Mythopoet
Auror
The thing is Russ, you didn't present any data. You summarized a conclusion of a study that none of us can look at. That isn't data.
You really need to keep your arguments consistent. Here you are choosing to say that your personal experience actually means something where you also recently said:
Whether or not you choose to accept studies (from the top company in the field which you didn't even know existed until I told you) is your business. But it can be impossible to rationally communicate with someone who simply chooses to say "most studies are crap."
If I thought you might read it and assess it honestly I normally would be happy to send you a copy of the study directly. But in this case I don't believe that.
And more importantly it says across the bottom:
Codex-Group © 2015 Proprietary and Confidential
The thing is Russ, you didn't present any data. You summarized a conclusion of a study that none of us can look at. That isn't data.
I have a family member who works as an economist on one of the presidential campaigns, and according to him this methodology difference between the reliance on data and logic is one of the big unsolvable political divides. As people age, and learn first hand how unreliable and misleading the facts and data often are, that's one of the ways people shift from liberal to conservative as they age. It's kind of fascinating.
In all seriousness, if somebody needs to run polls and gather data on how to open a law firm, then they don't understand the business well enough to open one.
Which brings me back to the narrative that the data tells. You still haven't presented that. You've thrown in a few facts. "Branded and unbranded." Sometimes you've said stores, sometimes you've said book stores, but I still don't know if "Walmart" counts as a bookstore here (very few authors get into those kinds of stores). You did say genre earlier, and I missed it because you were slinging your study around like a weapon instead of telling the narrative behind it. You've said it matters for "discovery," which is the first step of a model, but you haven't explained what that model is or what role discovery plays. You haven't talked about whether this applies for books across the board or if you can narrow down differences between subgenres or audience types. Does "number one" mean a majority or a plurality?
Without that narrative, the data means nothing for anyone making an actual decision. Without that narrative, you're throwing around the data like it makes you right, and everyone else wrong, but without any practical or tangible relevance whatsoever. You've got the data without the logic.
Does your data tell you that kind of detail?
Most of the data that's widely available and that people use for any kind of marketing discussion happens to in fact be crap because good market research is typically proprietary material.
Just one more for instance, is the rate of discovery high enough to warrant the reduced royalties or other costs associated with working with somebody (say, a publisher, or a publicist) that will get you in a book store? How does that apply to any particular genre or target audience?
Look, I'm not even saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that you have used your data instead of your logic, and by doing so you haven't provided enough information to work with.
Actually I gave out plenty of data on the subject.
In a study conducted by a professional organization in January 2014 of 2300 genre fiction readers (adults) when asked about by which method they discovered the last book they bought, the largest answer for both branded and unbranded writers was "in store." As you probably know Codex is considered a gold standard source in the industry and is quoted by PW, DBW and even Forbes when they take on publishing issues.
It is unfortunately true that I cannot simply send you a copy of the report. You can choose to question if it even exists if you like.
You asked for my source and I gave it to you in as much detail as I can.
For some unknown reason you seem to want to attribute malicious motives to me. As a member of this community when things are being discussed that I have knowledge on I comment on them as best I can. I run a law firm, not a publishing company. Whether you believe me or not on any issue is not going to change my life one iota.
But as a member of a community that I feel has given a lot to me, I find it difficult to sit by and say nothing when I have factual information that I think might be useful to that community. I could just take what I can from the site and not offer anything back. In fact I could just chuckle when people get things wrong or make statements that are off the mark, but I don't think that is the right thing to do. I simply try to add value where I can, usually based on facts I know to be true.
I happen to be lucky to know a great deal about the traditional publishing industry and spend a lot of time within it and with key people within it.
The reason I talk about it a fair bit is because I know it well, and I try not to talk about things I really don't know well or don't really understand.
You don't seriously expect me to be doing that kind of custom analysis for each poster on a writing website where we talk about writing do you? Do you offer that level of detail and customization on each of your posts?
While you have been souring on studies I have actually been asking around to see if a specific study of this nature is available for Fantasy, SciFi or Spec Fic broadly and I have not found anyone who knows of one that is available. So we work with what we have.
My point was, and is, that one should not completely discount shelf positioning and store discovery when considering your author name. I think the data I referred to supports that conclusion, logically. No more, no less.
Russ, do you not understand that you posting on an internet forum and saying a thing does not make it data? It's just an anonymous person making an assertion. I'm not attributing malicious motives to you. (That's another of your assumptions.) I'm saying that I don't know you and I don't know your motives and your word does not constitute data. It just doesn't.
I'm sure you would disagree, because we really do seem to see things in completely opposite ways. So I just don't think I'm going to respond to your comments anymore. Honestly, when I saw your comment in this thread I had forgotten you were that very myopic person I had argued with before. If I ever forget again and say something to you, just mention Lee Child or something so I remember to stop getting involved in futile discussions I don't have time for.
Furthermore, your summation of the study in question is full of missing information. How did they collect this data? How did they survey the people? What specific questions did they ask? How were the answers given? All of these things matter. All of these things are data. What you are giving us is the conclusion or at least a summary of it. A conclusion is not data.
So basically I'm just saying that there's no reason for me to believe your assertion based on the information I have. I don't really want to argue about it anymore. But I think my response to your assertion is perfectly logical.
No. Hence, as I said, I've soured on the use of studies in these conversations. All the study does is provide a false sense of authority.
It would be really informative to look at a study like that. It's not so informative to hear other people make vague and unexplored citations to it.
As I understand it, the publishing industries don't do as much research as some other industries. I think it's because authors come to the publishers in large numbers and absorb all the development risks. Internal sales tracking is probably enough for a publisher to base their decisions on.
I'll be surprised if you find much on spec fic.
My point is, I think you would've developed your thought a lot better if you didn't try to rely on data to make the case for you.
Here is the weird part. Some parts of the publishing industry does a ton of studies and data gathering. I have a boatload of studies on the Thriller industry and the romance publishing fields and those two fields spend a lot of money on it. Like a lot. Companies do studies, organizations commission studies, individual authors do studies, surveys, market information gathering, focus group covers etc. There is lots of it in certain segments of fiction publishing.
But in Spec Fic I can find almost nothing. You would think those Sci Fi guys would be all about data gathering etc but so far I can source almost nothing. Anyways I have dinner coming up with a top Sci Fi author who will know if it is out there and I will ask him.