# Thoughts on Self Publishing?



## Nathan J. Lauffer

Recently, I read a post by Seth Godin called Reject the tyranny of being picked: pick yourself.  In it, Seth mentioned a woman that was quite successful self-publishing on Kindle.  I've noticed a lot of authors promoting their self-published books on Twitter.  However, I recently read an article called Should You Self-Publish from the Daily Writing Tips blog that discourages it, but ignores how easily it can be done with e-books.

So, does anyone have any thoughts or experiences with self publishing, particularly with e-books?


----------



## srg

I have two opinions on self-publishing (but no experience).

One.  Don't do it thinking that you're going to be the next Amanda Hocking.  It's not going to happen.

Two.  Readers are the true gatekeepers in the book world; if readers think your book is tops, it'll sell.  

The thing about self-publishing is that you have to do a lot of legwork yourself.  Promoting is a hard thing to do, but if you put the work in you can make it.


----------



## Telcontar

In my opinion, not a good way to start out. It's my fall-back. The option will always be there, once I've exhausted other, more attractive, routes - the most obvious being the standard 'send to an agent' one.


----------



## srg

I've been reading a lot from Dean Wesley Smith, and he's convinced me that there is no reason or cause to send anything to an agent.


----------



## Telcontar

I've heard of the guy. Suffice to say that I disagree. Rather strongly.


----------



## Kelise

If my work isn't good enough to be picked up by an agent or publisher, then it's probably not good enough to be worth printing. I have no interest in self publishing at all, it just wouldn't feel right, or like I'm an author.


----------



## Ophiucha

starconstant said:


> If my work isn't good enough to be picked up by an agent or publisher, then it's probably not good enough to be worth printing. I have no interest in self publishing at all, it just wouldn't feel right, or like I'm an author.


 
Yeah, I basically agree with this. I'm not going to say that being published means you're a good writer, either, mind you. But I've read enough works online, self-published or otherwise, to know that no matter how awful I think published books are, 99% of the self-published industry is a hundred times worse. There are gems out there, gems that could have been published, that now ruined their chances and are stuck trying to promote the books themselves. Few of them go far. The industry makes up for a lot more people than just the author. Cover art? Stock photos and photoshop isn't particularly spectacular for most of us, unless you're also a graphic designer. Want a map or some art in the book? You'll want a professional artist, and you're going to pay for that out of the pocket. While you may not have to pay for publication (be it an e-book or otherwise), it is a costly endeavor with a low rate of success that, frankly, doesn't seem worth it. Just spruce it up, put it in the correct manuscript format, send it to a few people, take their suggestions, and try until you succeed.


----------



## kjjcarpenter

It's a sad truth that so many will go unpublished, and sometimes this is the only option.
The problem with self-publishing isn't necessarily the quality of the work, but it is in the distribution of said work and the factor of money. If you want your book to go far, you're going to need a lot of it without relying on a hell of a lot of luck—I'm looking at you, Matthew Reilly. By all rights, you can pop a book out for under $500. You have places like Lulu and the like that offer these services, but face it, the quality is downright hideous unless you're willing to fork out at least $1000 just for the cover design. I've had experience here, and I have to admit, I was quite embarrassed by the end result; one of the many reasons I ceased production with them.
Then there's publicity and distribution. The cheapest you're going to manage is around $2000 - $3000 for marketing the book, and even then, you won't be able to penetrate a huge fan-base, if any. If you want the world, or even just your country to know, it's going to take a lot more money. And, of course, perseverance.
Say you're only interested in a small fan-base, and there's nothing wrong with that, bookstores are more than happy to have your self-published book on their shelves. They get more of a profit out of it and, despite rumour, they like helping out their fellow man, especially independent bookstores.
There is a huge benefit to self-publishing. You're your own boss, and you need not deal with publishers who weigh you by how much money they can milk from you. When considering it though, weigh the odds yourself against your income and the likelihood of a publisher selecting your story.


----------



## Telcontar

I think there is a slightly better angle in E-publishing, which is what I was talking about as my fall back. I would never pay to have my book printed. Vanity publishing is not for me. 

However, putting your book into an open-standard Ebook format is free. After that, you can 'market' however you choose to. It may never be read by many people, but as a last ditch effort to get it seen, you should already have accepted that.


----------



## Ophiucha

Marketing, art, etc. is still gonna cost you if you want your book to _look_ professional, though, and appearance is a big deal. I am definitely more likely to buy an independently published novel that looks like it could have come right from Del Ray or Ballantine than something with a stock image and some poorly chosen typographic choices - which is what most of the covers look like. I also am generally more hesitant about purchases if I am shopping online. Online, my resources are limitless. Why buy some author I've never heard of and have no reason to buy, when I can find obscure Japanese fantasy novels from 1860, out of print classics from Moorcock or LeGuin, or any other no doubt better (not to say the ebook in question is necessarily bad) book? If I am at a bookstore, though, I'm just picking things up and reading the backs. Given a nice enough presentation and opening up to the right page, I'll probably buy anything at a bookstore.


----------



## kjjcarpenter

Ophiucha said:


> Marketing, art, etc. is still gonna cost you if you want your book to _look_ professional, though, and appearance is a big deal.


 
As I said, at least $1000. Obviously for this price the quality will be sub-par.


----------



## Philip Overby

I think if you want to impress friends and relatives with your book, then sure, do self-publishing.  To me self-publishing is likened to posting videos on YouTube.  Anyone can do it with the right software and a camera.  Of course we all know the quality of YouTube videos greatly varies.  While some become viral, getting millions of views, others get maybe 5.

