# Author earnings down?



## Steerpike

An interesting set of results, though it should have been obvious to them that including self-published authors would skew the numbers downward. I don't think it is a surprise to anyone that even most traditionally-published authors don't make enough through writing to support themselves. The figures here are lower than I thought in that regard, though.

Also, I think we have to acknowledge that a lot of the people on the lower end of this are probably good writers,  though I'm sure some aren't.

So if you want to write as your only income, do these numbers change how you plan to approach writing as a career?

Income for US authors falls below federal poverty line Ã¢â‚¬“ survey | Books | The Guardian


----------



## BWFoster78

Disclaimer for Russ: I'm speaking only about self publishing here. I know nothing about traditional publishing.

I think that it is not easy to make money writing, but based on all the stories I'm reading elsewhere, it absolutely can be done if you work both hard and smart.  You must:

1. Write what readers want to read.
2. Write a lot.
3. Promote and market effectively.

Regardless of what that article says, there are people out there making real money.  $2000-$3000 a month isn't pie in the sky at all.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> Disclaimer for Russ: I'm speaking only about self publishing here. I know nothing about traditional publishing.
> 
> I think that it is not easy to make money writing, but based on all the stories I'm reading elsewhere, it absolutely can be done if you work both hard and smart.  You must:
> 
> 1. Write what readers want to read.
> 2. Write a lot.
> 3. Promote and market effectively.
> 
> Regardless of what that article says, there are people out there making real money.  $2000-$3000 a month isn't pie in the sky at all.



I think that's true, though I think it is important to understand that those numbers do not appear to represent the majority. You can write great stories and still never make enough to live on. That's true for traditionally-published authors as well. Writers seem to get discouraged if their publishing doesn't translate into quitting their day job overnight. I know one traditionally published author who had a contract for a trilogy through Harper Collins, is a very good writer, had books that were well-reviewed by readers and critics, and who did "tolerably well," but couldn't quit her day job. It was discouraging, and I think if her expectations were different it would have been a better experience.

Of course, there is enough room in the market for plenty of people to make enough money to live on, and any writer who is good at what they do and puts enough out there has a fair shot at making it to that point. But on the whole, I think writers as well as the general public have an over-inflated idea of what the _average_ writer makes. While that's not significant in terms of the public, it can be problematic when writers have a false impression and form their expectations based on them. 

None of which is to say that a writer shouldn't have a goal of being the bestselling author around, if that's what they want to do, or just making a quiet living at it if that's what they want instead.


----------



## BWFoster78

> But on the whole, I think writers as well as the general public have an over-inflated idea of what the average writer makes. While that's not significant in terms of the public, it can be problematic when writers have a false impression and form their expectations based on them.



Agreed on the whole concept of expectations.

I think that it's problematic in general to base any assumption on average earnings for an author, though.  How is "author" even defined?  I have a novella up on Amazon, and I've sold a dozen copies.  If that's all I ever do and I make $1 a year, am I an author?  Should my earnings be lumped in with JK Rowling to create an average?

Number of books, genre, and a whole host of other variables have to be factored into the equation to determine any real expectation for earning.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> Agreed on the whole concept of expectations.
> 
> I think that it's problematic in general to base any assumption on average earnings for an author, though.  How is "author" even defined?  I have a novella up on Amazon, and I've sold a dozen copies.  If that's all I ever do and I make $1 a year, am I an author?  Should my earnings be lumped in with JK Rowling to create an average?
> 
> Number of books, genre, and a whole host of other variables have to be factored into the equation to determine any real expectation for earning.



As I read the article, I think you'd be an author under these numbers (looks like self-published authors with at least one work count). It was, it appears, a random survey, which can give pretty good results, but the results are only good if you know what they tell you and what they don't tell you. They don't separate it out by number of works, genre, or any of those other factors. 

And, perhaps more importantly, the self-publishing numbers aren't separated between amateur efforts and people who hire professional editors and cover artists. The self-publishing numbers have a lot of wiggle room based on what factors you might want to concentrate on.

I think the traditional-publishing numbers are a bit more telling, because in those cases you're always dealing with a work that was at least good enough to interest a professional editor and publisher, and presumably got good editing, a professional cover, and so on. I think the public in general has always had a misconception about how much those authors make. Authors making the big bucks are the exception, not the rule, across all areas of publishing. As to whether or not you can quit your day job - a lot of traditionally published authors can't. I'd be interested to know if relatively more self-published authors can.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I think the traditional-publishing numbers are a bit more telling, because in those cases you're always dealing with a work that was at least good enough to interest a professional editor and publisher, and presumably got good editing, a professional cover, and so on.



There's still the issue of quantity of work, not just quality.  On average, an author who puts out a book every 6 months is probably making more than an author who puts out one book a decade.



> Authors making the big bucks are the exception, not the rule, across all areas of publishing.



Absolutely.



> As to whether or not you can quit your day job - a lot of traditionally published authors can't. I'd be interested to know if relatively more self-published authors can.



I think the % of people who can quit their day job is also highly dependent on salary expectations.  I'd need to be making a lot more money off writing than someone right out of school who doesn't have a family to support.

I've read about a lot of indie authors who have "quit their day jobs" while making a whole lot less money than I'd be comfortable with.

I guess my overall takeaway from the article is that there's not enough information to really tell anybody much of anything.  Same with the other author income surveys that people keep going on about all over the internet.

To me, the important question is:

Can you make money writing?

And the answer is:

Yes. But it takes working both hard and smart.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> Can you make money writing?
> 
> And the answer is:
> 
> Yes. But it takes working both hard and smart.



Yep. That's the most important takeaway, I think. It's true for 99.9% of writers. There are always exception, like Andy Weir. The film of his first novel, The Martian, opens this weekend. The guy posted the work for free on Wattpad, then self-published on Amazon, then got a traditional publisher, movie contract, etc., all off of his one and (so far) only book. People see his story, or E.L. James, and a handful of others, and think of making quick money. Just not going to work that way.

