it's great that Barry Eisler signed with Thomas & Mercer.

As a longtime writer (9 books published by legacy publishers) I'm very grateful to amazon for giving me an opportunity to take control of my own work.  For the first time in the 34 years since I've been writing, I'm finally in charge of my business - covers, art, font, time of release, price, etc.  It's a great feeling of empowerment. 

Adding traditional books to the mix just enriches the program.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

BarryEisler said:


> A last thought: while I certainly am guided by self-interest, I am also profoundly motivated by the desire to make publishing a better industry for readers and authors (again, see the Marketing page of the For Writers section of my website).


I want to make it clear that I have nothing against you personally, Barry--in fact, I really enjoy your wit and your insights into publishing. Moreover, I am sure you got a great deal from Amazon, one few of us would willingly pass up if offered. HOWEVER, I kind of feel the need to call shenanigans on the claim that this deal you've made with Amazon is in the best interests of readers or other authors.

It is definitely NOT in the best interests of readers to be forced to purchase your book in digital form from a single outlet. How can it possibly be good for your readers who own devices other than Kindles? (And please, don't trot out the tired old line about the Kindle app being available for PCs and iThings. People who have a reader want to read on their reader, not somewhere else.) The fact that the book will be available in print isn't a salve, either. If I bought a Sony reader, it's because I want to read ebooks on IT, not a paper book. Not to mention that the cost of the print book is likely to be several times the cost of the digital book. So, basically, I do not see how you are doing something that improves publishing for readers. Limiting reader options is, by definition, bad for them.

Now, let's turn to other authors. I suppose in some pie in the sky world, Amazon's willingness to offer higher digital royalty rates along with generous advances might push traditional publishers to do the same--at least for those authors who have a proven track record of sales. But I doubt Amazon is going to be picking up books by debut authors; from everything I can see, they are out to "poach" proven authors who are disenchanted with the traditional publishing system. There's nothing inherently WRONG with that, but it's got to have to make things worse for those who are trying to break in, not better, because the traditional publishers will be offering better deals to their proven sellers in hopes of keeping them from jumping ship, which means there will be even fewer dollars for new authors. I don't see that as, on balance, a good thing for the majority of authors.

Also on the subject of authors, as someone upthread already pointed out, is the issue of how Amazon's promotion of its own books might affect the visibility of books from other publishers. Amazon is working very hard to make itself the "one-stop shop" for digital books, but if the books that get the most push on its site are its own, this inevitably has the effect of damaging sales of other books. Moreover, what is to stop Amazon from prejudicing its ranking algorithms to favor books it publishes over books from other publishers? The answer is, nothing. (Even now, I have some doubts about the ranking algorithm's accuracy when it comes to measuring the number of actual sales.) And if I were in Amazon's shoes, I can't think of a single reason why I WOULDN'T prejudice the algorithm in favor of my books and my authors. Which is great for those who have published through Amazon, but is obviously not so great for those who haven't.

Finally, I think that ANYTHING that strengthens Amazon's increasing stranglehold on the digital book market is bad for authors. We are already incredibly dependent on Amazon for digital sales. If you aren't selling well on Kindle, it's a pretty safe bet that you are not making a whole lot of money on your digital books. But it doesn't HAVE to be that way, and I don't particularly care for anything that has the likely effect of pushing Amazon closer and closer to having monopoly power over the digital book market.

All of that said, congratulations on your deal with Thomas & Mercer. I may not think it's in my interests as either a reader or an author, but I'm pretty certain it's in your best business interest, and no one should be expected to act against his/her own best business interests.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2011)

BarryEisler said:


> Julie again: "[Eisler] positioned himself as a 'self-publishing messiah' in order to obtain leverage that allowed him to negotiate a deal with Amazon that no doubt is meant to promote both their self-pub service and their new publishing initiative."
> 
> I don't know you except through your comments here, Julie, so I could certainly be wrong -- but I'm getting the sense that you have a tendency not only to place words in other people's mouths, but also thoughts in their heads.


Bingo. You've got it exactly right.

Welcome to Kindleboards and good luck with your endeavor with Amazon!


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

> Also on the subject of authors, as someone upthread already pointed out, is the issue of how Amazon's promotion of its own books might affect the visibility of books from other publishers. Amazon is working very hard to make itself the "one-stop shop" for digital books, but if the books that get the most push on its site are its own, this inevitably has the effect of damaging sales of other books. Moreover, what is to stop Amazon from prejudicing its ranking algorithms to favor books it publishes over books from other publishers? The answer is, nothing. (Even now, I have some doubts about the ranking algorithm's accuracy when it comes to measuring the number of actual sales.) And if I were in Amazon's shoes, I can't think of a single reason why I WOULDN'T prejudice the algorithm in favor of my books and my authors. Which is great for those who have published through Amazon, but is obviously not so great for those who haven't.


Yes, it's a concern I share. In a year or two Amazon may have hundreds of self-published titles available -- all of the new imprints they are launching plus its Encore and Singles lines. Of course they're going to give preference to their own books and there's only so much visibility per customer visit to go around. If the average customer sees thumbnails for 40 books during a visit, it's hard to sell if you're not one of those 40. The more slots Amazon reserves for its own books, the fewer display slots for other books.

The one thing we have on our side is that Amazon wants to capture a sale more than push its own books. If its algorithms tell it that a book by a different publisher is more likely to sell to a given customer than one of its own, it should display the other publisher's book.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

BarryEisler said:


> Hi Asher, the phenomenon you just described isn't new -- retailers have always given extra prominence to their highest profit items. In the book world, publishers have tried to achieve this prominence by subsidizing retailers with what's known as coop. In effect, the publisher makes certain chosen titles into the retailers high profit units by offering retailers a kickback on purchases of those titles, and in exchange, retailers move those units to the front of the store.
> 
> The phenomenon exists in digital, too, because retailers like Amazon can only display so many books on their front pages and can only email their customers so many times. So the trick for authors continues to be to find ways to incentivize retailers to give extra prominence to their titles. Some of this is a Catch-22 phenomenon, where James Patterson gets great floor space because retailers know he's going to sell, and then the floor space propels his sales. But there are things we authors can do to nudge the process along. Here's an article I wrote a while back called Recruiting Your Publisher with some thoughts on this kind of thing: http://www.barryeisler.com/writers_marketing.php


The problem is that Amazon isn't just a publisher--it's both a publisher and a distributor/retailer. In the "old" model, all publishers had the same basic ability to buy things such as co-op space in order to increase a book's visibility. The playing field was relatively equal, based on how much the publisher was wiling to spend to back the book as well as how much demand the bookseller felt there would be for the book.

In the "new" model, where Amazon publishes its own books, it pays NOTHING extra to make them more "visible" to shoppers. Amazon has, essentially, 100% free marketing opportunity for its own books. Sure, other publishers can PAY Amazon for visibility as they have in the past, but they are now competing with Amazon itself for that "space". There's a possibility, I suppose, that what publishers would be willing to pay to get their books "ahead" of Amazon's in the visbility queue would make it more lucrative for it to take the publishers' money at the expense of promoting its own books, but that doesn't seem very likely, especially because (again) the dollars are finite and publishers may not be willing to the pay the price, especially when they know Amazon itself can "game" the system for its own books.

This seems to me such a clear conflict of interest that it's hard for me to understand how it's remotely "the same" as what we had in the past. In the past, the playing field for publishers was relatively level, the only differentiation being how much money they were willing to spend. Now we have a publisher that has to spend the equivalent of nothing to promote its own books while at the same time charging other publishers for access. That is clearly stacking the deck.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"This seems to me such a clear conflict of interest that it's hard for me to understand how it's remotely "the same" as what we had in the past."_

Conflict of interests? It's no different than a grocery store selling its own brand of green beans.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"This seems to me such a clear conflict of interest that it's hard for me to understand how it's remotely "the same" as what we had in the past."_
> 
> Conflict of interests? It's no different than a grocery store selling its own brand of green beans.


Very true. However, the grocery store doesn't "prejudice" its own brand of green beans by pushing the others to the back of the shelf so no one can see them. (Or at least, not any grocery stores I've ever shopped at.) They have the power to do it, but they don't.

In the case of Amazon's imprints, though, it's VERY clear that the intention is to prejudice/promote their green beans over everyone else's. That marketing/promo angle is a big selling point for the authors signing with them. And in the case of the green beans, I'm betting the grocer's margin on the house brand and the name brand is roughly equal. That is probably NOT the case with Amazon's books versus those from other publishers.


----------



## Todd Russell (Mar 27, 2011)

Hi Jackie Barbosa,

Are you saying that if Amazon came to you with a similar deal that Barry Eisler signed (great post, btw), you'd reject it because it would prevent people from getting your book on other digital devices? A six figure advance in exchange for having one ebook _only on the Kindle_? Or am I misunderstanding your point of view?

If one of my favorite authors came out with a book I preferred to read digitally I would consider buying the device just to be able read it that way (then again I'm a gadget geek of sorts). I mean, really, when some authors are selling limited editions hardcover books with special drawing for hundreds of dollars, how is that any different?

And didn't Stephen King do the same with UR?


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> In the case of Amazon's imprints, though, it's VERY clear that the intention is to prejudice/promote their green beans over everyone else's. That marketing/promo angle is a big selling point for the authors signing with them. And in the case of the green beans, I'm betting the grocer's margin on the house brand and the name brand is roughly equal. That is probably NOT the case with Amazon's books versus those from other publishers.


I don't think it's clear at all. Amazon will promote whatever they think is most likely to make a sale and which sale will give them the most profit. The best book to promote will still be the one their algorithms say is the one most likely to sell. It may be that their imprint titles will give them a bit more profit but it may not be much more. Barry said the royalty will be near 70%, if it were exactly 70% Amazon would make no more profit.
Making the sale is still the most important factor by a large margin.


----------



## BlakeCrouch (Apr 18, 2010)

In questioning why Konrath and I are working with T&M with Stirred, aside from all the other reasons we've given, Joe and I have extensive backlists which are completely under our control. What do you think's going to happen to those when Amazon pimps the hell out of Stirred right before Christmas this year? There is more to considering a deal like this than just the book itself (in this case, Stirred).


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Todd Russell said:


> Hi Jackie Barbosa,
> 
> Are you saying that if Amazon came to you with a similar deal that Barry Eisler signed (great post, btw), you'd reject it because it would prevent people from getting your book on other digital devices? A six figure advance in exchange for having one ebook _only on the Kindle_? Or am I misunderstanding your point of view?
> 
> ...


Before I answer that question about whether I'd take a deal like Eisler's from Amazon, let me laugh really, really hard. In my dreams, baby, in my dreams.

But basically, if I had Eisler's following and traditional publishers were willing to offer me $500k and I passed it up, I honestly think I would turn down Amazon's offer. Not because I have incredibly high ideals and hate Amazon (hey, I'm making very great sales on Amazon right now, so it's not like I'm boycotting them or anything), but because I feel like I can get/do almost everything Amazon is offering through its imprints PLUS I can offer my book in digital format through retailers OTHER THAN Amazon. I figure if I could command an advance of $250k a book, the likelihood that I'd be worse off financially by going it alone seems very unlikely to me.

The only thing I can't do that Amazon apparently can is get my print book into brick and mortar stores (I can, however, self-publish a print version that's available for sale through all the internet retailers), but it has yet to be seen that the B&N's and indies of the world are going to be willing to stock these Amazon books (there's a brouhaha over Konrath's print book and whether the retailers will stock it). That said, I think print is on the way out and more and more readers prefer to read digitally, so I feel that not forcing my readers to a single retailer and format is preferable to limiting myself to Kindle only.

Limited edition hardcovers are a completely different thing, IMO, since they appeal only to hardcore fans. And frankly, I can't think of a single author I'd plunk down money for a limited edition hardcover OR an ereader for. I'm just not that passionate. There are a lot of books in the world to read, and if the only way for me to get your book is to buy a Kindle, I'm just not going to buy your book. Especially if I have another ereader already. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of readers are more like me than you, and even if they are more like you, there are so few authors for whom they would go that extra mile, they don't mean much to the rest of us in terms of sales.