I've noticed on Amazon that a lot of people are trying to capitalize on the e-book formatting by offering a low price for a Kindle book.  Seems a good idea.  But if you aren't known, you have an upward hill to climb.  A long, long hill to climb.

From what I understand, those who have self-published with success have swamped message boards, social networks, and the like to get their name out there.  It's not as if you just becoming instantly famous.  

I think the old fashioned route is still the best...for the time being.  With the collapse of book stores in America and elsewhere, I feel like an increasing reliance on e-books will continue.  That could mean a flooding of the market with writers who self-publish, and that may not necessarily be a good thing.


----------



## srg

Just a question.  What's the difference between an unknown author self-publishing and an unknown author getting a publishing deal?  They both have to start out as unknown authors to the reader, regardless of any marketing dollars put forth either independantly or by a major publisher.

It all boils down to whether readers enjoy the work - to them, especially those with e-readers, it doesn't matter if it's self-published or released by a major publisher.

I will grant that a large number of self-published works are sub-par where quality is concerned.  But there are people out there doing their homework and putting out their own money to put together quality writing.  And you know what?  Those are the people that are making money by self-publishing, and they're going to get a lot more for each sale of their book than someone who goes through a publisher (or even an agent).

The fact of the matter is self-publishing NOW is a lot different than it was before e-readers became common-place.  Your chances of success (which quite honestly depends on your definition of the term; for instance, if I wanted to self-publish something, I'd be happy with 5 sales in a month simply because I don't have a lot of marketing leverage at my disposal) are a lot higher now than they ever were before.  But only because of ebooks, really.


----------



## Kelise

Do all bookshops take self-published books? I asked at a random bookstore - a franchise that was owned, so it wasn't part of the main chain, but had the name - and they said to date they haven't simply because they need all the space they can get for books from publishers. If someone asked for a specific book, it may be possible for them to order it in... but probably wouldn't be worth their while, and would be easier for the singular person who wanted it to order it themselves.

So is there a chance more than just this bookstore feels the same way, and self-published books would find it hard to get space in bookstores? Depending on how the self-published book was set up to be ordered, I suppose.


Sorry for the badly worded post. Just woke up and this site is blocked at my work for some reason


----------



## Ophiucha

The amount of work you put in to marketing, hiring artists, editors doesn't seem to have much of a correlation to your likelihood of success. For every time I hear a story about someone making it big as an independent author, I hear a horror story about someone who spent $10,000 and saw no more than $1,000 in return for their efforts. It's a big investment, and I'd frankly rather I got $3,000 and it went no where than I spend $3,000 for the same result. And, even as an ebook, a publisher's name is attached. There are certain publishers I like - they publish a high percentage of quality books. Given two books that look and sound interesting, but one is published independently and one is traditionally published, I will near invariably pick the traditionally published book. It would have to be a really phenomenal self-published book for me to pick it first, or, you know, it was published by a friend of mine.


----------



## Telcontar

srg said:


> Just a question.  What's the difference between an unknown author self-publishing and an unknown author getting a publishing deal?



Well, off the top of my head, a BIG difference is who pays out those start-up costs. Getting a publishing deal obviously means that somebody has paid YOU for the right to print your book and put it on store shelves.

Self-Publishing means that you front the money yourself, and then hope you can get it in front of people who will buy it.


----------



## Mdnight Falling

I know an excellent self publisher. I was going to use it myself unfortunately me and Bry now have a baby on the way and I can't afford the package I want for it LOL. This is the link to Xlibris. They were so very helpful to me and worked with me even though I wasn't finished with the manuscript. They even cut me deals when I couldn't afford their cheapest package...
Self Publishing and Print on Demand Company | Xlibris Book Publishers.


----------



## Ophiucha

In order for the package to have enough to get you to look professional and marketed professionally, you'd need to dish out $7,000. :/ I just don't see how that could be a good investment.


----------



## Ravana

srg said:


> Just a question.  What's the difference between an unknown author self-publishing and an unknown author getting a publishing deal?  They both have to start out as unknown authors to the reader



The main difference, I'd say, is getting anyone to take you seriously. 

You may be able to self-publish less expensively these days because of e-books (though _don't_ assume "less expensive" equals "free")… but, to rephrase your example by reversing its elements, the people who are making money are the ones who are putting money into it–and I'd like to see their balance sheets before claiming too much success for them. Do they make a lot more off each sale? Almost certainly. Does it make up for the difference in quantity of sales? Almost certainly not. Remember that an author accepted for print isn't paying one cent to get the work published (aside from a ream of paper to print the manuscript out, and postage to mail it), and unless he accepts very dubious contract conditions, is guaranteed to make _some_ amount of money off it, even if every last copy is returned unsold. (Which never happens, as there will always be a few library sales, if nothing else.) That doesn't even begin to take into account cover art, distribution, publicity, promotional appearances/tours… all the other things you're paying for yourself or doing without when you self-publish. And all of which are important to getting an "unknown" author noticed by readers–overcoming that "unknown" disadvantage. _You_ might spend hours a day trolling through e-book titles by people you've never heard of; I have more than enough to read from people who _have_ made it into print. 

But the real kicker is my first point: getting anyone to take you seriously. There's a reason these are referred to as "vanity presses." Self-publication is virtually an admission–more importantly, will be _viewed_ as an admission–that you can't get your work published any other way. It will definitely be viewed that way by any publishers you approach at a later date; it will probably be viewed that way by much of your potential readership. If you do decide to self-publish, you'd be well advised to conceal the fact if you ever want to go beyond that stage.