Put out good work, consistently, and you have the best chance of succeeding. From what I've read by people who have looked into it, putting out additional books is a better use of time than even marketing the one you have.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Put out good work, consistently, and you have the best chance of succeeding. From what I've read by people who have looked into it, putting out additional books is a better use of time than even marketing the one you have.



From the success stories I've read, the key seems to be writing series.  Once you get the third book out, discount and promote the first book.  Then, if you've done a good job, the sell-through is where you make your $$$.


----------



## ALB2012

There are loads of people on the KDP forums with unrealistic expectations. They think they've published a book and now they will sell millions. More often their book doesn't sell many and they can't understand why. Some of the books are simply trash, but many aren't. It takes hard work, patience, luck and more hard work and even then most writers won't make enough to live on. I suppose it depends why a writer writes.


----------



## Russ

Writers average income falling is not a good thing at all.  It means that the value of writing as a commodity is going down, probably for several reasons, none of them good news.

Doug Preston is a great guy.  Glad to see he has the courage to go big game hunting on this one.

It unfortunately seems to be that fiction writing is now becoming more and more like sports.  Lots of people doing it, a very small group making any half decent money at it.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

ALB2012 said:


> It takes hard work, patience, luck and more hard work and even then most writers won't make enough to live on.



I'd only quibble with you over the 'luck' part. With self-publishing, every aspect is in the author's own hands, and as long as you make sensible decisions you can sell enough to (at least) be a very handy supplement to regular income. I've seen any number of people just quietly writing, publishing, writing, publishing, and their income goes up with each book. Whether you can make enough to live on depends entirely on lifestyle, but making a few thousand a month is very easily achievable.

I'm not really bothered about making a living wage. All I want to do is earn back the money I spent publishing the books, for covers, proofreading, marketing, etc. So I write what I want to write. Even so, I've been making four figures a month for several months now. And I know one lady who set out to write a money-making series very fast (she was desperate to escape from low-income hell), and went from coffee money to $20K a month in 3 months flat. No luck involved there, just hard work and a very targeted approach. Plus, she's a great writer, which always helps.  Mind you, she almost killed herself doing it - it's not a sustainable strategy, really.

So it can be done, but as Brian said, you have to write what people want to read, you have to write fast, and you have to market it effectively. Most writers don't want to work that hard at it, and that's OK too. For me, it's an enjoyable hobby that also brings in a bit of extra money. But for anyone who's sufficiently motivated to make good money from it, it can be done.


----------



## Mythopoet

Here's another article that takes a look at the raw data of the survey and gives a different perspective:

The Majority of Authors Earn Below Poverty Line, And Other Clickbait | The Digital Reader


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Nothing unexpected about the survey results I'm afraid. Writers have always been paid poorly. We are in fact part of the true "struggling artists" horde. The one thing that did stand out for me was that the biggest income drop was for the trade published. I'm not surprised - the companies are getting tight with their advances etc - but it does make me wonder that so many still seek to go this route.

And yes indies will always rate poorly, because far too many indies simply put out a book, don't edit it, cover it, or market it, then sit back and wait for the kudos and the cash to flow in. Unsurprisingly they earn little if anything. But the true rate for the trade writer if you consider those desperately trying to get contracts with agents / publishers, is far worse.

Having said that, if you want to make money writing novels, here's your strategy.

1 Go indie. Don't waste a single second on the agent go round. It's too slow and weighted against your succeeding.
2 Write a good book. (subjective I know) But write a book that has full quality control, including beta reading and decent editing.
3 Publish well - this means good cover design and blurb.
4 Publish wisely. At present for novelists this means kindle unlimited and Createspace. My income the last few months has doubled thanks to the changes in KU. (Thank you Amazon!!!) Alternatively if you choose not to, go wide - but hit every channel you can find.
5 Pick the popular genres. Bead working from the 1900's is not popular. Paranormal romance is hot.
6 Write series - trilogies are especially popular in sci fi / fantasy and they outsell single books.
7 Market well.
8 The instant you've finished one book start the next. You'd don't have time to tarry.

Do all of these things and you aren't guaranteed a huge income or financial success. But the chances are that you will do many times better than the "average" author mentioned.

As for me, I do do steps one to four religiously. Steps five and six my muse won't allow me to do. Step seven my inherent natural self disbelief won't allow me to do. And step eight I'm spotty on though I do try. And as regards income, last month on its own I exceeded all the average yearly income figures given - although it was helped by my putting out a new book in July that did well. KU also made a huge impact on my income.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78

Greg,

I mostly agree with you, but I have to take strong exception to one of your points:

My book about bead working in the 1900s is going to blow everyone out of the water. Just you wait and see!

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## PaulineMRoss

psychotick said:


> As for me, I do do steps one to four religiously. Steps five and six my muse won't allow me to do. Step seven my inherent natural self disbelief won't allow me to do. And step eight I'm spotty on though I do try.



This is me, too, almost exactly. I'm OK with step 7, though - I hand money to people who do the advertising for me, and that seems to work quite well. And 8 I definitely do - by the time I get to the end of one book, I'm desperate to start the next.



> And as regards income, last month on its own I exceeded all the average yearly income figures given - although it was helped by my putting out a new book in July that did well. KU also made a huge impact on my income.



Yeah, I've enjoyed the new KU regime, too.  Still working on the income, but there's a definite lurch upwards with each additional book published. I'm now covering all my costs on the books - just got the *cough* new computer *cough* to pay for.


----------



## valiant12

> 5 Pick the popular genres. Bead working from the 1900's is not popular. Paranormal romance is hot.
> 6 Write series - trilogies are especially popular in sci fi / fantasy and they outsell single books.
> 7 Market well.
> 8 The instant you've finished one book start the next. You'd don't have time to tarry.