I don't know what UR is (except that it has something to do with Stephen King), but what Stephen King does doesn't influence me. I'm so far from being Stephen King, it's ridiculous. I'm only slightly less far from being Barry Eisler. What they can afford to do without harm to their sales/career is quite different than what I can do. But even if I thought an Amazon exclusive deal on the digital side would result in greater total sales, I would incline to turning it down for the sake of my readers, who are the people I do this for, after all.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

BlakeCrouch said:


> In questioning why Konrath and I are working with T&M with Stirred, aside from all the other reasons we've given, Joe and I have extensive backlists which are completely under our control. What do you think's going to happen to those when Amazon pimps the hell out of Stirred right before Christmas this year? There is more to considering a deal like this than just the book itself (in this case, Stirred).


Hey, that's completely valid. But I think you could get the same theoretical "bang" for your book if you had published with a traditional publisher that was willing to spend the money to promote the hell out of your book on Amazon and everywhere else. Whether a traditional publisher would be willing to do that is whole different question, but it's not as if the ONLY way for your new book to promote your backlist is for you to go with Amazon.

Look, I don't think authors who are going this route are disrespecting self-publishing or doing something stupid. I think it's probably smart. Money upfront, better digital royalties, AND a pretty solid guarantee of promotion because Amazon doesn't have to "pay" a cent to do that promotion? Looks like a solid business plan to me.


----------



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

BarryEisler said:


> Hi all,
> 
> This is my first time posting on Kindle Boards (probably this is one of those things that makes me less than a True Indie Author, in Julie's parlance), so please forgive any lapses in formatting or style. I've been following the discussion here with interest and gratitude for the many insights in this thread, and thought I'd add a few thoughts of my own.
> 
> ...


Hey Barry, thanks for the name check.

I tapped out of this conversation earlier because I'd had enough of gossiping about other people's money. And now that you've entered the conversation yourself, well...awkward.

That said, you requested a cite:

Barry: I tried to estimate as conservatively as possible how long it would take me to beat the contract (how long it would take me on my own to earn the $425,000 SMP had offered me. One of my conservative assumptions was that on my own I would sell no paper books at all. I'm pretty sure this won't be the case: Joe, Amanda and many other indie authors sell books through CreateSpace and though paper isn't the dominant part of their income stream, it's not negligible, either. But overall, what concerned me was the fairly simple question of: *Can I make more on my own purely with digital than I could with a mixed paper/digital legacy partner? I ran the numbers and answered that question yes*, and by comparison the more detailed breakdown of what I'd give up in paper by going it alone with digital didn't matter as much.

Barry: I know it'll seem crazy to a lot of people, but based on what's happening in the industry, and based on the kind of experience writers like you are having in self-publishing, I think I can do better in the long term on my own.

I'm sure you've written a lot more about the subject and expanded and clarified your thoughts etc., but these are the comments that I based my comment on.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Library4Science said:


> I don't think it's clear at all. Amazon will promote whatever they think is most likely to make a sale and which sale will give them the most profit. The best book to promote will still be the one their algorithms say is the one most likely to sell. It may be that their imprint titles will give them a bit more profit but it may not be much more. Barry said the royalty will be near 70%, if it were exactly 70% Amazon would make no more profit.
> Making the sale is still the most important factor by a large margin.


Amazon doesn't "choose" which books get promoted, at least not when it comes to certain areas of the space. They choose based on what publishers want and what they pay for. But Amazon doesn't have to "pay" for those spaces; those spaces come to them for free. Moreover, they would not be buying books from authors for $250k a pop upfront if they didn't believe they would sell. Not only that, but having paid that money upfront, those books HAVE to sell. It is more in Amazon's interest to promote those books AHEAD of the books for which they paid nothing, regardless of the profit percentage, because they have an investment to earn back. They are just in the cat-bird seat when it comes to controlling the promotional channels that encourage the sale.

To think that Amazon would promote other publishers' books AHEAD OF those it has paid a sizable chunk of change to acquire without having been paid significant amounts of money those publishers seems naive in the extreme to me.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

BlakeCrouch said:


> In questioning why Konrath and I are working with T&M with Stirred, aside from all the other reasons we've given, Joe and I have extensive backlists which are completely under our control. What do you think's going to happen to those when Amazon pimps the hell out of Stirred right before Christmas this year? There is more to considering a deal like this than just the book itself (in this case, Stirred).


That makes complete sense. Is the deal Amazon is giving you good enough that if they offered it for every new book you wrote you'd take it? Or is the expected sales of your backlist the extra in the deal that put you over the edge and you plan on self-publishing most of your future titles because you see self-publishing as more lucrative?


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2011)

BlakeCrouch said:


> In questioning why Konrath and I are working with T&M with Stirred, aside from all the other reasons we've given, Joe and I have extensive backlists which are completely under our control. What do you think's going to happen to those when Amazon pimps the hell out of Stirred right before Christmas this year? There is more to considering a deal like this than just the book itself (in this case, Stirred).


Yeah, I think with all of these deals it's impossible to have a full grasp on why people are making these decisions from the outside. They wanted you to make the opposite decision because it would be a pro-indie boost, which benefits them, rather than having you make the decision you did, which benefits you. They are blaming you for doing exactly what they are doing. Hypocrisy.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> During the course of our negotiations, I worked hard to persuade Amazon to jettison various legacy publishing provisions that gain publishers little and that authors loathe. It's a huge credit to Amazon that they listened to my arguments and changed their template accordingly, and it's satisfying for me to know that other authors will get the benefit of the more enlightened template I helped forge -- both from Amazon directly, as it expands its publishing wing, and from legacy publishers, who will be forced to compete with Amazon's more enlightened terms.


Good to know, Barry, and I agree that this is likely to be a good thing for authors in the long run. Competition is generally a good thing. Let's hope traditional publishers are flexible enough to bend, rather than to break.



> The main thing for me is that authors have more options now than we've ever had before. Self-publishing is one of those options, and it's a great one. But as new possibilities emerge, I'll consider them, try them, and perhaps integrate them into my overall strategy. Why would anyone do anything else?


Totally agree with this. In fact it was my point. There's more than one way to skin a bestseller


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> Amazon doesn't "choose" which books get promoted, at least not when it comes to certain areas of the space. They choose based on what publishers want and what they pay for.


What spaces are you taking abut? My understanding the recommendations Amazon makes are the result of an AI algorithm and is based on what you have bought and the rating you have made of those items. The people who bought this bought that recommendations seem to be based on a books sales ranking and sales rankings are based on sales. The main advantage that legacy publishers have is getting their books into book stores and spending money there to get their books noticed. A lot of people now just use bookstores to browse for books and then buy the ebooks from Amazon. I don't think anyone pays for product 'placement' on Amazon.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Library4Science said:


> What spaces are you taking abut? My understanding the recommendations Amazon makes are the result of an AI algorithm and is based on what you have bought and the rating you have made of those items. The people who bought this bought that recommendations seem to be based on a books sales ranking and sales rankings are based on sales. The main advantage that legacy publishers have is getting their books into book stores and spending money there to get their books noticed. A lot of people now just use bookstores to browse for books and then buy the ebooks from Amazon. I don't think anyone pays for product 'placement' on Amazon.


Did you read Eisler's post upthread. He said:

_The phenomenon exists in digital, too, because retailers like Amazon can only display so many books on their front pages and can only email their customers so many times._

Amazon makes decisions about what books it "alerts" you to based in part on your buying history, but also based on certain other things that have nothing to do with what you've bought or viewed in the past. For example, there's currently a "Gifts for Grads" category. Maybe Amazon is "choosing" those books, but there's also a good chance that publishers are paying for placement in that category.

Similarly, WHICH books display in your "New for You" category may be dependent on your buying history (i.e., if you read thrillers, there are more likely to be new thrillers there), but Amazon isn't just picking which thrillers to display to you at random or even based on how well they're selling at any given time. That "New for You" category is form of co-op space on Amazon's site, and I think there's a good chance publishers are paying for their books to show up there (although that's not necessarily the ONLY way a book might appear in that list). (Right now, a Julia Quinn shows up there for me. I've never bought a Julia Quinn book from Amazon or anywhere else, but because I read historical romance and because the publisher is undoubtedly interested in promoting Julia's latest release, that book shows up there instead of another book from an author I've actually bought/read that might interest me more.)


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Jamie Case said:


> That said, you requested a cite:
> 
> Barry: I tried to estimate as conservatively as possible how long it would take me to beat the contract (how long it would take me on my own to earn the $425,000 SMP had offered me. One of my conservative assumptions was that on my own I would sell no paper books at all. I'm pretty sure this won't be the case: Joe, Amanda and many other indie authors sell books through CreateSpace and though paper isn't the dominant part of their income stream, it's not negligible, either. But overall, what concerned me was the fairly simple question of: *Can I make more on my own purely with digital than I could with a mixed paper/digital legacy partner? I ran the numbers and answered that question yes*, and by comparison the more detailed breakdown of what I'd give up in paper by going it alone with digital didn't matter as much.
> 
> ...


You do realize... that at the time this interview was made... there was no option for Thomas and Mercer because it didn't exist and these two guys were talking about the current state of the market, right? At the time of the interview, with eBook royalties being what they were, the math didn't add up. *Now, a publisher capable of both print and eBook with paid advertising and a much higher eBook royalty is offering them a contract that directly addresses the issues being brought up in this exact same interview.*

A publisher is now going to help with marketing in the world's largest book retailer, giving each of these authors a bump to all of their backlist, and they are not tied into the Amazon publisher for additional books past what they've committed to. They have full control over their backlist, their future books, and most importantly, *they now have options*.

This IS the revolution they've been talking about. They just thought that authors would have to drive the Big 6 to the brink of extinction before the contracts would start changing. Well... the contracts are changing...


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

rexjameson said:


> You do realize... that at the time this interview was made... there was no option for Thomas and Mercer because it didn't exist and these two guys were talking about the current state of the market, right? At the time of the interview, with eBook royalties being what they were, the math didn't add up. *Now, a publisher capable of both print and eBook with paid advertising and a much higher eBook royalty is offering them a contract that directly addresses the issues being brought up in this exact same interview.*
> 
> A publisher is now going to help with marketing in the world's largest book retailer, giving each of these authors a bump to all of their backlist, and they are not tied into the Amazon publisher for additional books past what they've committed to. They have full control over their backlist, their future books, and most importantly, *they now have options*.
> 
> This IS the revolution they've been talking about. They just thought that authors would have to drive the Big 6 to the brink of extinction before the contracts would start changing. Well... the contracts are changing...


Thank you for typing it all out, so I don't have to.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

jtplayer said:


> So I answered my own question by checking the Kindle store for _Stirred_, and yes, it is being released by Thomas & Mercer.
> 
> I find it interesting Konrath is going this route. He claims he's making major bank on his self-pubbed ebooks. He can release _Stirred_ completely on his own and make the 70% royalty, just as he's doing now. He doesn't need Thomas & Mercer to do that. In fact, from what I can see, they bring nothing to the table.
> 
> _Unless_ we're talking about print. That's where the picture changes. And it begs the question to Joe: I thought print was dead?


Print is now a subsidiary right. You read my blog. Pay better attention.

Which, if you did, you'd understand what T&M is bringing to the table above and beyond print sales because I've mentioned it many times. They'll push STIRRED onto the bestseller lists, promote the hell out of it, and give my backlist a big boost, all the while giving me creative control (among many other things.) It's a no-brainer to sign with T&M.

Barry and I are almost done with yet another dialog about the publishing industry, addressing many of these topics. It'll be live tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Barry and I are almost done with yet another dialog about the publishing industry, addressing many of these topics. It'll be live tonight or tomorrow.


Glad to hear it, Joe. I'll be interested to read it. I hope you'll address the (obviously speculative) question of whether you think Amazon's new incursions into the publishing industry will affect the practices of the Big Six. I think that's the biggest question at this point.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Print is now a subsidiary right. You read my blog. Pay better attention.
> 
> Which, if you did, you'd understand what T&M is bringing to the table above and beyond print sales because I've mentioned it many times. They'll push STIRRED onto the bestseller lists, promote the hell out of it, and give my backlist a big boost, all the while giving me creative control (among many other things.) It's a no-brainer to sign with T&M.
> 
> Barry and I are almost done with yet another dialog about the publishing industry, addressing many of these topics. It'll be live tonight or tomorrow.