----------



## srg

I'm going to bow out of the thread because it seems that everyone against self-publishing is ignoring the e-publishing route.  The only reason self-publishing is a viable option right now is because of e-publishing.  You don't have to have a physical book to self-publish.  The only reason self-publishing authors are successful is because they DON'T have to shell out a ton of money to publish their book.

They can sell it as an e-book and not have to sell a large number of copies just to break even.


----------



## Digital_Fey

I'm kind of torn in two over the whole e-book debate. On the one hand, e-publishing is easy and relatively cheap to do, meaning that any twopenny novelist can now put their work in the public domain and charge money for it. And consequently the online market is flooded with books of wildly varying standards, making it that much harder for the discerning reader to find a good book. Also, as a writer I personally would be embarrassed to have my ebook listed on amazon next to self-published vampire erotica - but that's just me 

On the other hand, if the manuscript is really well done and the author is willing to market themselves extensively, then self-publishing in ebook format might be more viable than sending your story to publisher after publisher. 

Bottom line, I guess the overall success of the venture depends on many things.


----------



## Ophiucha

srg said:


> I'm going to bow out of the thread because it seems that everyone against self-publishing is ignoring the e-publishing route.  The only reason self-publishing is a viable option right now is because of e-publishing.  You don't have to have a physical book to self-publish.  The only reason self-publishing authors are successful is because they DON'T have to shell out a ton of money to publish their book.
> 
> They can sell it as an e-book and not have to sell a large number of copies just to break even.


 
You still need cover art. You still need marketing. You should still have an editor. These things add up BIG TIME. Yes, it costs less to actually sell the book, because you don't need to cover printing costs, but it can still cost you several THOUSAND dollars, and you could get a 100% return on each book sold and still need to sell - what? - a few hundred, if not thousand depending on how cheap you sell it for (and let's be honest, if you're not a big name author through a big name company, you're not selling it for much more than $5 a pop) to break even, let alone profit.


----------



## Ravana

srg said:


> I'm going to bow out of the thread because it seems that everyone against self-publishing is ignoring the e-publishing route.



I didn't ignore it at all—you're ignoring all the reasons against it. My post was specifically addressed to e-publishing. _Every_ reason that applies to self-publishing print copies through vanity presses applies to e-publishing as well… many of them more so. You're missing the point about the _benefits_ of print publication—that it will have a (hopefully) eye-catching cover, that it will be distributed to bookstores and libraries, that it will be advertised to whatever extent the publisher feels needful to ensure they make back their investment, that as part of promoting the book the publisher may well pay expenses for you to travel to events to increase your exposure—it's astounding how many people will buy a copy of a book they would otherwise have ignored just because you're there to _sign_ it—you get _none_ of this when you e-publish. And you _pay_ for none of these when you're accepted by a book publisher: all those expenses are their problem at that point. Nor do you get the publisher's accumulated experience on _how_ to handle all these things: you'll have to figure them out for yourself. 

These aren't _just_ costs associated with print self-publication: these are also things you _lose_ by _not_ going to print publication. How many authors do you think get discovered by being seen on the "new arrivals" shelf at public libraries—where prospective future buyers can check them out for free, and where a single copy can reach multiple readers? Why do you think publishers are willing to send authors on book-signing tours—encourage them, possibly even require them as part of the contract? You can't autograph a Kindle e-text. (You can scribble on the thing itself… like that's gonna be worth anything.)

And that's ignoring the fact that, from any decent publisher, you'll get an advance against royalties—typically $3-5k, though this will vary widely: unknown authors may get less, established ones will get much more—which is yours to keep, no matter how well your book sells. If your book sells enough copies that the accumulating royalties exceed your advance, then you get more money… but you never have to return what they've already sent: it's a purchase, not a loan.

Or, I suppose, you could just upload your book, do none of those things, and hope. Well.…



> Will you be able to instantly make millions on your eBook after reading these magical pages? Well, if you allow yourself to believe that there is anything under the sun no-mater-how-many-pages long (aside from a will or a trust fund in your name) that will instantly make you millions – please skip this book and consult the nearest mental health professional immediately.



Care to guess what that's from? No? It's from a guide on Smashword on how to publish e-books. (Well, from the description of the guide: I wasn't about to pay to download it.…) Or, from Smashword's own FAQ:



> Although some Smashwords authors sell books at Smashwords within minutes or hours of publishing with us, some Smashwords authors never sell a single book. There are multiple potential reasons, but based on our experience the primary reason is lack of marketing on the part of the author. Since Smashwords is a self-service platform, and we don't charge you anything to publish or distribute at Smashwords. It's your responsibility as the author or publisher to get out there and generate demand for your book.



Okay, that's _never_. NEVER. Sell. One. SINGLE. Book.

So much for "free" publication. As with most cases where the word "free" appears, you get what you pay for. And to move beyond that point, you move from "free" to "break even"—and how many books _will_ you need to sell to reach that point? Even at 85% royalty? Which you only get if your distribution remains limited to Smashwords: you want it on Amazon.com and similar services? You're down to 59.5%; go through Lulu—which gives a 70% royalty—and it's 56% once you get to the distributors. And in all cases, you have to remain within certain price ranges in order to get this; go above or below them, and your royalty plunges. So, okay, let's assume you're selling your e-book at $2.99—the bottom end of the range, in order to get more people to take a chance on an unknown; assume you want to make it available through e-book distributors, not just the website you created it on: best case scenario you're making $1.78. Since I don't know which expenses you were willing to soak up, I don't know how many copies you'll need to sell in order to make it back: you'll have to do the math on that one. 

I _do_ know how many copies you'll need to sell to equal a measly $1k advance from a publisher: 562. Multiply upward for larger advances. And remember that in the case where you're receiving an advance, your own costs were zero… add in however many copies you need to make up the difference of your actual expenses.