Either this or work something else as a main source of income.
I really don't want to write LotR\AsoIaF\starwars\50 shades of shit clones\paranormal romances as a full time job.
In my opinion publishing one good book which would be remembered is better than making a living as a writer.
Unfortunately writing a memorable book is hard.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

valiant12 said:


> Either this or work something else as a main source of income.
> I really don't want to write LotR\AsoIaF\starwars\50 shades of shit clones\paranormal romances as a full time job.
> In my opinion publishing one good book which would be remembered is better than making a living as a writer.
> Unfortunately writing a memorable book is hard.



That's a perfectly sensible strategy. Not everyone wants to make a living from their writing, or even supplement their income. But for anyone who does, then writing in a popular genre, writing multiple books in series and writing fast - that's the way to do it.


----------



## BWFoster78

valiant12 said:


> Either this or work something else as a main source of income.
> I really don't want to write LotR\AsoIaF\starwars\50 shades of shit clones\paranormal romances as a full time job.
> In my opinion publishing one good book which would be remembered is better than making a living as a writer.
> Unfortunately writing a memorable book is hard.



I think I see this attitude a lot here at Mythic Scribes.  You want to produce art or whatever.


I think, however, that the chances of hitting big by pursuing your route is difficult at best.  IMO, it's akin to buying a lottery ticket.

It's also, as you mention, incredibly difficult.  I've worked very hard for almost 5 years on trying to make my writing entertaining.  I'm still not sure I'm as far along in that regard as I want to be.  Adding the requirement that it be "memorable" to being entertaining?  Wow!  Good luck with that!

I'm incredibly lucky in that my goals for what I want to produce align very well with my goals for what I want out of writing.  I simply want to write stuff that entertains people, and as it turns out, people seem to want to pay for stuff that entertains them.

Frankly, I don't have a lot of use for "memorable" books.  I don't want to read something that speaks truth or some such nonsense.  I just want to read stuff that entertains me.


----------



## Nimue

valiant12 said:


> Either this or work something else as a main source of income.
> I really don't want to write LotR\AsoIaF\starwars\50 shades of shit clones\paranormal romances as a full time job.





BWFoster78 said:


> I think I see this attitude a lot here at Mythic Scribes.  You want to produce art or whatever.
> 
> I think, however, that the chances of hitting big by pursuing your route is difficult at best.  IMO, it's akin to buying a lottery ticket.



I think that both of these attitudes are unnecessarily denigrating.  Everyone has different goals for their writing, and it really isn't necessary to shit on all other approaches to justify your own.

I don't have any expectations of hitting it big or quitting my day job.  Writing for my is an immensely important hobby; it's about self-fulfillment.  I really don't think I'm at the place yet where my skills and style are meeting my own expectations, so I'm still working towards publishing as a point in the future, not the present.  Does that make my writing worthless?  Not to me.  But I will damn well respect someone who's self-publishing in volume for entertainment and profit, because that's a lot of work.

Writing is an incredibly individual commitment.  Let other people do it on their own terms, and don't frame your own goals by trashing someone else's.  It just isn't necessary.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Writing is an incredibly individual commitment. Let other people do it on their own terms, and don't frame your own goals by trashing someone else's. It just isn't necessary.



Nimue,

I've worked really hard for a long time to get to the level where I am now.  To have some ... person ... like valiant12 make that kind of comment really irritated me.

To be honest, I see condescension of that nature a lot, and I'm simply not going to let it go.  To say that writing "memorable" fantasy somehow has more merit than writing for entertainment is ludicrous.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> Nimue,
> 
> I've worked really hard for a long time to get to the level where I am now.  To have some ... person ... like valiant12 make that kind of comment really irritated me.
> 
> To be honest, I see condescension of that nature a lot, and I'm simply not going to let it go.  To say that writing "memorable" fantasy somehow has more merit than writing for entertainment is ludicrous.



I think you have to admit, though, that your posts are often condescending and/or mildly insulting when someone mentions that they're not writing for mere entertainment, so you're doing the same thing you accuse valiant of. I'm not sure why you have that reaction, to be honest. Or why valiant has the reaction he has, above.

It's a good thing that we have writers who want to write just for entertainment AND writers that want to write for other reasons - art, advancement of literature, to comment on the human condition, or whatever. There are plenty of readers for both groups, and a lot of those readers crossover into both groups. 

I don't see any reason for either group to be offended if someone else doesn't want to write the same stuff, or the same way, they do. So someone has different goals than you, or different goals than me. So what? They're all perfectly valid goals.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike,

I feel like the overall vibe of this place favors those who value artistic merit and uniqueness.  On the whole, those values seem to be championed and cherished greatly while those who merely seek to entertain using trite formulas are looked down upon.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive on the subject, but that's the way I interpret the dominant vibe of this place.

If the vibe were as you and Nimue want, I wouldn't feel the need to comment.

Take valiant12's comment for example.  Greg clearly stated, "If you want to succeed commercially, this is the best path forward."  The response to that was, essentially, "Well I wouldn't want to waste my time writing 50 Shades of Grey ripoffs."  Really?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> Maybe I'm overly sensitive on the subject, but that's the way I interpret the dominant vibe of this place.


I think you're being too sensitive, Brian.

I'm in the same camp as you. I write with a focus toward entertainment. There's many reasons for that, but the "whys" don't matter much.

At the same time, I can appreciate much more thought provoking literature. Neither is truly more "art" than the other. The ability to entertain is an art form on its own. 

I personally don't bother much with how others might view my goals. I also don't worry much about the reasoning behind another's goals unless that person is working with me for a mutual benefit. And even then, it's only so I can understand where they're coming from, their vision.

Further, originally your post claimed that both mindsets are as valid as the next. I wish you would've left that part in your post. It makes all the difference, and in that line of thinking, you were correct.

Also, keep in mind, many people have dreams of some lofty art form for their writing. Some may achieve those goals. Others may change over time. When I first started out, I was going the write the next great American novel. After some ten years honing craft, I want to entertain. Maybe, at some point in the future, my goals will shift back to where they began. 