Thanks for the reply Joe. And trust me, I _do_ pay attention, to all of this.

Still, beyond the promotion part (which is big, I know), you're doing the other stuff already, on your own. You have creative control, you're making the bestseller lists, your backlist is selling very well, and you're making 600k a year (according to a recent blog post of yours). And as far as promotion goes, you seem to be no slouch in that area 

It seems to me all T&M is bringing to the table is more of what you already have...and the print part. No?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

EllenFisher said:


> Glad to hear it, Joe. I'll be interested to read it. I hope you'll address the (obviously speculative) question of whether you think Amazon's new incursions into the publishing industry will affect the practices of the Big Six. I think that's the biggest question at this point.


I'm not sure that is even worth addressing. Based on precedent, nothing Amazon has done has spurred the Big 6 to change their practices. They only thing the Big 6 does quickly is make mistakes.

I doubt they could change the way they conduct business even if they wanted to (which they don't).


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

jtplayer said:


> Thanks for the reply Joe. And trust me, I _do_ pay attention, to all of this.
> 
> Still, beyond the promotion part (which is big, I know), you're doing the other stuff already, on your own. You have creative control, you're making the bestseller lists, your backlist is selling very well, and you're making 600k a year (according to a recent blog post of yours). And as far as promotion goes, you seem to be no slouch in that area
> 
> It seems to me all T&M is bringing to the table is more of what you already have...and the print part. No?


Amazon can send out hundreds of thousands of emails and put a STIRRED banner on their home page. I can't come close to to that kind of marketing.

It's also nice to have a publishing partner do all the prep work so I don't have to (proofing, layout, cover design, uploading.)

Signing with Thomas & Mercer is like self-publishing, but with a team behind you.

Signing with a Big 6 publisher is like being beaten up and then forced to thank your assailant.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Print is now a subsidiary right. You read my blog. Pay better attention.
> 
> Which, if you did, you'd understand what T&M is bringing to the table above and beyond print sales because I've mentioned it many times. They'll push STIRRED onto the bestseller lists, promote the hell out of it, and give my backlist a big boost, all the while giving me creative control (among many other things.) It's a no-brainer to sign with T&M.
> 
> Barry and I are almost done with yet another dialog about the publishing industry, addressing many of these topics. It'll be live tonight or tomorrow.


I'm really looking forward to this one, Joe. I think many people overlooked that dealing with T&M was not dealing with the Big 6.

I'm fascinated to learn more about how the two of you look at the situation.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I'm not sure that is even worth addressing.


You know what might be worth addressing, the methods through which T&M plan on procuring new work. Is this going to be something like Amazon Encore where we wait for a lucky phone call out of the blue, or are we going to have to have agents who'll then pitch to them as they would any other publisher.

Sorry if the answer is extremely obvious or has been answered in details elsewhere. I do think there are lots of indies willing to straddle the divide for a good deal, and so I'm interested to know what that'll take.

--Jason


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Signing with Thomas & Mercer is like self-publishing, but with a team behind you.


Well see, that's the key right there. And obviously only you and T&M know how the deal reads. I think lots of folks assume T&M will fill the role of "publisher" in the more traditional manner.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Signing with Thomas & Mercer is like self-publishing, but with a team behind you.


Another question I'd like to see addressed if you're permitted-- I think Barry mentioned "more creative control" as an impetus for signing with T&M. This, and your comment, makes me think that the editing may be less onerous than with one of the big houses. If so, would this be a good thing in general, do you think? I'm not suggesting your books need a lot of editing *smiles*, but if they're going to acquire a lot of authors, I'd think some occasionally heavyhanded editing may sometimes be required if they want their product to remain competitive.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

For the authors signing with T&M...

Well done.

What kind of lead times are they looking at? 

Time from author delivering book to eBook live?

Time from eBook live to print available on Amazon?

Thanks.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Another question I'd like to see addressed if you're permitted-- I think Barry mentioned "more creative control" as an impetus for signing with T&M. This, and your comment, makes me think that the editing may be less onerous than with one of the big houses. If so, would this be a good thing in general, do you think? I'm not suggesting your books need a lot of editing *smiles*, but if they're going to acquire a lot of authors, I'd think some occasionally heavyhanded editing may sometimes be required if they want their product to remain competitive.


In other words, will T&M have a house style?


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

jtplayer said:


> Thanks for the reply Joe. And trust me, I _do_ pay attention, to all of this.
> 
> Still, beyond the promotion part (which is big, I know), you're doing the other stuff already, on your own. You have creative control, you're making the bestseller lists, your backlist is selling very well, and you're making 600k a year (according to a recent blog post of yours). And as far as promotion goes, you seem to be no slouch in that area
> 
> It seems to me all T&M is bringing to the table is more of what you already have...and the print part. No?


Having Amazon place ads on its front page, bestseller pages, etc. is going to have an impact. You've seen the numbers for smaller venues like Pixels of Ink and Kindle Nation Daily. Imagine what preferred ad systems do on Amazon, where people are directly buying books. Now, imagine the effect this will have on Joe, Barry, and Blake's backlist. I'm very psyched to see the numbers that are going to come with this.

The "you're doing well already" thing still applies to Joe, Barry, Blake, Hocking, and dozens of other authors on their backlists. However, part of that "doing well" thing is looking for new ways to get their names out there and keep the interest peaked with the buying public. Signing this deal for a book creates publicity. Amazon will be placing ads to further spread publicity, and they should reap a windfall.

Smart play by the authors. And a very interesting play by Amazon. I hope all parties involved see good profits so more contracts like this get offered.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Amazon can send out hundreds of thousands of emails and put a STIRRED banner on their home page. I can't come close to to that kind of marketing.
> 
> It's also nice to have a publishing partner do all the prep work so I don't have to (proofing, layout, cover design, uploading.)
> 
> ...


I think for where you are positioned in the market you have the best of both worlds, Ebooks and Paper. Is it correct that your Ebooks only be available on Kindle?


----------



## Jamie Case (Feb 15, 2011)

rexjameson said:


> You do realize... that at the time this interview was made... there was no option for Thomas and Mercer because it didn't exist and these two guys were talking about the current state of the market, right? At the time of the interview, with eBook royalties being what they were, the math didn't add up. *Now, a publisher capable of both print and eBook with paid advertising and a much higher eBook royalty is offering them a contract that directly addresses the issues being brought up in this exact same interview.*


You do realize that I am capable of:

1) providing Barry with a citation that he requested
_and_
2) understanding that the landscape has shifted and will continue to do so.

I can do both things at once. The human mind is quite the multi-tasker.

I post in a lot of the publishing threads and my stance has always been that there will be no extinction event for the publishing industry. I've always maintained that the industry will adapt and grow. The prevailing KB counterargument has been that the industry is too leveraged to change (sky high rents, staffing costs, coop, distributors' fees etc.) I've always thought this view was shortsighted and I still think so now. 
<snip>



> This IS the revolution they've been talking about. They just thought that authors would have to drive the Big 6 to the brink of extinction before the contracts would start changing. Well... the contracts are changing...


I don't know if they would agree with you on this. But if that's the case, then they thought wrong. That's all I'm saying.

Now unless anyone else needs any other citations, I'm out.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Industries do tend to continue. Amazon is an important part of the publishing industry, and is a great example of how an industry adapts and evolves. However, the companies that compose the industries tend to turn over.


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> I kind of feel the need to call shenanigans on the claim that this deal you've made with Amazon is in the best interests of readers or other authors...


Jackie, I agree it would be better if Amazon would make its digital books downloadable on other than Kindle-platform devices -- better for Amazon, better for authors, and for the reasons you note, better for readers. And though it's not relevant to your argument, it's worth noting that I expect Amazon will do so, and hopefully soon.

But it's also not in readers' interests to have to pay $12.99, $15.99, or even $22.99 for a digital book. Amazon wants to charge far less than that. Presumably, the lower prices Amazon will offer readers by disintermediating legacy publishers and eliminating the publishers' "agency model" floor on the price of ebooks is a very good thing for readers indeed. So, presumably, is Amazon's willingness to release digital books as soon as they're ready, rather than forcing people who like ebooks to wait months because legacy publishers insist on slaving the digital release to the paper one. And so, presumably, is Amazon's determination to make the paper version of The Detachment much more widely available than I could have on my own. Do these cost, time-to-market, and availability-of-paper advantages for readers outweigh the fact that The Detachment won't be available, at least initially, on digital devices except those that are Kindle-compatible? I would argue yes, and though reasonable people might differ, it strikes me as odd that you don't even find these other advantages worthy of discussion.

The balance of your argument is built on the assumption that additional options for authors are bad, increased competition among publishers is bad, and that a sale for Author A necessarily means a lost sale for Author B (rather than, indeed, a possible route to an *additional* sale for Author B). I don't find any of these assumptions supported by empirical evidence or logic or otherwise persuasive, but I'll grant that you are hardly alone in holding these views.

Like you, I don't want Amazon (or anyone else) to gain a monopoly over publishing. Legacy publishers have enjoyed a quasi-monoply for a long time, and the cost of that monopoly has been borne by readers, bookstores, and authors -- everyone except the publishers who've grown complacent and slothful in the absence of the spur of competition. If you don't like monopolies, you must hate legacy publishing, and if you want to break the monopoly that today is artificially inflating the price of books, holding new books back even though readers are eager to buy them, and treating authors like serfs via non-compete, low digital royalty, and one-sided packaging/creative control clauses, then you'll be cheering for the new entrant who's introducing the kind of competition most likely to force legacy publishers up their game and to treat readers and authors better.

Or you can just hope that legacy publishers will do better if authors shun deals with Amazon. But that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



Terrence OBrien said:


> _"This seems to me such a clear conflict of interest that it's hard for me to understand how it's remotely "the same" as what we had in the past."_
> 
> Conflict of interests? It's no different than a grocery store selling its own brand of green beans.


Agreed. With the "agency pricing" model, legacy publishers forced Amazon to charge high prices for legacy products. How can Amazon be blamed for developing its own, lower-cost line of "store brand" products? If anyone is to blame, it's the publishers who have been exercising their monopoly power to keep book prices artificially high.



BlakeCrouch said:


> In questioning why Konrath and I are working with T&M with Stirred, aside from all the other reasons we've given, Joe and I have extensive backlists which are completely under our control. What do you think's going to happen to those when Amazon pimps the hell out of Stirred right before Christmas this year? There is more to considering a deal like this than just the book itself (in this case, Stirred).


Exactly. One of the things that for whatever reason is taking time to sink in about the deals you, Joe, I, and others are doing with Amazon is that they're not for all our books, past, present, or future. It's not Amazon vs self-publishing; it's Amazon *and* self-publishing, with the author leveraging each to get the most out of the whole.

Jamie, thank you for the cites! I swear, I always ask and people never bother (which is of course telling). Anyway, I can see where you were coming from now. FWIW, those statements were with regard to the deal I walked away from, not WRT any conceivable deal a legacy publisher might offer (and I admit I didn't foresee the possibility of a deal like the one Amazon presented).

The thrust of the interview, though, was about what made me walk away from the SMP deal -- legacy digital split, lack of creative control, etc. As Rex points out, Amazon precisely addressed those shortcomings (and then some). Still, if I could do all those interviews over, I would add one more thought, something like, "Look, if a publisher ever came along and offered me an incredible digital split, full creative control, an immediate digital release, a hefty advance, and galactic marketing muscle, of course I'd take it -- it would be the best of both worlds." Then I'd be able to cite the quote now rather than having to point out something that was mostly implicit: as I've said upstream, it's the terms that matter to me, not the means by which I achieve them.



Jack Kilborn said:


> Signing with Thomas & Mercer is like self-publishing, but with a team behind you.
> Signing with a Big 6 publisher is like being beaten up and then forced to thank your assailant.