And that still is ignoring my initial point: do you want to be taken seriously? 

Here's the deal-breaker for me: since anybody _can_ get their works "published" in e-book format, a whacking huge and ever-increasing number of frustrated authors _will_ use this route… and as e-books proliferate, the chances of any single book, _your_ book, getting noticed will diminish. Within a couple more years, the e-book market will be so flooded with drivel that it probably won't be profitable for _anyone_ who isn't already established: the costs of getting your book noticed will exceed your returns. So if you don't care about money, go right ahead. But if you don't care about money, you're just as well off popping down to FedEx Office and running off the ten or twenty copies you expect to be able to unload on family and friends. Or putting it up on a webpage where it can be accessed for free—if all you're looking for is "exposure." You'll probably gain a greater "following," faster, than you will by selling e-books.

So what are your goals? If you want to make money, if you want exposure, if you want to someday make a living off your writing, if you want to be viewed by history as an "author"—no, e-books won't do it, any more than any other form of self-publishing will. If you want to have your ego stroked by "being in print" (which you won't be, but leave that aside)… knock yourself out.

I'll take the obscurity of trying and failing to be published over the obscurity of being one of endless thousands of failures indulging their own vanities any day, thank you. I'm going to stick with doing it the hard way.


----------



## Kelise

There's also the issue of most people always having so many books they're yet to read, that they can get from most bookstores, libraries, etc This makes you a lot less likely to find an eBook that's self published. Even less willing to try it.

Personally... I just don't have time to try anyone I've never heard of. Joining forums like these give me so many new authors to try. Each author has a few books, or many, to get through. These books promise quality and a huge following. I'm going to spend my money on those, before I spend it on an ebook... and then my personal distaste of only being able to have the eBook. I prefer the book version. Sometimes I'll buy both, if I'm travelling or too ill to hold a 1,000 page book (RSI and/or Ross River is awful) but generally... if I have to pay, and only get an eBook version, I'd rather not.

Then there's the thing were eBooks are so easy to distribute freely online on those illegal download sites.

I just honestly don't think there's a market for people willing to pay just for an eBook just yet.


----------



## Ophiucha

I agree, starconstant. The only real chance that I will read an independently published author's work - or, hell, even just unknown traditionally published authors - is if it is free, or if I know them personally (and like them). I have bought cheap copies of works by close friends on online forums such as this one (I know I'd buy Ravana's book, and probably Phil the Drill's), and I'll skim anything if it is free. But when it comes to spending a dime, frankly, there are still so many time-honored classics and books with dedicated fanbases that I haven't read. And I have read _a lot_ of books. But, let's be honest, I am more likely to pick up the new China MiÃ©ville book (an author I know I love) or a Tamora Pierce book (an author I've never read, but have heard great things about) than a book that you paid to have published and, given the common attitude, probably didn't pay for much else (like the ever necessary editing).


----------



## Ravana

Ophiucha said:


> I know I'd buy Ravana's book



Thank you. Damn, guess that means I ought to get off (on?) my bum and finish one. 

Just in case it hasn't come through clearly enough: anyone still thinking self-publishing is a good route to go should check out the link starconstant posted in "The list of what we shouldn't do" thread… and observe how great is the contempt expressed by those inside the industry for those who self-publish. I wasn't joking–nor exaggerating–when I suggested that if you do self-publish, you'd do well to conceal that fact if you want to get into print at some later date.


----------



## srg

starconstant said:


> I just honestly don't think there's a market for people willing to pay just for an eBook just yet.


 
Wow.  I don't have any stats to back me up, but there are many people that will say exactly the opposite of this.  eBooks are the future of publishing - it's sort of a not-so-wild west right now, but ebooks are really really popular.  I used to be in the mindset of, "I prefer the physical copy - I could never read an ebook".  But technology is so much better now, and is getting even better.  Sure I'd still love the physical thing, but I would much rather have a ton of books on an e-reader.  However, this is a different debate.

@Ravana Sorry - I understand what you're saying about the benefits of print-publishing through one of the Big Publishing Houses.  But I can't take what you're saying seriously when you say that no one takes any ebook author seriously.  I don't think that it costs nearly as much as you think to put out a decent e-publication.  I will concede that someone who puts money into an ebook will do better than someone who does it all for free, and that there are also times when they will have the same results (read: no sales).

I just think that the opinion that self-publishing is not a viable method of publishing AT ALL (and to be honest, that's what I'm getting out of all this, that those opposed to self-publishing think that it is doomed to failure from the get-go) is silly.  

I'm not trying to say that everybody should self-publish and forget about a proper publishing house.  If that is your goal, then you should pursue it.  But if you have the entrepreneural spirit to self-publish and work your butt off to get your book out there, there ARE people who will give your work a chance even if they haven't read your name in the NY Times.

I think that this is an issue a lot of people struggle with, because indeed self-publishing used to mean lower quality 95% of the time.  It's not the case anymore, _especially_ where the e-publishing world is concerned.

Oh, and as for piracy of ebooks; I don't think that is as big an issue for the publishing industry as it was for the music industry.  I don't have the link, but there's a video interview of Neil Gaiman basically saying he is OK with "piracy", because he views it sort of as lending - like a library.  In short: how do you discover your favourite authors?  Friends lend you a book, or you borrow it from the library.  And then you go out and buy more books by that author.  Gaiman sees giving away free ebooks as the same sort of thing.  Worth a look if you can find it - it's certainly an interesting opinion.