Let's try to leave room, on both sides. I'd hate for everyone to have the same dreams and goals. How boring.


----------



## valiant12

BWFoster78 said:


> Steerpike,
> 
> I feel like the overall vibe of this place favors those who value artistic merit and uniqueness.  On the whole, those values seem to be championed and cherished greatly while those who merely seek to entertain using trite formulas are looked down upon.
> 
> Maybe I'm overly sensitive on the subject, but that's the way I interpret the dominant vibe of this place.
> 
> If the vibe were as you and Nimue want, I wouldn't feel the need to comment.
> 
> Take valiant12's comment for example.  Greg clearly stated, "If you want to succeed commercially, this is the best path forward."  The response to that was, essentially, "Well I wouldn't want to waste my time writing 50 Shades of Grey ripoffs."  Really?



I'm sorry if I have offended you, that was not my intention. Sometimes I just want to believe that writers write only because they love to write.
I posted my comment because I'm not one of the people that can start a new book the moment he finish the last or write fast or make a living by writing. And I don't really care which is the most successful genre at the moment. Im not saying that people who earn their living as writers should not follow these trends.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I think you're being too sensitive, Brian.



Maybe you're right, but here's what I'm seeing:

Someone posts really condescending comments about those who seek to entertain.  I respond.

Two people post taking offense at my comments.  Note that neither of them posted in response to the original comments. I guess my feeling is that, if no one else is going to call out posts for insulting people who want to entertain readers, I will.



> I personally don't bother much with how others might view my goals.



Don't misunderstand me, because I think MS is a great site that has helped me.  It also, though, caused me to be discouraged for a long time because I walked away from here thinking that it is not possible except by luck to succeed as an author.

I'm so glad that I found other sources that showed me otherwise.

This whole seeking art is the important thing is a major downer to people who want to entertain.  You don't think that hearing "Hey, everything you're working toward is worthless since it's not memorable" can't be discouraging?

Maybe you're immune to such, but I'm not.  I don't think others are either.



> Let's try to leave room, on both sides. I'd hate for everyone to have the same dreams and goals. How boring.



I agree completely.  It's not like I'm starting threads that say, "Art sux!!!"  I simply responded to a very condescending post that stated that writing as entertainment sucked.

So, again, I ask, "Where is the condemnation of the original post?"

You see why I might get the feeling that the whole vibe of this place favors the art crowd?


----------



## Nimue

I definitely disagree with valiant12's statement, particularly designating everything written in a popular genre as a "rip-off", as thought authors couldn't possibly genuinely enjoy the genre or be inspired in a non-derivative way by popular books.

But when somebody says "Writing that way is stupid", I don't think insisting "_Not_ writing that way is stupid!" is a good response.

Also, it's just...you say you spent a while honing your style and craft, but then turn around and belittle people who are doing the same thing, and just haven't met their own standards, as you've met yours and started publishing.  Everyone here is at a different part of a different road.

Edit: BW, I did react to valiant12's comment in my first post...

Tried to quote it on mobile and gave up, but I was explicitly addressing the post to both of your opinions


----------



## BWFoster78

> Sometimes I just want to believe that writers write only because they love to write.



But even in saying this, you're implying that it's ... bad ... somehow to write for a motive other than "love."

I have no objection if you want to write as a hobby.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But my dream in life is to make a living doing what I love - writing.



> I posted my comment because I'm not one of the people that can start a new book the moment he finish the last or write fast or make a living by writing. And I don't really care which is the most successful genre at the moment. Im not saying that people who earn their living as writers should not follow these trends.



Again, there's nothing wrong with writing as a hobby.  The vast majority of people who start writing aren't going to make a living at it.

It sounds like, though, you're frustrated that you can't make a living by doing things the way you want to?


----------



## BWFoster78

> Edit: BW, I did react to valiant12's comment in my first post...



Yes, but only after I posted.



> But when somebody says "Writing that way is stupid", I don't think insisting "Not writing that way is stupid!" is a good response.



It's an effective response, imo.

The fact is that I tend to actively dislike a more artistic style.  Obviously, that doesn't mean anything.  I don't like present tense, either, but my personal taste doesn't somehow invalidate the whole perspective.

It seemed to me, however, that the poster was so wrapped up in his opinion of what writers should be doing that there was absolutely no consideration given to an alternate viewpoint existing.  I simply shared my viewpoint on the subject.


----------



## Incanus

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm incredibly lucky in that my goals for what I want to produce align very well with my goals for what I want out of writing.  I simply want to write stuff that entertains people, and as it turns out, people seem to want to pay for stuff that entertains them.



Assuming this is true, then who cares what anyone else, here or anywhere, has to say about this?  This is a really good position to be in.

I'm not sure valiant makes much sense to me either, lumping LotR in with Fifty Shades.  Worlds apart.  Apparently this person just doesn't like anything that is popular no matter what.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> So, again, I ask, "Where is the condemnation of the original post?"


I can't speak for the other posters, but I'm not condemning either approach. As I said before, I don't care much what another writer's goals are. Goals, and opinions on goals, are personal and individual. They have zero to do with my pursuits.

My only interest here is in keeping the peace.  



BWFoster78 said:


> You see why I might get the feeling that the whole vibe of this place favors the art crowd?


Not really. I understand you perceive things to be so, but I can't say my experience has been the same. In fact, I'd say most of the people _actually publishing_ in this community fall more in line with entertaining. That says volumes, in my opinion.

Either way, there's plenty of room for differing approaches. Personally, I feel the place your in is a more mature outlook on one's own work. Meaning, you've been down that road already and your outlook has changed as a result of your journey. Considering that, maybe you should allow others, who might not have the same experience to form their own determinations as they progress. 

Further, it may not be a matter of maturity in craft. It may purely be a different outlook...one that could have been presented in a more even light perhaps.


----------



## Nimue

> It seemed to me, however, that the poster was so wrapped up in his opinion of what writers should be doing that there was absolutely no consideration given to an alternate viewpoint existing.  I simply shared my viewpoint on the subject.