LMAO

Thanks again everyone for the opinions, insights, and great questions -- which I'll try to address with Joe in the online conversation we're doing now. On some of those questions, though, I think all we'll be able to do is speculate, because we only know what Amazon is doing with us, not what their plans and practices are overall.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

BarryEisler said:


> Jamie, thank you for the cites! I swear, I always ask and people never bother (which is of course telling). Anyway, I can see where you were coming from now. FWIW, those statements were with regard to the deal I walked away from, not WRT any conceivable deal a legacy publisher might offer (and I admit I didn't foresee the possibility of a deal like the one Amazon presented).


It's perfectly reasonable to change one's opinion when new information comes along. In this case, your deal sounds fantastic and gives you everything good about legacy publishing with few of the drawbacks. Of course you would describe this in different terms than the traditional deal you walked away from. Those old quotes of yours may be perfectly valid and yet no longer germane to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Hi Barry!



BarryEisler said:


> Jackie, I agree it would be better if Amazon would make its digital books downloadable on other than Kindle-platform devices -- better for Amazon, better for authors, and for the reasons you note, better for readers. And though it's not relevant to your argument, it's worth noting that I expect Amazon will do so, and hopefully soon.


I think there are reasons Amazon might do so soon, but I'm personally not holding my breath too much. I think it's great that you're doing business with Amazon and that they've proven so receptive. I think it's awesome to have shake-ups like this--the industry drastically needs them now.

My general take on all of this has always been that I generally don't second-guess people's business decisions. Everyone has different reasons for doing things, and I know you're a smart guy, so I'm pretty sure that this is going to be the best for you. Congratulations.

Me personally? I wouldn't have agreed to the exclusivity. I think the reason for that, for me, is that this is not how I would weigh things:



BarryEisler said:


> But it's also not in readers' interests to have to pay $12.99, $15.99, or even $22.99 for a digital book. Amazon wants to charge far less than that. Presumably, the lower prices Amazon will offer readers by disintermediating legacy publishers and eliminating the publishers' "agency model" floor on the price of ebooks is a very good thing for readers indeed. So, presumably, is Amazon's willingness to release digital books as soon as they're ready, rather than forcing people who like ebooks to wait months because legacy publishers insist on slaving the digital release to the paper one. And so, presumably, is Amazon's determination to make the paper version of The Detachment much more widely available than I could have on my own. Do these cost, time-to-market, and availability-of-paper advantages for readers outweigh the fact that The Detachment won't be available, at least initially, on digital devices except those that are Kindle-compatible? I would argue yes, and though reasonable people might differ, it strikes me as odd that you don't even find these other advantages worthy of discussion.


Barry, you know I respect you, but that's a little sloppy logically.

You're comparing Amazon to traditional publishing for cost and time-to-market issues. Then you're comparing Amazon to self-publishing for print distribution. You say Amazon comes out ahead for readers, but you can't choose which goalpost you peg your comparison to based on which one is easier for you to prove. To conclude that Amazon is better, you have to compare Amazon to self-publishing across the board and Amazon to traditional publishing across the board. You've done the Amazon to traditional publishing discussion elsewhere, so no need to delve into it here. Jackie was merely performing the Amazon to self-publishing comparison, which is why she neglected the other questions.

If you self-publish, you can manage the early digital release and the cost. There is no advantage to Amazon for cost and time-to-market issues--or at least not ones that are obvious to me, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

That means the one advantage Amazon will really bring to readers is presumably the paper release, which will reach a large number readers who can't, won't, or don't read in digital, and the disadvantage is that Amazon (at least as it appears for the moment) will not have a digital release out--at least for the present--to reach readers who buy books from B&N or kobo or other online retailers.

For me, comparing Amazon to self-publishing in terms of gains for readers, I'm not sure this would come out as a win. But you have far better print penetration than I do, so I can easily see how you would weigh those two factors differently.

I've been too much of an open-access fanatic in my life to ever go for an exclusive deal. But weirdly enough, the general principle behind that--I think that we need a diversity of ways of doing business to best ensure a robust industry--is _also_ served by having you do something different and new. So even though I wouldn't have done it, I'm happy you're doing it.

In terms of gains for yourself, I think you're unquestionably better off. (And no, I don't mean that to sound like you're being selfish--this is a business, so why shouldn't you think about what's best for yourself?)


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

Courtney, you rock.  You're right, to some extent I was mixing apples and oranges there.  Still, I would argue that the kind of pressure required to improve legacy publisher performance and practices can better be exerted by Amazon and self-publishing together than by self-publishing alone.  Because I believe those legacy performance and practices are a much bigger hindrance to readers than the availability of this or that title on this or that platform, I do think that on balance readers will be better off in the presence of deals like mine than they would be in their absence.

All that said, I don't want to give the impression that I'm arguing I did this deal to save the world, when in fact I did it to sell books.  But like a lot of other things I've done in publishing, I think what I've done here will ultimately benefit other authors and readers, too.  So just as I did about my initial move away from legacy publishing, I feel pretty good about this move on multiple levels.

And as more data comes in, we'll find out if I'm just deluding myself.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Regarding the welfare of consumers, we have few examples of increased competition decreasing consumer welfare. 

We have had an oligopoly for years. Competition decreases the strength of an oligopoly. Sufficient competition destroys it.

And monopolies? I can't think of any example of a retail monopoly. A monopoly has to control supply or control entrance. There is no reason to think either can be controlled in an online market.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

BarryEisler said:


> All that said, I don't want to give the impression that I'm arguing I did this deal to save the world, when in fact I did it to sell books. But like a lot of other things I've done in publishing, I think what I've done here will ultimately benefit other authors and readers, too. So just as I did about my initial move away from legacy publishing, I feel pretty good about this move on multiple levels.


It's a brave, new world, and someone has to be first.

But it's more than that.

I wasn't the first guy to upload my ebooks to Amazon using DTP.

However, I was the first guy to start posting my royalty figures. This helped to inform other authors to make their own decisions. I've lost count of the number of people who have thanked me (literally thousands) because I was transparent in what I was doing, and because I actively disseminated the information.

Still, like Barry, my main goal has been to sell books. That doesn't mean I can't help some authors along the way.

We owe no one explanations. While the self-pub culture has become pretty open about sharing figures, the legacy-pub culture is still closed-lipped.

Closed-lipped doesn't help anyone. The more information we all have, the better off we all are. Which is why we continue to talk numbers and disclose what we're doing.

The first thing Barry did, mere minutes after signing the Thomas & Mercer deal, was do a live interview and talk at length about contract terms. He didn't say, "sorry can't discuss that" over and over again. Instead, he broadcasted (and continues to broadcast) how this deal is better than any he's ever had before. Not because of money. But because of the great terms it offers him as an author.

Exclusivity is the new currency. Look at the videogame wars. Each system (Wii, PS3, 360) has exclusive games, that help the customer determine which system to buy. This is good for consumers, not bad, because it promotes competition. The more competition, the more technology improves, and the more prices drop.

Thomas & Mercer will allow us to reach more customers, even though it isn't an epub release. The print distribution is much farther reaching than we could do on our own, and the level of marketing Amazon does will let us peak higher on the Top 100 list, selling more ebooks (at least initially) than we could with a self-pub release, even taking into account fewer sales to Nook, Sony, and Kobo customers (I say fewer rather than zero because we're releasing without DRM, meaning the files can be formatted to epub for free.)

My goal isn't to save the world. My goal isn't to take down the Big 6. My goal is to make a good living doing what I love.

But if I can also help a bunch of writers, and help destroy a greedy, bloated, ignorant industry, it's an epic win for writers and for readers.

We're almost done with our dialog. Should be live soon.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2011)

RobCornell said:


> So basically, Kindle is the Xbox 360 of the e-reader world. Nook is probably the PS3. And I won't insult anyone other reader by comparing them to the Wii.


Are you kidding me? Being compared to the XBox 360 is a huge insult. Apparently more than 25% of those things break down within their first year after purchase. I have to guess Microsoft doesn't immediately toss you another one like Amazon would.

If there are way more Kindles out there, it would be more like the Wii, which has outsold the others to a ridiculous degree.

Nook can be the PS3 just because Sony and BN are big companies.

The iPad is the Nintendo DS.

Kobo can be the Sega Saturn.

Sony E-reader can be the Dreamcast.

The HP Slate is the Jaguar. Don't remember what the Jaguar was? Exactly.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

EllenFisher said:


> Oh, I don't disagree it's a good deal, for sure. But it changes the landscape a little. As Terrence says, now there are three models, not two. It kind of changes everything Konrath has been talking about-- now the choice isn't necessarily between self-pubbing for 70% but no advance on one hand and lower royalties/advance on the other, but we also have the added possibility of high royalties/high advance/someone else to handle cover and editing. (Not to imply that every author they sign will get an advance of $500,000, but even if their average author only gets $5000, that would be a nice thing to have along with 70% royalties, wouldn't it?)


As people have been mentioning, Amazon's publishing is making a third model. There needed to be a third model. I tried--and succeeded--in getting my well-reviewed books into stores using Lightning Source, where I could control the discount so that bookstores would buy my book. I was hammered with returns in my second year of doing this. If you want to see more specifically what happened to me, go here: http://www.redroom.com/blog/christopher-meeks/my-realities-or-how-to-market-your-book-or-watch-it-die

Considering that 70% of publishing is still in print, I didn't want to ignore that market. Amazon's new business model allows was a more profitaable way into stores. I wonder how they've dealt with returns.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Something else should be noted when it comes to exclusivity: there's nothing preventing you from having more than one device.

I have a PS3, a Wii, and a 360. I also have an Xbox, a PS2, a Dreamcast, a Saturn, a PSP, and an NDS.

We'll be seeing ereaders under $100 this holiday season. It will drop lower than that by next near. 

One day, ereaders will be like cell phones and iPods. In one word: disposable. When a new one is released, cheaper and with more features, we throw away the old one. Sad, but true.

There's no reason in 2014 that Kindle owners won't also have a Nook Color and a Kobo. Even three or four devices take up far less room than a few hardcovers.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Something else should be noted when it comes to exclusivity: there's nothing preventing you from having more than one device.
> 
> I have a PS3, a Wii, and a 360. I also have an Xbox, a PS2, a Dreamcast, a Saturn, a PSP, and an NDS.
> 
> ...


Very true. It's always interesting to read anything that you write. Always insightful.


----------



## Todd Russell (Mar 27, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> The HP Slate is the Jaguar. Don't remember what the Jaguar was? Exactly.


Don't be dissing the Atari Jaguar, Jason. It had one good game: Tempest 2000  And who is the Neo-Geo 2D fighter champion in this e-reader analogy?

Let's not forget the NES kicked everybody's behind and revitalized the industry. Much the way the Kindle has done with e-readers. Ebooks have been around a long, long time in internet years. They have only gotten more popular in the last couple years.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

BarryEisler said:


> Jackie, I agree it would be better if Amazon would make its digital books downloadable on other than Kindle-platform devices -- better for Amazon, better for authors, and for the reasons you note, better for readers. And though it's not relevant to your argument, it's worth noting that I expect Amazon will do so, and hopefully soon.


But I will still be forced to buy your book, should I want it in digital format, from Amazon and only Amazon. (By the way, is there going to be DRM on these books? Will they be GLOBALLY available? Those are important questions, too.)

Now, I realize that in the larger world, there are all kinds of things I can only buy from one retailer. If, for example, I want to buy clothing from certain designer lines that have exclusive deals with certain retailers, then I either go to that retailer or I don't buy that item (although I might be able to pick it up second hand, which makes it different from a digital book, which I can't legally buy second hand).

But there is something to me that is so fundamentally anti-competitive about restricting consumers' access in this way that I personally find it abhorrent. I've actually stopped buying books from Amazon because I have such strong, negative feelings about these digital exclusivity deals. I'm not going to try to claim that that emotion is exceptionally rational, but as a consumer, I don't like to be told "get it here or forget it" and as an author, I am wary of the long-term consequences of Amazon's continued domination of the digital retail environment, Having them be a publisher too, with a vested interest in promoting their OWN books over the other books they sell, only increases my concern.