Final note: I am also a big supporter of Creative Commons.  Self-publishing sort of goes hand-in-hand with that and that's why I am a big fan of it.  I know, or at least right now I believe, that I wouldn't be able to sell my stories to a publisher; but why does that mean I shouldn't try offering something online?  I probably won't spend big dollars promoting it, so that means I won't get a lot of sales.  But that's the thing about self-publishing: you need to have realistic expectations going into the game.  You can't do zero work making it look good and think you're going to be an international best-seller overnight.


----------



## Kelise

srg said:


> Wow.  I don't have any stats to back me up, but there are many people that will say exactly the opposite of this.  eBooks are the future of publishing - it's sort of a not-so-wild west right now, but ebooks are really really popular.  I used to be in the mindset of, "I prefer the physical copy - I could never read an ebook".  But technology is so much better now, and is getting even better.  Sure I'd still love the physical thing, but I would much rather have a ton of books on an e-reader.  However, this is a different debate.


 
Oh, sorry, I wasn't that clear - I meant that, as far as I was aware, people weren't big on searching for eBooks like they would browse through a bookstore. If they know the author then sure they'll buy the eBook - like I said, I get them myself because currently my hands just can't hold a 1,000 page book at the moment... but I doubt people will pay money for an eBook from someone they haven't heard of, through a personal site (as in, not through Borders or other online book stores you can download from). 

Which means, as it's been said - self advertising is going to be needed in truckloads.

I wonder - because I've looked but haven't found any yet, though being in Australia it could be different - are self-published eBooks easily found on websites like Boreders, etc? I know they are on Amazon thanks to the self-publishers CreateSpace... because that could make a difference too. 

Having to buy self-published books usually through a personal site - where I've generally seen them, though I haven't gone hardcore searching so it may not mean much - could be a huge deterrent. Which would be a shame.


Actually, now I'm rambling, but, in Australia we have the Aurealis awards, and on this years list there's a self-published book, which is creating quite a stir. She did try to get published through a main publishing house, but... read what happened: https://sites.google.com/a/andreakhost.com/the-glacier/
On her site her self-published book looks quite nice, and ...well, her publicity is going to boom now, thanks to the nomination, so that's quite excellent


----------



## Telcontar

I stipulated normal, print publishing because yes, many of the arguments do not apply in full or at all to epublishing alone. However, as pointed out above, you will still need to work to make your book successful. Getting the word out, soliciting reviews and blurbs and everything else is absolutely essential to getting any sort of sales volume.


----------



## Ravana

srg said:


> I don't have any stats to back me up.…  But I can't take what you're saying seriously when you say that no one takes any ebook author seriously. I don't think that it costs nearly as much as you think to put out a decent e-publication.



Well, your argument would be a lot stronger if you knew how much it costs to put out a decent e-book, or if you did have the stats to back you up on e-book sales. In the absence of such information, you don't actually _have_ an "argument," in fact: you're really just voicing unsupported opinion. I at least did a few minutes' worth of research on a couple of the better-known e-publishers to get some idea of what you do get for free, what you don't, how much it'll cost to get the things you may want that you don't get for free… as well as giving precise figures on royalties themselves. I'm not particularly interested in calculating exactly how much it would cost to assemble what I'd consider a minimally acceptable publication, since I have no interest in assembling one (and since there's no reason to believe that what I'd be willing to accept and what you'd be willing to are the same thing); crunch some numbers yourself and get back to us.

But leave that aside for one moment. Why can't you take seriously my contention that self-publishers don't get taken seriously? Do you have _any_ reason to believe I'm incorrect about this? Any reason at all? Because the few people I've seen who are taken seriously, who are having anything most would describe as "success," are people _who are already known_–they have _already_ had print distribution, through "traditional" book publishers, magazines, etc. _They did not begin by self-publishing_… regardless of format. Even that is only in relation to how the reading public views them: talk to some industry insiders–editors, publishers, even published authors–before you try to tell me that my use of the word "contempt" to describe their attitude toward self-publication is incorrect.

E-books certainly represent a large and growing segment of publishing sales; I'm not arguing otherwise. And I'm certain that their market share will continue to grow. But these sales are not coming from unknown authors who are self-publishing their work: they're coming from electronic versions of books that are or have been in print, ones that have made it through the selection process of traditional publication. Ones that receive the sponsorship and promotion of recognized, respected publishers. Ones that someone would pay for _anyway_–the only difference being the convenience of being able to download a copy rather than having to locate it at a bookstore or order it and pay postage on it. 



> eBooks are the future of publishing



Only in the above sense. Show me where I'm wrong in saying that the ease of e-publication will result in even more garbage, which progressively fewer people will be willing to sift through, than already exists. You can't–because it's so obvious that it ought not to require mention. At least with vanity presses, the amount of drivel put out gets limited by the author's willingness to front the money to do it; with free publication, even that restraint is removed, so it's guaranteed that the ratio of sub-par publications to those worth reading will only increase over time. E-books may be the future of _publishing_… but as far as _self_-publishing, there's an element of self-destruction inextricably intertwined: the bad will inevitably force out the good, until nobody but a few hobbyists pays any attention to it at all.

I can foresee e-publication as a (not necessarily "the") wave of the future in this way: eventually, major publishers will begin to accept and distribute works that they make available primarily, possibly even exclusively, electronically. It would, after all, save them considerable amounts of money to publish this way. But that doesn't change any of the other arguments: you'll still need to submit your text to the publisher, and it will still need to meet that publisher's criteria for quality and marketability. Which is _not_ self-publishing. _These_ e-books will receive the promotion necessary to ensure commercial viability, just as print books do now; they will be the ones that readers will be willing to search for, from databases limited to texts accepted by recognized imprints–or which at least make certain that those texts pop up ahead of other, less "reputable" results. I would in fact foresee people searching specifically for a recognized imprint, something you can do now: I just searched Amazon.com for "Tor Books," and got 13,606 results. Of course, many of these are duplicates, but still… why would I want to wade through all the hits I'd get by searching on "fantasy" when I can look through a list that extensive with the reasonable assurance that whatever I find has passed muster with a publisher I _do_ respect? 