And bluntly derided any other viewpoint as being a fairytale, essentially. 



> It sounds like, though, you're frustrated that you can't make a living by doing things the way you want to?


This.  This kind of statement.  You cannot convince me that it represents genuine concern; it's pure, needling condescension.  There are better ways to advocate for your writing process than trying to shame and discourage other people into the same route.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Assuming this is true, then who cares what anyone else, here or anywhere, has to say about this? This is a really good position to be in.



It is a good position to be in.

Understand exactly where I am, though:

I've published exactly one novella.  My novel is going live at the beginning of next month.  And I'm working hard to finish the next novel (the first in a new series) in time to release it in November.

I've put in a lot of work to get to this point.  Lots of early morning and late nights.  I don't expect to start seeing much of a profit until I published the 3rd book in my main series.  That's a lot more work ahead of me before I start seeing any daylight at all.

In the meantime, I check sales daily to see very few results.

Being a writer is hard, and it's easy to get discouraged.

So sometimes, comments on a message board do have an impact.


----------



## BWFoster78

> In fact, I'd say most of the people actually publishing in this community fall more in line with entertaining. That says volumes, in my opinion.



Exactly.  It does.

And the fact that the voices of those who are having success aren't exactly the dominant ones says something else.



> Considering that, maybe you should allow others, who might not have the same experience to form their own determinations as they progress.
> 
> Further, it may not be a matter of maturity in craft. It may purely be a different outlook...one that could have been presented in a more even light perhaps.



Again, if others take more of a stance against posts like the original one, I won't feel the need to be vehement.  How about I agree to take a breath before responding so vehemently if others agree to chime in against posts like the original one?


----------



## BWFoster78

> This. This kind of statement. You cannot convince me that it represents genuine concern; it's pure, needling condescension. There are better ways to advocate for your writing process than trying to shame and discourage other people into the same route.



It's genuinely how I read the statement.  Isn't that the way the poster came across to you?

I didn't create the marketplace; I'm simply trying to react to it the best way that I can.  I don't think that it does anyone any good to say, "Well, write what you love and you'll succeed."

There are multiple paths to success.  Wasn't _The Martian_ by a self-published debut author?  Writing one memorable book can work.

Unfortunately, I think the chances of an author hitting it big with one book is very small.  If you want the best shot of making a living, everything I'm reading is that following Greg's advice gives you your best chance.

It sounds to me like valliant12 is frustrated because the advice is accurate.

It sucks to be in that situation.  And I really do feel empathy for anyone in that situation.  But, truthfully, there are only three paths forward for such people that I see:

1. Just accept writing is a hobby.
2. Shoot for the single book and hope you hit the lottery
3. Change by finding the intersection between what you write and what the market wants.  I firmly believe that anyone can write entertaining novels and can do so quickly.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> And the fact that the voices of those who are having success aren't exactly the dominant ones says something else.


Could be those voices are busy doing something else...writing & publishing. Could be they don't bother with that viewpoint because they once thought the same, but don't care to impose their experiences on a member who is beginning their journey. The latter is my reasoning, but who knows why others don't react?

If I was to take offense at that post, I'd likely approach it differently. I'd impart my experience, my growth to where I am now and let it stand at that. Now, that's a bit unfair. I recognize that my reactions have not always been viewed in the best light. I'm speaking in ideals.

In all honesty, and meaning no offense myself, I often read posts with claims like the one that sparked this debate as an excuse...or reasons not to write and publish. We've all had those thoughts. I've certainly deluded myself in the past with similar thinking. And, that's how I take it, but with an understanding that my experience may not be general to all. 




BWFoster78 said:


> Again, if others take more of a stance against posts like the original one, I won't feel the need to be vehement.  How about I agree to take a breath before responding so vehemently if others agree to chime in against posts like the original one?


I think it's a hard ask when you want others to react and respond in a certain way. 

I understand your reaction, but maybe a better approach would be to think about why a person might think that way before inferring an insult they might not intend.


----------



## Incanus

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think that it does anyone any good to say, "Well, write what you love and you'll succeed."



If someone in this thread said this, I didn't see it.  Are you sure you're not putting words in people's mouths?


----------



## BWFoster78

Incanus said:


> If someone in this thread said this, I didn't see it.  Are you sure you're not putting words in people's mouths?



No. And I wasn't saying that someone did say it.

I was simply bringing up a possible way I could have responded.  Instead of saying, "Hey, I think you're frustrated at the way things work in the real world," I could have said, "It'll be okay; just do what you want."

I'm really not sure what your point is in pulling out this quote from the whole statement.


----------



## Nimue

It just baffles me that you're upset about being discouraged by a forum post, as you say, while you're so thoroughly discouraging others.  The point I was originally trying to make is that this kind of rhetoric cuts both ways.

Look, I'm two years out of college; I don't have the resources to invest in self-publishing without knowing that I'll earn it back, nor the desire to crank out a book every three months, turning my writing time into a second job.  It's just not a possibility for everyone, or even what they want to do.

A lot of people here are younger, writing as a hobby, maybe working on their first big project.  Is it really that helpful to go around telling people to stop dreaming, how are you going to make this into a livelihood?  It's the entire tone of your reaction; who is this meant to help, really?


----------



## BWFoster78

> I understand your reaction, but maybe a better approach would be to think about why a person might think that way before inferring an insult they might not intend.



Which is kinda funny because I did that at the end of my last response to the poster, and Nimue immediately accused me of being disingenuous.

And didn't you go off on me recently in a situation where I intended no offense at all?  No offense, but you didn't exactly extend the benefit of the doubt to me in that situation until a long way down the road.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> And didn't you go off on me recently in a situation where I intended no offense at all?  No offense, but you didn't exactly extend the benefit of the doubt to me in that situation until a long way down the road.


Possibly. You'd have to refresh my memory. I deal with many different personalities and arguments as a moderator. 

