Show me the money...traditional verses self publihing

[kennyc]

Exactly.



.

[Steerpike]

My conclusion from all of this would be that those who have contracts with reputable publishers, as authors, almost certainly do financially better then those without.

Yes, I think this is true in general. You can point to exceptions, but the exceptions don't hold true for the vast majority. I'm doing the self-pub thing, but you have to remain realistic. I don't doubt that an established author with an established fan base can make more self-publishing, but keep in mind that an established author moving from traditional to self-publishing became established through traditional publishing first.

[danr62]

There are also many authors who built their platform and made significant sales self publishing first and then took deals from traditional publishers. You might say these people are the exception, but I'd say that any author who can make a full time living with their writing is the exception, regardless of who is doing the publishing.

I do not think that trad publishing offers any significant advantage for the new author. You can get a good cover and editing for relatively cheap, and the fact that you're gaining those expenses and losing the advance can be offset by the quicker publishing timeline and the higher royalty rates.

[Steerpike]

I suspect that is you take out the 'exceptional' cases in both traditional publishing and self-publishing, and then just look at the average financial gain, you'd find that traditional authors are doing better. The sheer number of self-publishers who aren't doing anything in terms of sales will weigh down that side of things. From what I've been able to ascertain, the majority of self-published authors do not sell very many books. Of course, it is still a net gain for them because the majority of those aren't producing writing that is good enough for traditional publishing.

[BWFoster78]

I think that the point that Michael made at the beginning is important: most of the people self publishing should not be published at all. Any discussion of average money made is difficult because, frankly, there's a lot of trash out there that's not worth the e-ink.

[Steerpike]

I think that the point that Michael made at the beginning is important: most of the people self publishing should not be published at all. Any discussion of average money made is difficult because, frankly, there's a lot of trash out there that's not worth the e-ink.

Yes, this is right. And, as a consequence, I know quite a few people who won't buy anything self-published, which is unfortunate. As a self-published author you have a large task before you in separating yourself from the vast amounts of very bad work.

[MichaelSullivan]

Just want to say thanks for this Michael! Nice breakdown and great discussion.

Thanks glad you found it useful.

[MichaelSullivan]

Hi Michael,

I find that hard to accept. Most self pubbed authors sell very few books, (two hundred is the figure often bandied about though I have no stats for it), and if the average trad pubbed author / book sold only 7,500 copies authors, publishers and agents would be going to the wall at huge rates. Where it works for the self pubber in my view is at the bottom end, where they compare whatever sales they make against zero sales they would make by going the trad route because they couldn't get pubbed at all. And at the top end, where authors already have a name, so the trad pubber can't add a lot to their marketing and so the difference in royalties becomes the overriding factor.

So that 200 figure comes from iUniverse and related to people who do print on demand through them. Most people who are "professionally" self-publishing go direct and get most of their sales from ebooks. Remember the cavets I put on this at the beginning. I'm not saying "any" self-published book - I'm saying one of quality such that it "could" be published traditionally and a book of that level will, unless the author screws up the cover design and marketing copy terribly, sell thousands.

To be honest I don't care about that "lower" end where they make a few bucks and that is more than "zero" those people are not "serious" about what they are producing and so it is little more than a hobby for them.

As for the other part, yes a lot of the best selling ebooks on kindle are self pubbed, but that's largely because of contractual arguments between the big six publishers and Amazon. The trad pubbed books aren't on the kindle which drastically skews the results.

I don't know of any big-six traditional publisher that is not releasing ebooks and print books. There was a time that when they used to do print first then ebook, but I've not seen that for a long time. Keep in mind that I'm only watching fantasy/science fiction titles but outside of the very unusual announcement of Stephen King who recently said they are doing a paper only version of an upcoming title, I always see both. If you could provide some examples that would be helpful.

As for me, the reason I'd consider going trad is largely based on a few factors. First the professionalism,with book covers and editing etc. If I want to raise my work to the top level its the way I have to go. Second, getting some books into print - I personally find the entire createspace thing confusing at best. And third the marketing, which I admit, I simply don't do.

There are many reasons for an author to choose traditional, so I'll not dispute your reasons - but I do want to point out you can hire editing and cover design (and should) but of course you have to juggle that verses ROI (return on investment). Getting books into print is super simple - CreateSpace is not difficult at all - but not worth you spending time investigating if you want traditional. As to marketing -- If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times...both self-publishers and traditionally published authors need to approach marketing the same way. I didn't "market" any differently, or any less, between my self-published and traditional published releases.

[MichaelSullivan]

They will, however, put substantial funds towards the cover design & various marketing efforts. The amount of money required to do this effectively is more than most self-published authors can afford.

I've seen some fantastic covers by self-published authors for $150 - $500. That isn't that much money. Editing...I've gotten that for as low as $150 and as high as $600. All in all you can get what you want done for $500 - $1,000.

[MichaelSullivan]

Hi,

Evidence? Your wish is my command.

Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500 | Books | guardian.co.uk

As I thought, most self pubbers earn not much at all, but a few high profilers skew the stats. And since I write sci fi and fantasy I'm boned too! I suppose I should just be grateful to have beaten the odds.

Cheers, Greg.

Go back to the original post - and the cavets I put on this analysis. The "hobbyist" who are at that income rate is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who approaches writing as a profession and produce at a quality that COULD be traditionally published.

Also in that same Taleist survey it showed 10% of the 1,000 people responding are able to live off their income from writing. Now I don't claim that that is representative across the board, but it does show that there are a good number of self-publihsed authors that earn well.