Courtney already addressed the apples to oranges problem in the remainder of what you said, so I don't feel the need to address that. Moreover, as I said in my original post, I'm sure this was a great business decision for you and I don't remotely blame you for making it. I probably wouldn't choose it because of my issues with the anti-competitiveness and my general sense of unease with what I feel are monopolistic practices that are bad for publishing at large. But I don't think any author is required to consider any interests but their own when choosing to go any route in publication. Whichever way you go, whether it's legacy publishing, digital small press, Amazon imprint or self-publishing, there are trade-offs. I'm glad that you found a publishing model that works well for you, and I don't remotely mean to suggest that you should have chosen something else to make me or your next door neighbor or your good old Aunt Mamie happy. But that doesn't mean I'm obliged to bite my tongue about my reasons for thinking that Amazon's imprint don't necessarily represent a net positive and might even represent a net negative to readers, authors, and publishing as a whole, either.

I'm just as chuffed as the next guy that authors' options are expanding. Whether Amazon's imprints will represent an option for any but a limited few, already established authors remains to be seen. At this point in time, it doesn't appear they're going to be taking the chances that legacy publishers still take on unknown authors, which means for the vast majority of us, the doors of Amazon are even harder to breach than those of the Big 6.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Do you know which stores will be carrying the print books?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> But there is something to me that is so fundamentally anti-competitive about restricting consumers' access in this way that I personally find it abhorrent. I've actually stopped buying books from Amazon because I have such strong, negative feelings about these digital exclusivity deals.


Interesting.

What I find abhorrent is that the major publishers banded together (can you say collusion?) and forced Amazon to accept agency pricing.

A retailer should be allowed to sell goods and services for whatever they deem appropriate. That's free enterprise. Being bullied into taking a 30% cut is pretty much illegal (and I believe there is are pending court cases to that effect in Texas and the UK).

Amazon created an online bookstore, then they created the Kindle. Of course they should be allowed to sell what they want in their store, and on their ereader device.

Exclusivity will help them bring more people to their store, and sell more of their ereaders. How is that anti-competitive? Any other company is allowed to do the same thing.

It's okay for Simon & Schuster to sell Mary Higgins Clark books, because they signed her. Random House can't complain that S&S has a monopoly on MHC books. If they wanted her, they should have offered her more money.

Many store chains have house brands that can't be bought elsewhere. That's not anti-competitive. In fact, that's the essence of competition. If everyone offered the same things for the same price, no one has an advantage. Without advantages, the consumer ultimately suffers.

Anyone who wants to buy Kindle ebooks can. That isn't restricting consumers' access. Nor is that anti-competitive.



Jackie Barbosa said:


> At this point in time, it doesn't appear they're going to be taking the chances that legacy publishers still take on unknown authors, which means for the vast majority of us, the doors of Amazon are even harder to breach than those of the Big 6.


Actually, Amazon's first imprint, Encore, was them publishing unknown authors. Encore approached me not knowing who I was. Comparing that to the 500 rejections I got prior to my first legacy contract, I'd say that it's much easier to get signed by Amazon than the Big 6.

Amazon is quite possibly the greatest thing to ever happen to authors. They're certainly the greatest thing to happen to my career, and the careers or many authors who post here. That they continue to innovate and work with writers is a very good thing indeed.

But they don't have a monopoly. They aren't the only game in town. If you don't want to work with them, you don't have to. Choice still exists.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Interesting.
> 
> What I find abhorrent is that the major publishers banded together (can you say collusion?) and forced Amazon to accept agency pricing.
> 
> A retailer should be allowed to sell goods and services for whatever they deem appropriate. That's free enterprise. Being bullied into taking a 30% cut is pretty much illegal (and I believe there is are pending court cases to that effect in Texas and the UK).


Agency pricing was also something that Mark Coker pushed for for independent authors. Otherwise, Amazon could arbitrarily decide that all of our books are not worth the e-ink they are printed on, sell them for 99 cents (or give them away) and we would be mitigated down to the 35% or absolutely nada for each sale. For books like yours that have a huge following and the demand/supply curves work in your favor, this makes sense. For freshly-minted authors, non-agency causes a lot of problems for indies, right?

With an electronic medium that can be easily copied and retransmitted, we have to be careful with anything that would depend on demand/supply curves - since there is literally an unlimited supply (as far as internet resources are concerned).


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

historicalromauthor said:


> Do you know which stores will be carrying the print books?


I don't yet. Hopefully all of them.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

jnfr said:


> There's no reason to believe that these two won't still self-publish as well, right? I mean, they haven't signed their lives over to Amazon, it's just a book deal. I can definitely see the attraction of getting into the print market without a lot of hassle. That's still where the bulk of sales are.
> 
> I really like that Amazon is offering writers better royalties and other contract terms. That's major pressure on other publishers to do the same.
> It doesn't affect me, since I'm really happy publishing outside the traditional channels, but whatever makes the world better for writers is a good thing, I think.


I totally agree - better contracts for writers is a great thing - bottom line there are now lots of options and one of the options just got a bit more "author friendly" sounds like a good thing to me.


----------



## Emeline Danvers (Apr 11, 2011)

I think all the bashing of Barry for making a PHENOMENAL business move is absolutely ridiculous. The dude is making some money! So what?! Isn't that what we all aspire to--doing what we love and getting paid WELL for it? All this criticism smacks of sour grapes to me.

Regardless of what he may have said (or some people _think _he's said)...the publishing business has changed. Amazon moving into publishing has changed things in a HUGE way. Who could turn down and offer like that? Hey, I don't fault anyone who would make a different choice...but if it were me? *Hell yeah*, I'd take that deal!!! (Call me mercenary if you will...I'm a mom of six, so no way would I pass on an offer like that. I have kids to feed.)

Should he have turned down Amazon's offer, to keep to some set of "indie ideals" that others hold him to? No! And if he had? Everyone would jump all over him and call him an idiot!  The poor guy can't wouldn't catch a break, in some people's minds.

Let the man relax and spend his hard-earned money before the pressures of publishing set in.


----------



## Doug Lance (Sep 20, 2010)

The strength of people's tribal affiliations amaze me. Barry will do whatever he thinks is best for himself. Any conflict that results from his decisions is publicity.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I really can't understand any of the criticism.

Barry Eisler, Joe Konrath, and Blake Crouch all got themselves great deals. We should applaud that, just like we applaud anyone else who gets a great deal.

Trade publishing and self-publishing are not mutually exclusive paths, they are just two ways to get readers to read your books and make a little money at the same time.

Lots of writers mix both. Lots of writers on this board mix both. Lots of the "true indies" on this board are in talks with agents, or have discussed print deals with publishing companies, or would love the opportunity to do so.

Barry Eisler self-published 4 titles since his announcement in March, and has said he will continue to self-publish more stuff. 

He has signed a trade deal for one book. A great deal. What's all the fuss about?

We should applaud when a writer gets a better deal, because that means that every other writer is going to want something similar, which could raise the standard of terms for everyone.

If enough writers sign deals like this with Amazon's new imprints, the Big 6 are going to have to change their ways or they will end up losing all their writers. 

Everybody wins.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> I want to make it clear that I have nothing against you personally, Barry--in fact, I really enjoy your wit and your insights into publishing. Moreover, I am sure you got a great deal from Amazon, one few of us would willingly pass up if offered. HOWEVER, I kind of feel the need to call shenanigans on the claim that this deal you've made with Amazon is in the best interests of readers or other authors.
> 
> Now, let's turn to other authors. I suppose in some pie in the sky world, Amazon's willingness to offer higher digital royalty rates along with generous advances might push traditional publishers to do the same--at least for those authors who have a proven track record of sales. But I doubt Amazon is going to be picking up books by debut authors; from everything I can see, they are out to "poach" proven authors who are disenchanted with the traditional publishing system. There's nothing inherently WRONG with that, but it's got to have to make things worse for those who are trying to break in, not better, because the traditional publishers will be offering better deals to their proven sellers in hopes of keeping them from jumping ship, which means there will be even fewer dollars for new authors. I don't see that as, on balance, a good thing for the majority of authors.


My guess...just from reading the posts on the Internet from Barry, Joe, and Blake is that the T&M contract is "Very" author friendly. I think T&M is probably the first publisher to realize that in the new model auhors like these can do very well on their own so to entice them to stay they are adjusting their business models in a way that if other publishers folow suit wll be good for any authors who wish to persue big-six publishng.


----------



## Doug Lance (Sep 20, 2010)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> Whether Amazon's imprints will represent an option for any but a limited few, already established authors remains to be seen. At this point in time, it doesn't appear they're going to be taking the chances that legacy publishers still take on unknown authors, which means for the vast majority of us, the doors of Amazon are even harder to breach than those of the Big 6.


Good! It should be difficult. These are the highest echelons of the industry. It should be the hardest thing that a writer can do.

Complaining about the difficulty or competition is no way to get ahead. Everyone is doing what's best for themselves, including Amazon. Strive to become what Amazon sees as the best option and they will publish your work.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> The problem is that Amazon isn't just a publisher--it's both a publisher and a distributor/retailer. In the "old" model, all publishers had the same basic ability to buy things such as co-op space in order to increase a book's visibility. The playing field was relatively equal, based on how much the publisher was wiling to spend to back the book as well as how much demand the bookseller felt there would be for the book.
> 
> In the "new" model, where Amazon publishes its own books, it pays NOTHING extra to make them more "visible" to shoppers. Amazon has, essentially, 100% free marketing opportunity for its own books. Sure, other publishers can PAY Amazon for visibility as they have in the past, but they are now competing with Amazon itself for that "space". There's a possibility, I suppose, that what publishers would be willing to pay to get their books "ahead" of Amazon's in the visbility queue would make it more lucrative for it to take the publishers' money at the expense of promoting its own books, but that doesn't seem very likely, especially because (again) the dollars are finite and publishers may not be willing to the pay the price, especially when they know Amazon itself can "game" the system for its own books.
> 
> This seems to me such a clear conflict of interest that it's hard for me to understand how it's remotely "the same" as what we had in the past. In the past, the playing field for publishers was relatively level, the only differentiation being how much money they were willing to spend. Now we have a publisher that has to spend the equivalent of nothing to promote its own books while at the same time charging other publishers for access. That is clearly stacking the deck.


I find it fascinating that you think the "old model" was the level playing field. The co-op system favors those with deep pockets and locked out small presses and self published authors.

Amazon's "new model" is the level playing field. By creating on-line buying of books (both electronic and print), and opening up kindle books (thorugh DTP) to ANYONE for free it has changed the lives of small, new authors. There are hundreds of writers (my husband included, and many more on this board) who earn a living wage from writing BECAUSE of Amazon.

Will that change in the future? Maybe...I've often thought that when the big-six gets their act together and start taking ebooks seriously that a co-op will start in Amazon again - just like it did for brick and mortar. But you know what? Times change and all we can do is to adjust if and when it happens - not wring our hands and worry about what "might be".


----------



## carter102 (Nov 25, 2010)

"Do you know which stores will be carrying the print books?"

This is the question that I don't really see answered anywhere. The big daddy here is of course B&N. So then it needs to be asked:What is in B&N's interest?

Well the one thing not in its interest is writers making deals with Amazon that sends people to buy ebooks from their main competitor. It is something that it would want to prevent as much as possible. Given that B&N will want to send a message...

I fear that you may have to give up the idea of seeing yourselves on the bookshelves of your local B&N.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I would just like to make the general point that to view the entire publishing world through the prism of self-publishing vs the Big 6 is very limiting.

First of all, there is a whole spectrum of publishing companies and publishing possibilities inbetween those two.

Second, there are many authors on this board, and outside of here, who are both self-publishing and who have trade deals with the Big 6 or are pursuing them, and this will become more, not less, common.

Third, even if you view the world through that prism, Barry Eisler's deal with Amazon is a bigger shot against the Big 6 than self-publishing alone would have been.

Fourth, if any publisher, be it Random House, Ellora's Cave, or Amazon, improves the terms they offer writers, *that is a good thing*.

Fifth, virtually every writer here would have accepted this deal, no matter what they said in the past about self-publishing all future work.