I've known you awhile, in the on-line sense. I think it'd be safe to say you enjoy argument, even seeking out argument &, at times, poking the bear intentionally. You've admitted as such before. In light of that, it shouldn't astound you when members react to your assertions to a greater degree than a far less frequently argumentative member.     

Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not, but it may be worth consideration.


----------



## BWFoster78

Nimue said:


> It just baffles me that you're upset about being discouraged by a forum post, as you say, while you're so thoroughly discouraging others.  The point I was originally trying to make is that this kind of rhetoric cuts both ways.
> 
> Look, I'm two years out of college; I don't have the resources to invest in self-publishing without knowing that I'll earn it back, nor the desire to crank out a book every three months, turning my writing time into a second job.  It's just not a possibility for everyone, or even what they want to do.
> 
> A lot of people here are younger, writing as a hobby, maybe working on their first big project.  Is it really that helpful to go around telling people to stop dreaming, how are you going to make this into a livelihood?  It's the entire tone of your reaction; who is this meant to help, really?



Here's the message that I've gotten:

1. Making a living at writing is freaking tough.
2. In order to make a living, you have to work hard and work smart.
3. People are, however, living their dream, and they're doing it the way that Greg listed.

I have no idea why you're finding that message discouraging.  I find it enormously encouraging.  If I'm willing to work hard enough and learn to write smart enough, I can find success.

Prior to this message, all I heard was, "The only way to succeed in writing is to get lucky."

At least I can now see a path forward that doesn't involve luck.

The truth is that you and valliant12 and TAS and me can all succeed.  But it's not easy or guaranteed.

Why is it discouraging to talk about the reality of the market? If you really want to succeed, you need to be thinking, "What is the path most likely to get me there?"

If success isn't your primary goal, however, then isn't it best to be realistic about it now?

I would much rather go into a situation with my eyes wide open.  Give me the facts and let me make the decision that is best for me.  As far as I can tell, the facts of the market reflect what I've been saying.  Following Greg's advice is the best way to gain some measure of success but that you have some small chance of success by following other paths.

Look, I'm an engineer.  Buying lotto tickets is about as mathematically stupid a thing as one can possibly do, but I still buy them because I like to dream about the what if.  I'd still rather know going in, however, that I wasn't very likely to hit the numbers.

EDIT: Note that I'm thoroughly confused by this last post.  I thought you were irritated that I spoke out against "artsy" writing so vehemently.  Now, you seem upset that I'm saying something discouraging?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Let's steer this conversation back on topic. We can all continue this discussion, if you'd like, through private massaging, Nimue included.


----------



## Incanus

T.Allen.Smith said:


> private massaging



That might be difficult.  Sorry, couldn't resist--  carry on.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Incanus said:


> That might be difficult.  Sorry, couldn't resist--  carry on.


Ha! 

Normally my self-image management would require an edit. Think I'll leave that one go.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Just to try and balance things a bit, we all write for different reasons and we all have different definitions of success. For some it will be selling lots. For some it will be writing something significant or memorable. For a pitiful few wrecks like me it will be because we've got a muse standing behind us with a gun in his hand telling us what to write and success is sending him away for a little bit!

Personally, I now have twenty three books out, and I think they're all in one way or another successes. Not all are commercial successes. The Arcanist has recently started flying off the digital shelves which will certainly help the old finances. My other epic fantasies like Maverick also seem to do well, and if I were to be able to kill that damned muse that would be what I'd concentrate on to make money. The one genre rule. Likewise they would be in series and there would be no shorter works.

But I also wrote The Man Who Wasn't Ander's Voss - I don't think I've sold more than one copy of it this month. Commercially it's a failure - but it wasn't written for that reason. It was written because it explored an aspect of philosophy (and Star Trek) that I found fascinating, and published because it is one of the most original works out there. Success there is to make people think about the duplicates paradox. And to get the book out of my system. In that sense it is a success.

Thief, the first book I published, is also a success, neither commercially nor because it has something unique and important to say. Simply becuse it was the first book I wrote, and thus is the one that told me I could write a book.

The rules I gave are essentially for maximising your chances of commercial success. And to be completely hippocritical, I myself even knowing that they could help me sell more books, can't follow them. My muse won't let me. And while I might want to strangle it that might also leave me without any books to write.

My point here is that there are as many reasons to write as there are writers. Not one of them is superior to any other. Not one of them should be looked down upon.

Unfortunately there is a tendency within certain literary circles to look down upon the works of crass commercialism. I'm not suggesting that anyone here is doing that. But it is an attitude that is pervasive, and essentially wrong. At heart the literary snob says "I don't write to sell - my art is higher than that". What they completely overlook is the fact that in almost all cases if their books were actually any good, they would sell. There is absolutely nothing that prevents a work of oliterary merit from also being commercial. And what they seemingly keep missing is the fact that the one true literary genius they all agree on as being a genius writer - Bill Shakespear - was writing crass commercialism. He wanted to eat, to keep his actors fed, his theatre running, and his monrch happy. He just also happened to be a very good writer / story teller who tapped into the underlying themes of human nature to write and sell his plays. My thought would be that if that's alright for Billy than why shouldn't it be alright for everyone else?

To sum up you can write for many reasons. To entertain - which is in essence selling. It is a valid goal of art - as valid as any other. To provoke thought or controversy - again perfectly valid. To achieve certain personal ambitions - and I think that's true of every writer and again its valid. And probably many others I haven't thought of. But there is no exclusion in writing. There is absolutely nothing to say that because you have one of these goals as your focus in writing that your work can't or shouldn't also strive for the others.

And the worst thing any writer can do is to eschew the other goals in their work. It is as wrong to say I will write a work of literary brilliance or high art or whatever and absolutely not want to be commercial or achieve personally, as it is to say I will write books that sell and absolutely not want my books to be thought provoking and insightful and of course achieve my personal goals. Both options will leave the writer with a work that is sub-standard.