I can foresee new, online-only "imprints" arising, but they'll only be successful to the extent that they emulate traditional presses: that they are selective, not open, as regards the texts they publish. (This, in fact, is probably a major business opportunity, if you can get it set up _right now_: in a couple years, those niches will be filled.)



> Final note: I am also a big supporter of Creative Commons.  Self-publishing sort of goes hand-in-hand with that and that's why I am a big fan of it.



I like CC too… but that has nothing to do with self-publishing going "hand-in-hand" with it. All CC does is provide a licensing format for people who want to make their work more widely and readily available; in many cases, this is done by authors whose books are out of print, or who want to make shorter works available beyond their original scope of publication (in magazines, professional journals, newspapers, etc.), or who want to make available to their reading base stories that are not commercially viable in the first place. But you know what CC _isn't_? It isn't a publisher. It does not have a searchable database of everything that has received a CC license. Getting a CC license has nothing to do with publishing, "self" or otherwise: you can get a license for something you never make publicly available; conversely, getting a CC license does not alone make a thing available–you still have to put it up on the internet somewhere. Somewhere else. And unless that's a webpage you own and maintain, you'll probably need to get additional licenses from wherever you do decide to distribute your material. I've downloaded stories–including one complete novel–from a couple of my favorite authors, who made them available through CC licenses… and their own webpages. The key words there are "my favorite authors": I not only was already familiar with them, I was willing to go in search of their works. (And all those were free downloads: they aren't making one red cent off them. Are actually losing money, in that they need to maintain the websites. Though I would have been more than willing to pay for the stories. The novel falls into the "not commercially viable" category mentioned above: it was based on the show _Firefly_, and the author was well aware that the odds of its success in print were minimal… as well as being aware of a factor I mentioned elsewhere, that derivative works are rarely considered to the credit of the writer. This way, he could get a story he'd already written into circulation for anybody who cared enough about his work, or the show, to track such things down… in a format that would be viewed as a pastime of a hobbyist rather than an attempt at a "serious" publication. Probably dodged a lot of other licensing and copyright considerations as well.)

Yes, there will probably be one or two authors who find success starting out self-publishing e-books. But you know what? They'll be the ones who would have been successful anyway, had they gone the traditional route. And I promise you they _will_ find it difficult to transition from e-publishing to print (or to e-publishing through a major imprint, to remove that potential objection), should they ever decide to go that route… more difficult than they would have had they never self-published in the first place.


----------



## srg

Alright, just re-reading some of the responses from everyone.  I don't think anyone is disagreeing that self-publishing requires a lot of work to be successful; the issue at hand is whether anyone self-publishing is taken more or less serious than someone going through traditional publishing.

I agree, as far as print publishing is concerned, you're more likely to find better quality with a traditional publisher than a self-published book.  However, there are self-published people out there who put the time and money into delivering a quality product.  I don't think people would notice that "Oh, they don't have a major publishing label - well I won't read _that_."  I don't believe that readers make decisions on a book based on whose label is printed on it, but I think that yes, they would notice the quality of the book itself.

The same goes for e-books, but it's a lot easier to create a well-crafted ebook than it is a well-crafted print book.  And, it's cheaper, at that.  Can we at least agree on that point?

All I'm trying to say is that right now, in this time with the technology and talent available around the world, there is no reason why someone self-publishing their novel should be taken any less seriously than someone who is signed by a major publisher.

I strongly believe that you could pit a solid self-published novel against traditionally published fare and a reader won't know the difference.  I'm just talking about the physical side of things, taking out random print errors in the manuscript (this happens with books released by major publishers too, so typos and grammatical errors are not just a self-published thing).

That said, don't go and do something like this.  It just makes everybody look bad.


----------



## srg

Here's some good reading I just found today:
Publishing is not a Lottery

In it he talks about both self publishing and trad publishing; and also mentions an interview by Joe Konrath (but I didn't see a link there?).

ETA: Found it.  http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-mark-coker-creator-of.html


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Sorry, I've gone back in and fixed the link - thought I had added it, but must have broken it when I added the picture.

Glad you enjoyed the article.  Thanks for leading me to this site, too - looks like a fun place! Off to read the rest of this thread now, might comment again after.

Kevin
Kevin O. McLaughlin Â« Exploring the worlds of writing and publishing.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

And one last though, which I almost forgot. I saw someone mention Xlibris up there.

Please be careful. There are a number of unscrupulous companies springing up to take advantage of writers. They charge exorbitant fees up front, and then in addition take 50-90% of the profits from each sale as well. It's like the worst of both worlds! Not only are you paying up front for editing, formatting, cover, etc. On top of that, they're also taking at least half of your income.

These places are Bad Deals. I would avoid them at all costs.

There's a number of other companies springing up, which will offer to do editing, cover, formatting to print and ebook formats - basically, all that stuff publishers do for you - for a flat fee, generally in the $2k-4k range. These are pretty good deals, some of them (I'd still research them case by case - you can ask after some of them over on KindleBoards, I don't want to advertise for anyone specifically in this post).