Sixth, people like Joe Konrath, Blake Crouch, and Barry Eisler, have given a lot to the self-publishing community, and you should remember that before you criticise them.

Seventh, anyone who thinks that Amazon will "game" the algorithim to display their authors more prominently has a fundamental misunderstanding of how these algorithims work. I have made a couple of posts on it up-thread (page four/five), I won't repeat it here. What they will do is feature their authors in their mailing lists, just like they have always done for other publishers for a fee.

Eight, regarding the general criticism of Amazon as a company, I have some issues with them too. But, you know what? They also allow me to self-publish for nothing, take a reasonable cut of the fees, and bring me lots and lots of readers. As an international writer, Google Books and Barnes & Noble don't even let me sell my stuff on their sites. So thank you for that, Amazon.

Finally, I would just like to congratulate the guys for signing a great deal, one that lays down a marker for the entire industry. With Amazon to accept EPUB files shortly, it means that people with a Nook or Kobo e-reader won't be excluded from purchasing, so I don't see the big deal there.

It will be interesting to see what bookstores will stock Amazon's books. Will Barnes & Noble? Will the indies? Time will tell, but I suspect that a boycott is an unsustainable strategy, especially as Amazon continue to add to their roster. Don't forget that Barnes & Noble have their own imprint.

There will be more clashes like this as the industry verticalizes further. The Big 6 effort - Bookish - could be viewed as a move into Amazon's "space". Amazon have five imprints, with a sixth to follow. B&N was a bookstore chain, now it has a digital publishing platform, an e-reader, and a publishing imprint. Some indie bookstores have imprints now and espresso book machines.

The world is changing, but don't forget that publishers used to own bookstores too, and lots of them have online stores selling their stuff.

Anyway, even if a boycott does come to pass, all these guys will still be ahead with this deal. Nice work.

Dave


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

BarryEisler said:


> The balance of your argument is built on the assumption that additional options for authors are bad, increased competition among publishers is bad, and that a sale for Author A necessarily means a lost sale for Author B (rather than, indeed, a possible route to an *additional* sale for Author B). I don't find any of these assumptions supported by empirical evidence or logic or otherwise persuasive, but I'll grant that you are hardly alone in holding these views.


You are so right Barry. And as someone who was at BEA I can say that EVERYONE was talking about T&M and what it can mean to their business. I think more competition is a good thing and will help to change some out of date busines practices. (Unlike Joe, I'm optimistic that NY can and will see the writing on the wall and adjust - I know Joe I'm too naive but anyway you cut this -- what's going on is GOOD for authors!



BarryEisler said:


> Like you, I don't want Amazon (or anyone else) to gain a monopoly over publishing. Legacy publishers have enjoyed a quasi-monoply for a long time, and the cost of that monopoly has been borne by readers, bookstores, and authors -- everyone except the publishers who've grown complacent and slothful in the absence of the spur of competition. If you don't like monopolies, you must hate legacy publishing, and if you want to break the monopoly that today is artificially inflating the price of books, holding new books back even though readers are eager to buy them, and treating authors like serfs via non-compete, low digital royalty, and one-sided packaging/creative control clauses, then you'll be cheering for the new entrant who's introducing the kind of competition most likely to force legacy publishers up their game and to treat readers and authors better.


Couldn't have said it better myself. It is because Legacy publishers were the "only game in town" that much of the inequities between publisher and author were allowed to flourish. More choices = better conditions fo writers.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

carter102 said:


> "Do you know which stores will be carrying the print books?"
> 
> This is the question that I don't really see answered anywhere. The big daddy here is of course B&N. So then it needs to be asked:What is in B&N's interest?
> 
> ...


B&N is the big daddy? Really? I've only seen one once in my life, and it was the worst bookstore that I have ever seen. From my personal experience, BAM! is a better bookstore.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

carter102 said:


> "Do you know which stores will be carrying the print books?"
> 
> This is the question that I don't really see answered anywhere. The big daddy here is of course B&N. So then it needs to be asked:What is in B&N's interest?
> 
> ...


And not carrying the print version is going to send even more people to Amazon to get a copy.

Not to mention, there are other smaller chains (such as BAM) and outlets that sell books -- WalMart, Target, grocery stores, etc.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

DougLance said:


> Good! It should be difficult. These are the highest echelons of the industry. It should be the hardest thing that a writer can do.
> 
> Complaining about the difficulty or competition is no way to get ahead. Everyone is doing what's best for themselves, including Amazon. Strive to become what Amazon sees as the best option and they will publish your work.


What I am complaining about is not the fact that Amazon's imprints are hard to break into. You're absolutely right; they should be hard.

What I am complaining about is the fact that Amazon is depending on someone ELSE to take the risks first. Legacy publishers take risks when they invest capital in the works of authors who have never before been published. Self-published authors take risks when they pay the production costs of getting their own work to market. Amazon is taking almost no risk at all here because it's choosing to buy only authors with a strong track record. Of course, any author can tank and produce a book that doesn't sell. It's not a guarantee. But it's a LOT easier to offer great deals to authors when it's a virtual guarantee that you're not going to lose money.

When people complain about the lousy contracts that legacy publishers offer, I'm largely in agreement. But given that their business model has always been based on print distribution with all its costs and risks, it made sense for those publishers to be relatively stingy. The model is changing, of course, and the legacy publishers are trying to keep up (and launching digital first lines with royalty splits that make me want to tell authors to run the other way as fast as possible, but I digress). Still, with all that, legacy publishers are still launching new authors, paying them advances (though those advances are generally shrinking), and getting their work to market at no cost to the author (that is, the publisher is taking the bigger chunk of the monetary risk).

I simply don't foresee Amazon behaving like a "publisher" in this regard in the near term, and perhaps not even in the long term. Who are their acquiring editors? What are their submission guidelines? If I'm interested in getting a contract with Amazon's imprints, how do I go about getting one? As far as I know, the answer to all of those questions is "Be published, either traditionally or self-, and have a good enough track record of sales that we know we won't lose money on you. Also, don't call us; we'll call you."


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Actually, Amazon's first imprint, Encore, was them publishing unknown authors. Encore approached me not knowing who I was.


So you're saying they looked you up in the phone book by pure random luck and offered you your first publishing contract without having the slightest idea that your book would ever sell much less that you could write one?

Encore, as far as I can tell, offers deals to authors who have published through the KDP platform and have sold exceptionally well. In other words, proven authors, not debuts or even authors who are selling modestly through KDP or a digital small press.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

rsullivan9597 said:


> I find it fascinating that you think the "old model" was the level playing field. The co-op system favors those with deep pockets and locked out small presses and self published authors.


It was level for the publishers. If the publisher could afford to and wished to pay for co-op space, it could. It did not have to compete for co-op space with a publisher that was also the retailer and could put its books in co-op for free. THAT is the unlevel part of the equation.

I never said the old model was level for authors.

The "new model," such as it is, is not necessarily "more" level for authors, either. Sure, it allows more authors to publish their work, but that doesn't guarantee sales/success. And when Amazon is pushing/promoting books in its own imprints even more than it does now because there are more of them, there is a strong likelihood that sales of self-published titles will suffer at the expense of that marketing effort. Similarly, books put out by authors who are published by publishers OTHER than Amazon are likely to suffer. And finally, readers of digital books who want to buy from a retailer other than Amazon, either because they don't have a Kindle or because the other retailer offers coupon/incentive systems that significantly reduce the cost of the books they buy, are left with only one choice: buy at Amazon or don't buy at all. I guess that's a perfectly acceptable choice. I just don't happen to see it as "good" for authors, readers, or publishing or as in any way leveling the playing field.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

rsullivan9597 said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself. It is because Legacy publishers were the "only game in town" that much of the inequities between publisher and author were allowed to flourish. More choices = better conditions fo writers.


Except that legacy publishers have not been "the only game in town" for a very long time. At least in the romance market, there have digital small presses in operation for 10+ years.

Legacy vs self-publish is a false dichotomy because those have not been the only two options for quite a long time now.


----------



## Neve Maslakovic (Oct 7, 2010)

> Encore, as far as I can tell, offers deals to authors who have published through the KDP platform and have sold exceptionally well. In other words, proven authors, not debuts or even authors who are selling modestly through KDP or a digital small press.


AmazonEncore published my debut novel in February of this year. Their acquisition editor found it among the original manuscripts entered into the ABNA contest -- _Regarding Ducks and Universes_ hadn't been published or self-published previously. They took a chance on a completely unknown author.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Seventh, anyone who thinks that Amazon will "game" the algorithim to display their authors more prominently has a fundamental misunderstanding of how these algorithims work.


Since Amazon won't TELL us how its algorithms work, I'm not sure how you can claim that anyone has a fundamental understanding OTHER than Amazon.

FWIW, I have more than a passing acquaintance with programming. I therefore know how easy it would be to weight sales of certain books based on certain criteria (like whether I published it or not) to improve its bestseller rank.

Moreover, to my knowledge, there aren't ANY bestseller lists in existence right now that are "pure". All the ways we currently measure bestseller status, from the NYT bestseller list to Amazon rankings, are "gamed" in some way. That's not the problem. The problem is that Amazon not only builds its own algorithm, but arguable, unlike the NYT, has a vested interest in propelling its own books to the top of the bestseller list.

I could be wrong about that, of course, but since Amazon won't actually tell us EXACTLY how it determines sales ranks, how will we ever know?


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Neve Maslakovic said:


> AmazonEncore published my debut novel in February of this year. Their acquisition editor found it among the original manuscripts entered into the ABNA contest -- _Regarding Ducks and Universes_ hadn't been published or self-published previously. They took a chance on a completely unknown author.


Wow, that is really interesting. Congratulations. I take back my previous statements, then.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> I take back my previous statements, then.


See, you just admitted defeat there for your entire argument. Rookie mistake. You've got to push back hard and tell her she's wrong. This is the internet, and you have to realize that you know much more about her publishing details than she does.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> What I am complaining about is the fact that Amazon is depending on someone ELSE to take the risks first. Legacy publishers take risks when they invest capital in the works of authors who have never before been published. Self-published authors take risks when they pay the production costs of getting their own work to market. Amazon is taking almost no risk at all here because it's choosing to buy only authors with a strong track record. Of course, any author can tank and produce a book that doesn't sell. It's not a guarantee. But it's a LOT easier to offer great deals to authors when it's a virtual guarantee that you're not going to lose money.


Since Amazon has no guarantee that they'll be able to get enough print copies in the store to make back the hefty advance they paid, I think they are taking a risk--and a pretty substantial one. They're also taking the risk that this move will piss off enough publishers that the publishers pull their inventory from Amazon--something that would hugely impact their bottom line.

I don't think this is risk-free for Amazon, not by any stretch--any more than I think it was risk free for St. Martins to pick up Amanda Hocking for 2 million.

I'm with you on the open access question--I personally wouldn't go for it--but I guess I just feel like that's my own personal preference. I don't shop at Walmart for reasons that are in my mind "moral" but I also don't want to be hugely judgmental of people who do. I'm not standing in anyone else's shoes. I feel like my deeply held beliefs are personal, and I've never been a big proselytizer.

There's no question in my mind that Amazon is taking this step to try to prevent erosion of its market power. But I also think that we'll see people fighting back, and at least for now, what I see is that the most powerless people in publishing--the authors--are beginning to have more say. I like that.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jackie you have some really interesting points yet I think you are a bit too hard on Amazon.  Afterall, they are a business last time I checked and not a charity.  Yet ,I think Bezos has a little soft spot for books--they were the original focus of Amazon at the beginning.

Publishing will continue to fragment and change as technology keeps changing.  It is technology which is the driver here.  Just back in 2004 who would have thought people would be reading books on their cellphones?  Or that people would surge and buy ereaders and download books they could read anywhere?  Or that just before going away on vacation an avid reader could download 50 books and select what he wants to read while traveling--and the Ebook is the size of just one book?

Change sometimes moves at a very slow pace and sometimes it is explosive.  The traditional guardians no longer control what is available for the reader to read.  They no longer control the entire product flow.  With Ebooks--the reader decides and that is revolutionary in the book game.  The industry will keep adjusting as any successful business will do to changing circumstances.