In my view every writer should be striving towards the goal of writing books that are entertaining and that are also thought provoking and speak to the human condition and that achieve personal ambitions. That is the only way you will achieve your best.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

The Author's Guild obsession with Amazon as a bane on publishing really babbles me.  Notice in the top of the article it says, 



> Authors Guild says median income for members has fallen 24% in five years, with piracy, Amazon and publishing economies contributing to slump in earnings



I can't help but think, what does the Author's Guild think author's income would be if Amazon stopped selling books completely and hadn't invented the kindle?


----------



## skip.knox

Agreed. That's an interesting triad of dangers they list. Piracy? All evidence says piracy has a negligible effect on either sales or profits. That's across media. Blaming Amazon is problematic given the other epochal shifts in the industry. Which leaves "publishing economies" which is essentially to blame the traditional industry itself for its own woes. Which is exactly what I believe is the case. Rather than focus on the terrible decisions made by the print industry, the Authors Guild chooses to blaze away at the new guys in the room, and all of it sold with a thin guise of veracity by using Statistics. *yawn*


----------



## MichaelSullivan

skip.knox said:


> Agreed. That's an interesting triad of dangers they list. Piracy? All evidence says piracy has a negligible effect on either sales or profits. That's across media. Blaming Amazon is problematic given the other epochal shifts in the industry. Which leaves "publishing economies" which is essentially to blame the traditional industry itself for its own woes. Which is exactly what I believe is the case. Rather than focus on the terrible decisions made by the print industry, the Authors Guild chooses to blaze away at the new guys in the room, and all of it sold with a thin guise of veracity by using Statistics. *yawn*



Indeed. I'd love to see the numbers as far as how much money goes into author's pockets from Amazon, Hachette, Macmillian, Random House, and Harper Voyager. My guess is they are contributing at  pretty high level.  Especially if you move the income fro traditionally published authors who are getting money from sals on the Amazon site (instead of just counting self-publihsed and Amazon imprint sales.


----------



## AndrewLowe

MichaelSullivan said:


> Indeed. I'd love to see the numbers as far as how much money goes into author's pockets from Amazon, Hachette, Macmillian, Random House, and Harper Voyager. My guess is they are contributing at  pretty high level.  Especially if you move the income fro traditionally published authors who are getting money from sals on the Amazon site (instead of just counting self-publihsed and Amazon imprint sales.



How have you done with Amazon?  It says on your author page that you've sold half a million copies...  What percentage do Amazon and Random House actually keep?

By the way, I just picked up the first book of Riyira!


----------



## Russ

MichaelSullivan said:


> I can't help but think, what does the Author's Guild think author's income would be if Amazon stopped selling books completely and hadn't invented the kindle?



I suspect about the same but the cheque might have "Apple" on it instead.


----------



## Russ

skip.knox said:


> Agreed. That's an interesting triad of dangers they list. Piracy? All evidence says piracy has a negligible effect on either sales or profits. That's across media. Blaming Amazon is problematic given the other epochal shifts in the industry. *Which leaves "publishing economies" which is essentially to blame the traditional industry itself for its own woes. Which is exactly what I believe is the case.* Rather than focus on the terrible decisions made by the print industry, the Authors Guild chooses to blaze away at the new guys in the room, and all of it sold with a thin guise of veracity by using Statistics. *yawn*



I am not sure what these "woes" you speak of are.  

The article talks about authors incomes being down, not publishers.  Most well established traditional publishers continue to report good revenue and profits.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the print industry" but traditional publishers overall are doing okay with a couple of interesting exceptions.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

AndrewLowe said:


> How have you done with Amazon?  It says on your author page that you've sold half a million copies...  What percentage do Amazon and Random House actually keep?



Amazon has essentially "made my career." Before I was published traditionally (through Hachette and Random House I was self-published.  I had a nice run where I was selling between 10,000 - 12,000 books a month.  As for other percentages  I don't know how many of my sales come from Amazon and how many come from retailers like iBookstore or Barnes and Noble.  The publishers don't break them down. When I was self-published Amazon kept 30% and I kept 70%.

As for what % each of the parties keep when traditionally published.  It generally breaks down like this:

* Trade paperback: 55% Amazon | 37.5% Publisher | 6.38% Author | 1.12% Agent
* Hardcover editions: 55% Amazon | 35% Publisher | 8.5% Author | 1.5% Agent
* ebooks: 30% Amazon |  52.5% Publisher | 14.9% Author | 2.6% Agent

Of course Amazon routinely discounts books. So for books that are sold at say a 25% discount the breakdown would go like this (for a hardcore book)

* 25% to customer | 30% to Amazon | 35% Publisher | 8.5% Author | 1.5% Agent




AndrewLowe said:


> By the way, I just picked up the first book of Riyira!



Hey thanks! I do hope you enjoy it.


----------



## AndrewLowe

Thanks Michael!  That's actually super helpful--I've always debated self publishing versus traditional...


----------



## Chessie

Author earnings down? Heh. Not for Indies if they're doing it right. Indie publishing is proving harder for me than actually writing the damn books. Maybe it's because I have only one story out and can't seem to work fast enough on getting my other projects out the door, but selling books is hard. Really hard. I have nothing but mad respect for Indies managing to make a living out of this. 

It's definitely not for everyone. However, with time, patience, good products, and an intelligent way of working, making a living in this industry is totally possible and dare I say more so than with traditional publishing. I'm not saying that as a way to insult or demean traditional, but with Indie publishing we keep our rights and make higher royalties. We're able to write as much as we want and if we do too little then that might not be bringing home the bacon. 

Every writer that wants to be published faces the difficult decision of continuing to query or putting their books up on Amazon and other outlets. It's not easy either way! And it all depends on what your goals are as an author. Would you prefer someone  to do your cover, blurb, editing, etc or would you like to retain control? The latter is me because I love that it gets to be ME that succeeds or fails at this. I decided to self publish because of rejections from trad publishing but I understand now that I wasn't ready back then to publish. But there's something to making your own way to your dreams. 