The keys to look for?
If you're paying cash up front, the company should be handing YOU the final form of the formatted cover and print/ebook files, for you to upload to your accounts with Lightning Source or Createspace, Kindle, Smashwords, and PubIt.
If you're paying cash up front, you should not be giving the company a percent of the royalties.
If the company is taking a percent of the profits, then they should be paying YOU an advance, and they should be covering the costs of editing, covers, etc. just like any other traditional publishing deal.

Just be careful. There's a TON of companies out there trying to take people with these "deals". A week doesn't go by when I don't hear about someone being taken in by one.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Oh! Why did it post my last post, but not the one before? It said waiting for moderation on the other post...


----------



## Ophiucha

I'm sure you could, with enough effort and money, publish something of equal (or, let's be honest, greater) quality to something published traditionally. But I do disagree that people don't "notice" the publisher. I know my best friend and I certainly take notice of that. We both have _favorite_ publishers. To the point where we have legitimate arguments about the issue. She is a huge fan of Orbit, and I've got a thing for Ballantine Books. And it definitely affects both of our purchasing choices because, yeah, we trust publishers who have a history of publishing quality material.


----------



## Philip Overby

I have to agree with Ophiucha.  I have some sort of "brand loyalty" to certain publishers who put out consistently good books.  Tor and Bantam Spectra are my two favorites.  Del Rey also.  If I see the name of the publisher is "Book America Freedom" or something like that, I may make an audible "Ughhhh..."  

Like I said before, e-publishing I think has a bright future.  I just think because some self-published authors have had some success, it is going to spawn tons and tons and tons and tons (did I say tons?) or people who think they can do the same thing but with abysmal results.  

To me it's sort of like Tor is Coca-Cola and the self-publisher is like the generic drink with the red label that just says "Cola."

Maybe the generic cola is good, but if I have to choose, I rather drink a Coke.  They know what they are doing.  Well, except that awful New Coke disaster...


----------



## Ravana

srg said:


> I don't think people would notice that "Oh, they don't have a major publishing label - well I won't read _that_."



Assuming they notice the book without the major publishing label in the first place. 



> it's a lot easier to create a well-crafted ebook than it is a well-crafted print book.  And, it's cheaper, at that.  Can we at least agree on that point?



I believe I already did–if you're comparing self-publishing formats. It is not cheaper (nor easier) to create a well-crafted book of any format than it is when the publisher is soaking the cost (and effort) for you.



> there is no reason why someone self-publishing their novel should be taken any less seriously than someone who is signed by a major publisher.



No reason other than that they aren't being put out by a major publisher. That IS the reason. Quality doesn't enter into it. I'm not saying it ought to be that way, I'm just saying it is that way.

Let me try this a different way. If you go to Google and look up any scientific topic of your choice (make it a narrow one!), you'll get any number of hits. One of them will be to a Wikipedia article. More than half the rest will be to word-for-word copies of that article, or excerpts from it. A few will be to blogs that mention the topic. A few might be to webpages of persons interested in the topic–including, possibly, scientists who are working in it, though in most cases those will do nothing more than mention the topic as one of their "research interests." A scant handful will be linked to articles that actually give information about that topic. Most of those will show up on the websites of professional science journals… and odds are you won't be able to read those without a subscription. 

Now: you want real, reliable information about the topic. Where, among these, do you expect to find it? Wikipedia? Actually, the information there probably will be reliable, in spite of its reputation… but you can't count on it, and you certainly can't cite it as a source in anything you write. The blogs? Please. Personal webpages? Possibly–if you consider the author to be a reliable professional well-informed in the field. The articles in the professional journals? Well, of course, assuming you have access to them. 

Okay, then: _why_ would you consider these to be the most reliable sources? 

_Because they have been selected for inclusion in peer-reviewed professional publications_, by a panel of editors who know what constitutes quality writing, research, evidence, and reliability in that field. 

In other words, this is the sort of thing you'd _look_ for in order to _find_ quality. You would _not_ look at a list of self-published books on the topic… because you have no idea whether there is the slightest reason to consider the information therein to be accurate. And if you decided anyway to cite such a book in whatever you're writing, you would receive derision from whoever you're writing it for, simply because of the nature of the source. 

Unless, that is, the source was already a noted professional in the field, with numerous juried publications to his credit, who for whatever reason chose to release his work as an e-book. Even then, you'd be taking a chance–as there may have been a good reason that work was self-published, i.e. it didn't pass muster when assessed by a reputable source. 

"But that's different: that's science." Bull. The same considerations apply to any other form of writing. You may not have to worry about the "accuracy" of a fantasy story… but that doesn't change the fact that this is what you'd look for, that this is _where_ you'd look–among texts that have undergone editorial review and have been selected for publication: the ones put out by major publishers. Though far more important is that this is what you would _see_, when you go looking–texts that are receiving the promotion of such publishers. 



> I strongly believe that you could pit a solid self-published novel against traditionally published fare and a reader won't know the difference.



I agree completely–if, _IF_ the reader is presented both side-by-side. But that's my point: that doesn't happen. 

I looked at those links, by the way. Joe Konrath, aka J. A. Konrath aka Jack Kilborn (aka Joe Kimball, forthcoming) had, by my count, at least five books in print–_not_ self-published–as well as numerous stories in professional magazines, _prior_ to his becoming one of the major advocates of self-publishing. (The two forthcoming books under the Kimball name are being published by Ace… apparently he felt that his foray into the field of SF would be better served by going with a major rather than relying on his already-established reputation. Which really ought to tell you everything you need to know right there.)