Today there are so many options for the reader or writer and thats healthy.  I don't think the options will shrink.  For centuries publishers controlled the market.  They controlled what would be published and what wouldn't.  They decided how much the author would be paid and how long it took for him to get paid.  How many copies to be printed and how to sell and market the book and the author etc etc.

Anyway, Amazon's imprints are just another option for writers and readers and I see no downside, but publishing will keep changing.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

carter102 said:


> "Do you know which stores will be carrying the print books?"
> 
> This is the question that I don't really see answered anywhere. The big daddy here is of course B&N. So then it needs to be asked:What is in B&N's interest?
> 
> ...


Yeah, if I was B&N I'd go to Amazon and tell them I'd be happy to carry their paper books if I get to also carry their ebooks. So Barry if you're still listening, is there a possibility that Amazon will allow B&N to sell the ebooks? Did that come up in your discussions?

One other angle: Amazon is rumored to be looking at making a bid for Borders. They may well have their own bookstore chain in a few months.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Courtney Milan said:


> Since Amazon has no guarantee that they'll be able to get enough print copies in the store to make back the hefty advance they paid, I think they are taking a risk--and a pretty substantial one. They're also taking the risk that this move will p*ss off enough publishers that the publishers pull their inventory from Amazon--something that would hugely impact their bottom line.
> 
> I don't think this is risk-free for Amazon, not by any stretch--any more than I think it was risk free for St. Martins to pick up Amanda Hocking for 2 million.


You're right, as usual, although I will say that I have my doubts that Amazon expects the print avenue to be a sizable chunk of the revenue stream. I think they are counting more on digital sales and the exclusivity in digital to make back their investment. Given that Barry was willing to walk away from a $225k per book (or thereabouts) deal from St. Martin's in favor of self-publishing in a digital-only environment, I'm guessing that the sales data is there to back the assumption that there's at least that much money to be had purely from the digital stream.

And this may be one of those cases where the publisher still winds up "ahead" even if the author never earns out the advance. Obviously, part of Amazon's strategy here is to increase the market penetration of the Kindle and to increase the number of people who buy digital books from them, and although it would be hard to measure with certainty the ROI on any one deal, if Amazon's market share goes up as these books are released, then even if the individual books don't earn out their advances, they might still be making money for Amazon.

That's not to say there's NO risk at all. Any time a publisher pays money upfront to an author and invests in production, there's risk. It's just a different kind of risk in this scenario. Of course, legacy publishers have been "poaching" from each other for years in pursuit of a "sure thing," so I guess there's nothing particularly objectionable in that. I suppose I'm just bothered by my sense that Amazon is approaching authors rather than the other way around. I can't quite put my finger on why that makes me uncomfortable, but it does. /shrug Sometimes, feelings are just feelings.



Courtney Milan said:


> I'm with you on the open access question--I personally wouldn't go for it--but I guess I just feel like that's my own personal preference. I don't shop at Walmart for reasons that are in my mind "moral" but I also don't want to be hugely judgmental of people who do. I'm not standing in anyone else's shoes. I feel like my deeply held beliefs are personal, and I've never been a big proselytizer.


Yes, I agree with you here, but I might be slightly more of a proselytizer as a general rule. It's not that I want to prevent anyone else from doing what they think is in their own best interests, whether it's shopping at Walmart or publishing through Amazon's imprints. I just want people to think through the possible consequences of their actions on the ecosystem, whether it's the ecosystem of retailers or the ecosystem of publishing. Maybe my reasons for alarm are invalid, but that doesn't mean I have to keep them to myself. Other people can't decide whether my moral oppobrium for Walmart is valid or invalid if I don't explain why I hold that opinion.



Courtney Milan said:


> There's no question in my mind that Amazon is taking this step to try to prevent erosion of its market power. But I also think that we'll see people fighting back, and at least for now, what I see is that the most powerless people in publishing--the authors--are beginning to have more say. I like that.


I like authors having more say, too. I love not being at the "mercy" of publishers (be they legacy publishers, digital small presses, or Amazon's imprints) to get my books to readers. That is definitely a net good. But I do worry about my dependence as an author, self-published or otherwise, for sales from a single retailer. That feels like a bad thing to me, even while the money that rolls in feels pretty good.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> See, you just admitted defeat there for your entire argument. Rookie mistake. You've got to push back hard and tell her she's wrong. This is the internet, and you have to realize that you know much more about her publishing details than she does.


Maybe I should just compare Amazon to the Nazis and Jeff Bezos to Hitler. Then we could invoke Godwin's law and end this thread.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> Jackie you have some really interesting points yet I think you are a bit too hard on Amazon. Afterall, they are a business last time I checked and not a charity. Yet ,I think Bezos has a little soft spot for books--they were the original focus of Amazon at the beginning.


You're right, I am hard on Amazon. You're also right that they're in business and have every right to go about that business in a manner that has the best chance of earning them a healthy profit.

What worries me is that authors are already incredibly dependent on Amazon for digital sales. Anything they do that has a clear intention of increasing their share of the digital market makes me uncomfortable. If I become entirely dependent on Amazon for sales and they decide, for whatever reason, not to carry my book(s), they have the power to ruin me.

And please don't say that can't or won't happen. We've *seen* Amazon pull books due to complaints about content (anyone remember the "pedophilia" book) and mess up ranking and/or category data so as to make books disappear (all GLBTQ books are erotic, yo!). Whether intentional or unintentional, these actions have had real consequences for real authors, and the greater Amazon's market share becomes, the more power it has to make or destroy individual authors' careers. I siomply dislike too much power in the hands of a single entity. It used to be Walmart that had the market power to make or break an author in mmpb (if Walmart chooses to carry you, woohoo! If not, your print run will suck and your publisher will probably cut you.), but even Walmart couldn't keep you from getting sales in other bookstores. Moreover, despite their supposed monopolistic practice, legacy publishers never had so much power that one of them could prevent a single author from making a sale anywhere. But Amazon is aiming to get at least very close to having exactly this kind of power, and I think that is a net negative for me as an author.

Again, maybe I AM being too hard on Amazon here. Maybe some other digital book reader/retailer is going to come along any day now and blow Amazon out of the water. I certainly don't think Amazon's dominance will last forever, even if it increases significantly. But I don't think I'm wrong to have concerns.



jackz4000 said:


> Today there are so many options for the reader or writer and thats healthy. I don't think the options will shrink. For centuries publishers controlled the market. They controlled what would be published and what wouldn't.


As a reader, I have to confess to feeling a lot of gratitude toward the gatekeepers of old, though. I've read enough execrable samples to have gained a certain respect and appreciation for the model that let someone else read and discard the slush. That's not to say that the gatekeeper model always published the right books or that it never published bad books or that all books published without gatekeepers are bad, but that finding the good ones now falls increasingly to the reader, and it's a time-consuming and not always pleasant process that makes me understand why agents and editors get paid to do it.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> You're right, I am hard on Amazon. You're also right that they're in business and have every right to go about that business in a manner that has the best chance of earning them a healthy profit.
> 
> What worries me is that authors are already incredibly dependent on Amazon for digital sales. Anything they do that has a clear intention of increasing their share of the digital market makes me uncomfortable. If I become entirely dependent on Amazon for sales and they decide, for whatever reason, not to carry my book(s), they have the power to ruin me.
> 
> ...


I think it is possible for the tiny mouse and the huge elephant to co-exist in harmony, in fact the mouse may even benefit the elephant. There may even be a story about that somewhere? I think you are too worried about some things which may never come to pass. Firstly, Indie books are a benefit to Amazon because all those reasonably priced ebooks help Amazon sell more Kindles...which helps sell more reasonably priced ebooks as well as extravagently priced ebooks. I see no good reason for AMZ to want to exclude Indies since they provide sales and energy and add a platform for new and Indie authors and provide readers a chance to access books which would not be available anywhere. The midlsit author can sell his backlist which the publisher isn't publishing and the new author gets a chance to not just be cast in a never-to-read-slushpile. The new author can also find out just how much readers like his work and can learn from mistakes. That said, many will not sell very much but some will find a market and readers. In many ways its like a growing pool for talent which can grow authors and Amazon can keep tabs on promising authors.

I don't miss the gatekeepers and I am speaking as a reader--not a writer. They may have held books to their standards but their standards became thin and brittle and narrow. Yes, I have found plenty of typos and errors in traditional books and poor stories too. I'd much rather read a fresh voice with a solid story with typos than the SOS with typos. I digress, sorry. Anyway the gatekeepers limited the readers choice of what titles were offered by what the pub deemed worthy and that is what they would publish and market and that was your selection. " 'Da woild ain't likey 'dat nomor'. Think people power. If the pubs had their way there would be zero 99 cent or 2.99 ebooks and that m'deareo empowers readers and they vote with their money. The chips are just going to fall I know not where. I don't know what is coming aound the corner but it will be more freedom for readers and writers and that, to me is a good thing. I don't know the sales figures but it sure does seem to me that given the choice people are gobbling up those lower priced titles rather well--many would have probably never left the pubs slushpile. So it is easy to see just how outta-touch the Big publishing corps are with people and the world. They are in touch with a world gone by, where the old models won't work and the irrelevant factories crumble.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

foreverjuly said:


> See, you just admitted defeat there for your entire argument. Rookie mistake. You've got to push back hard and tell her she's wrong.


You're totally wrong about this. TOTALLY WRONG!


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but it seems pretty obvious what happened here.  Barry thought long and hard about walking away from SMP.  He had no idea Amazon was going to step in and give him just about everything he asked for.  I saw elsewhere Barry being accused of misleading the public, that he already was in negotiations with Amazon when he turned down SMP and went through all this drama for publicity, but I don’t believe it.  Barry’s a smart guy, but he can’t possibly be that brilliant!

Looking forward to reading your next industry discussion, Joe and Barry.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

rexjameson said:


> Agency pricing was also something that Mark Coker pushed for for independent authors. Otherwise, Amazon could arbitrarily decide that all of our books are not worth the e-ink they are printed on, sell them for 99 cents (or give them away) and we would be mitigated down to the 35% or absolutely nada for each sale. For books like yours that have a huge following and the demand/supply curves work in your favor, this makes sense. For freshly-minted authors, non-agency causes a lot of problems for indies, right?


It's gotta be all or nothing.

Coker pushed for agency pricing because other retailers Smashwords was distributing to (B&N, Kobo, Sony) were discounting. When that happened, Amazon price-matched. So once the Big 6 forced Amazon to accept agency rates, everyone had to.

If Amazon hadn't accepted agency pricing, then they'd be free to discount, but the author still set the list price. If I list a book t $3.99, I get 70% of $3.99 no matter what price Amazon discounts it to. That's how Createspace works. I get my set royalty, even though they discount.

If all ebook retailers could control price, it would be better for us as authors. But all retailers selling for the same price isn't too bad either. The problem is when there's a mix, which is why I won't bother with Google Books.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Adam Pepper said:


> I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but it seems pretty obvious what happened here. Barry thought long and hard about walking away from SMP. He had no idea Amazon was going to step in and give him just about everything he asked for. I saw elsewhere Barry being accused of misleading the public, that he already was in negotiations with Amazon when he turned down SMP and went through all this drama for publicity, but I don't believe it. Barry's a smart guy, but he can't possibly be that brilliant!
> 
> Looking forward to reading your next industry discussion, Joe and Barry.


It'll be Tuesday. It keeps getting longer.

And Barry wasn't in negotiations with Amazon until he turned down St. Martins. I can vouch for that because I helped him get in touch with Amazon.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_" I just don't happen to see it as "good" for authors, readers, or publishing or as in any way leveling the playing field."_

Level playing field? The objective of a competitor is to tilt the field in his favor. That's competition. Innovation tilts the field. Others match the innovation and the field moves more towards level. Then someone else innovates and tilts it in his favor. Tilting the field with innovation is the essence of competition.

Kumbayah does not lead to prosperity for anyone except the ukulele player.

[Note: This excludes rent seeking.]


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> It'll be Tuesday. It keeps getting longer.


See that. Your detractors are right. You do need a good editor!