All I will add is this: either way you go about it, it isn't easy. Some Indies seem to put their books up and they sell like hotcakes. Some of us have to work for it. I haven't sold a book in two weeks. I just laugh at it most of the time although last night I was bummed because--my short piece that is well edited and packaged--is selling nothing. BUT another author I know put up his story of the exact same length in another genre, with a bad ass cover, NOT edited or even proper grammar, imo terribly written already he is #1 on the short lists of Amazon. It's like...wtf?!?!?!?! I sulked for a bit last night and then was like okay, I shouldn't and WON'T compare. I will be glad for him because he worked hard on his story too. And his story is pretty interesting actually. 

So see? It's a gamble. I think I should be selling and I'm not. What do I do? Finish the other novels I've got cooking. That's it. I'm going to be an Indie that probably struggles for years to get an audience. That's okay. None of this is freaking easy and that's why it upsets me when I see folks fighting about which way is superior. Either way you need a good product. You need readers. You need to have thick skin. And work the hardest you've probably ever worked in your life. With writing time, making covers, trying to build my platform etc, I probably work 40-60 hours per week with nothing to show for it just yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post this for anyone that is considering which way to publish. xo


----------



## AndrewLowe

Chesterama said:


> So see? It's a gamble. I think I should be selling and I'm not. What do I do? Finish the other novels I've got cooking. That's it. I'm going to be an Indie that probably struggles for years to get an audience. That's okay. None of this is freaking easy and that's why it upsets me when I see folks fighting about which way is superior. Either way you need a good product. You need readers. You need to have thick skin. And work the hardest you've probably ever worked in your life. With writing time, making covers, trying to build my platform etc, I probably work 40-60 hours per week with nothing to show for it just yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post this for anyone that is considering which way to publish. xo



I just picked up a copy of your story on Amazon 
Not particularly my genre of choice, but I've been trying to get around to reading what all the members of the community are publishing!


----------



## Chessie

Hey thanks! I hope you like it


----------



## MichaelSullivan

AndrewLowe said:


> Thanks Michael!  That's actually super helpful--I've always debated self publishing versus traditional...



You are welcome. But keep in mind that the royalty %'s are just one of the factors when considering between the two. There are a whole slew of other things to keep in mind - the most important being if you'll be able to produce a product that has the same high quality standards of a big-publisher on your own.  Many can, but if you can't then it may not be in your best interest to put out something that is sub-standard.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Chesterama said:


> Author earnings down? Heh. Not for Indies if they're doing it right. Indie publishing is proving harder for me than actually writing the damn books. Maybe it's because I have only one story out and can't seem to work fast enough on getting my other projects out the door, but selling books is hard. Really hard. I have nothing but mad respect for Indies managing to make a living out of this.



Well it depends on WHICH indies you are speaking about.  And yes we are in full agreement that those who are doing it right are earning VERY, VERY well. 



Chesterama said:


> It's definitely not for everyone. However, with time, patience, good products, and an intelligent way of working, making a living in this industry is totally possible and dare I say more so than with traditional publishing. I'm not saying that as a way to insult or demean traditional, but with Indie publishing we keep our rights and make higher royalties. We're able to write as much as we want and if we do too little then that might not be bringing home the bacon.



Again, it depends. I judge each of my projects before going traditional or self.  The fact that I've continued to sign traditional, indicates that for me it is still better off for many reasons. And that is from someone who does very well with their self-published works. My most recent release came out in December and it's already earned me six-figures...so none to shabby.



Chesterama said:


> Every writer that wants to be published faces the difficult decision of continuing to query or putting their books up on Amazon and other outlets. It's not easy either way! And it all depends on what your goals are as an author. Would you prefer someone  to do your cover, blurb, editing, etc or would you like to retain control? The latter is me because I love that it gets to be ME that succeeds or fails at this. I decided to self publish because of rejections from trad publishing but I understand now that I wasn't ready back then to publish. But there's something to making your own way to your dreams.



To be honest - I think there is a lot to be said about the hybrid approach and do both self and traditional. Of course the subset of people who can hit both of those very small targets isn't large, so while it is the best route, it may be out of reach to many.



Chesterama said:


> All I will add is this: either way you go about it, it isn't easy. Some Indies seem to put their books up and they sell like hotcakes. Some of us have to work for it. I haven't sold a book in two weeks. I just laugh at it most of the time although last night I was bummed because--my short piece that is well edited and packaged--is selling nothing. BUT another author I know put up his story of the exact same length in another genre, with a bad ass cover, NOT edited or even proper grammar, imo terribly written already he is #1 on the short lists of Amazon. It's like...wtf?!?!?!?! I sulked for a bit last night and then was like okay, I shouldn't and WON'T compare. I will be glad for him because he worked hard on his story too. And his story is pretty interesting actually.



Yeah, it's best not to try and compare yourself to others. You should be in competition only with yourself for peace of mind. There will always be people selling more than you and people selling less. Best to control the things you can, which is writing good quality work and producing it professionally. 



Chesterama said:


> So see? It's a gamble. I think I should be selling and I'm not. What do I do? Finish the other novels I've got cooking. That's it. I'm going to be an Indie that probably struggles for years to get an audience. That's okay. None of this is freaking easy and that's why it upsets me when I see folks fighting about which way is superior. Either way you need a good product. You need readers. You need to have thick skin. And work the hardest you've probably ever worked in your life. With writing time, making covers, trying to build my platform etc, I probably work 40-60 hours per week with nothing to show for it just yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post this for anyone that is considering which way to publish. xo



I don't know of any author who hasn't struggled - self or traditional. Yeah, we all work hard, and in the end it doesn't always pay off. That's why you have to embrace the journey - as the destination may or may not be what you hoped for.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

AndrewLowe said:


> I just picked up a copy of your story on Amazon
> Not particularly my genre of choice, but I've been trying to get around to reading what all the members of the community are publishing!



That was very kind of you...Glad to see you helping her out like that.


----------