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _" I just don't happen to see it as "good" for authors, readers, or publishing or as in any way leveling the playing field."_
> 
> Level playing field? The objective of a competitor is to tilt the field in his favor. That's competition. Innovation tilts the field. Others match the innovation and the field moves more towards level. Then someone else innovates and tilts it in his favor. Tilting the field with innovation is the essence of competition.
> 
> ...


Remember, please, that I was responding to Barry's statement that he felt this deal with Amazon is not only good for him, it's good for readers and other authors. I simply didn't agree that that was a foregone conclusion, and gave examples of ways in which I thought it could easily be bad for both.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Readers and authors? They decide for themselves if they are better off. Readers do it by buying. Authors do it by joining T&M. If they don't think they are better off, readers don't buy, authors don't sign, and T&M falls on its butt.

I'm a new author and I'm better off. I decide that. Lower priced eBooks by known authors encourage the sale of eReader devices and eBooks. That makes my market opportunity larger. And I'm sure not getting hurt if Amazon pushes Eisler and Konrath. They are not taking away promotional space I had been occupying. 

I'm a reader, too. So I like the prospect of lower prices for good authors. Currently we have an oligopoly that is using an agency model. I like the competition from Amazon that will offer lower prices. I also expect others to emulate what Amazon has done so the oligopoly will fall. As a reader I applaud that. It's good for me.


----------



## Kevin Lynn helmick (Mar 16, 2011)

It's a great deal Barry, congratulations. I've been following along here there, I've been saying for a while "it's only a matter of time before amazon builds the whole boat and hires a worthy captain to sail it." and now...wow. Giving writers more creative control and getting books to the public in fraction of a traditional publishers clock. I knew it would happen sooner than later. Signing Konrath was the shocker for me, I knew then it must be a very sweet deal for the writer.

Good Luck Eisler

Kevin Lynn Helmick


----------



## Kris Bock (Mar 29, 2011)

After 12 traditionally published books, I have self published two books. But I'm still also looking for traditional deals. First, because I can't yet afford to live without an advance, and second, because some of my books are for children and indie publishing doesn't yet have the best way to reach younger readers. (That may change within a couple of years.)

When it comes to publishing, there is no single right answer for everyone. It can vary for each author and even for each book by a single author. I like the fact that we have more choices every year. I can get philosophical about my writing, but publishing is a business and I'll make the best business decision I can for each book. Obviously Barry and Joe Konrath and other newsmakers are doing the same. Good for you!


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> Since Amazon won't TELL us how its algorithms work, I'm not sure how you can claim that anyone has a fundamental understanding OTHER than Amazon.
> 
> FWIW, I have more than a passing acquaintance with programming. I therefore know how easy it would be to weight sales of certain books based on certain criteria (like whether I published it or not) to improve its bestseller rank.


Hi Jackie,

It's less about understanding how the algorithm works on a programming level, and more about its job in selling books.

The Amazon algorithm is designed to sell the most books possible. It takes your buying history, your viewing history, and everything else and decides to display certain books to you on certain parts of the site. We all know that much.

It's job is to sell books - as many as possible. To do that most effectively, it must display the ones that it thinks you are most likely to click on. If they promote an Amazon book ahead of another book, this means that they are not displaying the one that you are most likely to click on, which defeats the entire purpose of the algorithm.

You might counter by saying that Amazon would be willing to lose a few sales here and there to sell a few extra of its books, however, Amazon make virtually the same amount of money from selling its own books as they do selling someone else's. There is no real motive to game the system, when the result will be to display a book which you are less likely to buy, that will make them more or less the same money anyway.

What they _will_ do is keep some of those juicy spots on those newsletters they send out for their own authors that they currently sell to Big 6 publishers.

Personally, I would rather Joe Konrath or Blake Crouch got the publicity ahead of Dan Brown or Nora Roberts.


----------



## Phaedra (Apr 28, 2011)

Kevin Lynn helmick said:


> It's a great deal Barry, congratulations.


Agreed.

I honestly don't care where I have to buy it-I just want a new Rain book!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"What they will do is keep some of those juicy spots on those newsletters they send out for their own authors that they currently sell to Big 6 publishers."_

Do we actually know they sell promotion? Anyone know how it works? Cost? What do they sell? Links to the program? I ask because I have never found anything saying they do sell space or email slots. But my lack of data tells us nothing.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"What they will do is keep some of those juicy spots on those newsletters they send out for their own authors that they currently sell to Big 6 publishers."_
> 
> Do we actually know they sell promotion? Anyone know how it works? Cost? What do they sell? Links to the program? I ask because I have never found anything saying they do sell space or email slots. But my lack of data tells us nothing.


It's co-op, just like the spots on the table of the bookstore on the way in.

I don't know the mechanics of how it works, but I would imagine each spot has a price tag. They have millions of email addresses and a ton of data on everyone's buying and viewing habits. I'm sure they do well out if it, and that they are effective ads.

Dave


----------



## sinclairbrowning (May 16, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Closed-lipped doesn't help anyone. The more information we all have, the better off we all are. Which is why we continue to talk numbers and disclose what we're doing.


Count me among those grateful to you. I've always marvelled at how as writers we think we can run a business when we've had very little control, other than the actual writing, over anything associated with it. Advances/royalties/contracts? In my experience the Big 6, along with the little guys, have been less than forthcoming with this information. Thanks to Joe, Barry, Amanda, Jake and the others who have shared so generously so the rest of us can make informed decisions about our careers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I don't know the mechanics of how it works, but I would imagine each spot has a price tag. They have millions of email addresses and a ton of data on everyone's buying and viewing habits. I'm sure they do well out if it, and that they are effective ads."_

I agree they have the potential to make zillions from selling space and promotion, and there are lots of ways to make it work. What I'm looking for is confirmation they are actually getting paid by Random House for promotion on site or via email. How do I pay Amazon to promote?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"I don't know the mechanics of how it works, but I would imagine each spot has a price tag. They have millions of email addresses and a ton of data on everyone's buying and viewing habits. I'm sure they do well out if it, and that they are effective ads."_
> 
> I agree they have the potential to make zillions from selling space and promotion, and there are lots of ways to make it work. What I'm looking for is confirmation they are actually getting paid by Random House for promotion on site or via email. How do I pay Amazon to promote?


I can't confirm it, but I have always assumed that was the case. Why would they give them away for free?

I have no idea how you would go about getting one of those spots. I would imagine they are not cheap.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

This is fascinating, both here and the comments on the Janet Reid blog.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Incentives not to sell to Random House? Perhaps A > D where

A = revenue generated by letting Amazon algorithms fill promo slots
B = promo revenue received from RH
C = Revenue from algorithm selected book  [EDIT: Revenue from RH book]
D = B + C

I don't know. They still don't call me. But this same idea can be applied to the notion that Amazon will put its own books in front of everyone else in promo slots.

I've also wondered about Amazon using the Facebook ad model for some portion of its promo. But the FB model relies only on ad revenue, not sales.


----------



## BarryEisler (May 27, 2011)

For anyone who's interested, I just posted Joe's and my online convo on this and related topics here:

http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2011/05/be-monkey-conversation-about-new-world.html

Joe will get it up on his blog on Wednesday. Partly because he promised someone the Tuesday slot; partly because it just takes him longer to get things up.


Barry


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

BarryEisler said:


> Joe will get it up on his blog on Wednesday. Partly because he promised someone the Tuesday slot; partly because it just takes him longer to get things up.


I notice you got it up quick, and finished waaaaaay before I did.


----------



## Kevin Lynn helmick (Mar 16, 2011)

Thanks- I enjoyed that entertaining, informative banter. The Joe and Barry Show?


Kevin Lynn Helmick


----------



## indie.ebooks (Mar 30, 2011)

So now there are 3 ways to publish. Choice is good


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

One of the wonderful things about Amazon and B&N right now is that the publishing gates are open and it does seem very democratic. An indie can sell, and some can hit home runs. 

What worries me about Amazon as a publisher is if in a couple of years they have 200 writers under contract. I worry that they will tilt the landscape to highlight their own books at the expense of indie books. 

I'm glad that Amazon is more author friendly in its imprints. That's a good thing. I don't really know how I feel about Amazon signing a lot of writers. I'd hate to think that Amazon would give preference to those books at the expense of books from other writers. In some ways Amazon could become the new gatekeeper and their policies might result in gates that are just as hard to get through as the ones the big publishers erected.


----------



## Tom Junior (Apr 4, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I notice you got it up quick, and finished waaaaaay before I did.


Dear god stop..before somebody turns this into some really disturbing Slash/fic!


----------



## indie.ebooks (Mar 30, 2011)

T.J. Dotson said:


> Dear god stop..before somebody turns this into some really disturbing Slash/fic!


LOL did you notice the covers above your comment LMAO glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when i read that


----------



## Kevin Lynn helmick (Mar 16, 2011)

At this point it looks like Thomas & Mercer are only going after writers with an established readership. I don't see them taking submissions anywhere.
It looks that way anyway.

Kevin Lynn Helmick


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Kevin Lynn helmick said:


> At this point it looks like Thomas & Mercer are only going after writers with an established readership. I don't see them taking submissions anywhere.
> It looks that way anyway.
> 
> Kevin Lynn Helmick


I would say, in one sense, Amazon considers all self-published work their "slush pile" (although I hate that term). They have more access to data than anyone and can cherry-pick the ones they think they can bring to the next level, and that have the most potential in print.

The Big 6 would kill for that kind of data - they don't have much on readers' buying habits.


----------



## Kevin Lynn helmick (Mar 16, 2011)

I suppose the options for the writers in this type of publisher is all about resources. Amazon is probably using electronic resources to target interest, popularity, sales and well as genre demand, so on. That data speaks for itself, your right. but I don't see them taking any chances yet on any unknowns or newbies. One thing that's always bothered me about traditional submissions is they stay open and complain when they don't have they resources to go through all the queries (sorry for the form reject but we get so much, bla bla... or worse, no reply at all.) I have come to appreciate the term "closed for submissions," sounds weird, but at least I know the submissions they have are getting recognized and the "slush pile" is some what limited and probably under control and I can watch that publisher (if I want to) for their submission periods.

It sounds like a great deal, and probably is for people like Konrath (Kilbourne) and Eisler and I'm happy for them. But it doesn't change anything for guy's like me. Not yet anyway, but it's worth watching.

Kevin Lynn Helmick


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I would say, in one sense, Amazon considers all self-published work their "slush pile" (although I hate that term). They have more access to data than anyone and can cherry-pick the ones they think they can bring to the next level, and that have the most potential in print.
> 
> The Big 6 would kill for that kind of data - they don't have much on readers' buying habits.


Perfect! You are spot on. Slush pile would not be completely inaccurate but it is a talent pool where they see how various titles and indie authors are trending with a wealth of data tracking everything. AMZ can see everything way before any other publishers or agents and can cherry pick authors who they already know the sales history of. I don' think it is a coincidence either.


----------



## Tom Junior (Apr 4, 2011)

Kevin Lynn helmick said:


> At this point it looks like Thomas & Mercer are only going after writers with an established readership. I don't see them taking submissions anywhere.
> It looks that way anyway.
> 
> Kevin Lynn Helmick


And the really shouldn't. The moment they start taking submissions, the slippery slope to the old "Traditional Publishing" model begins. I prefer this model, its open access to lots of people. If you're work catches fire then there's the chance Amazon will help take it to the next level (wider audience, print deal, access to movie and television, etc...etc...)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I worry that they will tilt the landscape to highlight their own books at the expense of indie books."_

There are lots of things they could do. I expect them to highlight their own books in promotion, and we can say that is at the expense of anything non-Amazon.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

dgaughran said:


> I would say, in one sense, Amazon considers all self-published work their "slush pile" (although I hate that term). They have more access to data than anyone and can cherry-pick the ones they think they can bring to the next level, and that have the most potential in print.
> 
> The Big 6 would kill for that kind of data - they don't have much on readers' buying habits.


That is a really fascinating point I hadn't thought of. They do have a better idea what will sell than anyone else, and they already have algorithms in place. Huh.


----------