His interview with Mark Coker, founder of Smashwords, is enlightening, if read correctly:



> Smashwords turned modestly profitable six months ago, and we've been running profitable ever since.… For 2011, we'll run it at just above break-even. I don't earn a salary yet. Maybe next year.…
> 
> Google: I'm perplexed by them. I'd love to support them and distribute to them, but to date they've refused to treat indie authors with the same respect as does Apple, B&N, Sony and Kobo. Unlike their competitors, Google is reluctant to give Smashwords authors and publishers agency or agency-like terms. That's a deal-breaker for us. We've got over 30,000 books ready to ship to Google the moment they give us a green light. Same thing with Amazon.



So… Smashwords is barely keeping its head above water? Admittedly, the industry is still young–but this doesn't sound like astounding commercial success at the moment. So the two services people are most likely to use to _look_ for a book–or an author, or a title–_aren't_ working with Smashwords? They won't give authors and publishers agency-like terms? In other words, they're already doing what I predicted would happen: they're limiting their distribution to established imprints, to people they consider professional and are willing to work with _as_ professionals… no doubt to keep their services from undue clutter by thousands of titles they know aren't going to be viable. They'd rather let a few potential gems drop through the cracks than be a disservice (in their eyes) to their users. In short: they aren't taking e-book self-publishers seriously. 

I admit that other services, such as Apple, Sony, Kobo and B&N aren't taking that stance. But seriously–which of these do you normally start with, when you want to "browse" for new titles? (Keeping in mind that B&N itself is unquestionably a "major" when it comes to publishers.) Maybe Google and Amazon will change their approach as time goes by. Maybe not. I can't see any reason why it would benefit them to; I consider it more probable the rest of the industry will go their way. (Note, too, that apart from B&N, the companies listed above are hardware manufacturers, who wanted to provide functionality for their users. Once they've decided e-readers have caught on–which I consider obvious at this point–and that the amount of material made available by majors is sufficient for their users' needs, they may well conclude that they have no further reason to deal with multitudes of small, marginal companies.)



> Whenever I upload a new title to Smashwords, I'm put in a queue that is often several hundred titles long.



Yeah, that about summarizes it. And this is someone who already enjoys name recognition.



> We now publish over 40,000 books, and we released 5,300 of them in the last 30 days.



And I'm sure that, at a rate of 5k+ titles a month, the chances of an unknown being noticed aren't going to steadily erode…?

Or consider this, from the "Publishing is not a Lottery" article:



> The odds are, if this is your first book, that you aren't going to be picked up by a traditional publisher, and won't make many sales if you self publish. Trying anyway is that act of standing up and saying "I believe in myself enough to ignore the odds and do this.”
> 
> It takes courage to say that. It takes even more courage to try again if your first attempt doesn't succeed. People who want careers as writers need the courage to do both.



Not exactly a ringing endorsement of self-publication over traditional, even if not a condemnation of the former. Basically, it's saying that you're no more likely to succeed by self-publishing than the traditional method… which, for me, raises the question of why even bother with self-publishing, considering all you give up by doing it? 

The title of this thread is "Thoughts on self-publishing?" My thought is simple, really:

Don't.


----------



## Ravana

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The keys to look for?
> If you're paying cash up front, the company should be handing YOU the final form of the formatted cover and print/ebook files, for you to upload to your accounts with Lightning Source or Createspace, Kindle, Smashwords, and PubIt.
> If you're paying cash up front, you should not be giving the company a percent of the royalties.
> If the company is taking a percent of the profits, then they should be paying YOU an advance, and they should be covering the costs of editing, covers, etc. just like any other traditional publishing deal.


 
It's simpler than that: if you're paying cash up front–don't. Unless you are paying for a _specific, one-time_ fee (say, for cover art), you should not be paying _anything_ to get your book published. If you are, it's a scam. Guaranteed.

Even those fees need to be examined closely: editing, formatting, and so on… if you aren't doing these yourself, you'll definitely never see a break-even point. (Formatting, you _might_ want to pay for, depending on what is involved; it would still be better to do it yourself.) And these are flat fees: it costs the same whether the "editor" fixes a thousand things or two… or none. Anyone want to bet that what you get from most "editing" services is someone running your text through a spell-checker–and then accepting suggested "fixes" mechanically, without even looking at them?

I would imagine every company takes a percentage on e-books, so I'm not sure that caution applies to them. But be sure just what that percentage is; it should not be a large one, in any event. 

-

At the potential risk of my sanity, I would like to offer a service, free of charge, to anyone here who would like to take advantage of it: I will read over publishing contracts for you. _I am not a lawyer_, therefore am not qualified (according the laws of the jurisdiction I reside in) to give "legal advice"; on the other hand, I have worked in a law office, where I became accustomed to reading legal documents… and I think anyone familiar with my posts is aware of my ability to handle details.  So if you want, I can look at a contract for you and tell you if, in my non-professional opinion, you are in danger of being ripped off… and in what ways. That does not mean I can tell you if it's a _good_ contract–that is, whether you might be able to do better–but I can probably tell you if it's a guaranteed loser. And with any luck, I'd be able to distinguish the ones where you might want to talk it over with a real lawyer before you signed, too. So there it is, if the issue ever comes up for anyone; send me a private message and we can set up a pipeline. (Do not try to post contracts to this or any other thread, please!–a sentiment I'm sure Black Dragon would endorse.  )


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

(Not sure why this didn't post before, but I'll try a repost.)

OK, I have read over the thread. =)

I'll pass on the facts and figures as I have them, and rough details where I don't have hard numbers. A little background on me: I have one trad pub credit from years ago, and some short fiction (Fantasy), including one local (New England) level writing award for the short fiction. Got out of writing for over a decade, doing other things, but got back in gradually the last couple of years. Started hearing about the shift to ebook/self pub last summer, and got interested. Have been researching heavily and working on getting my writing back up to needed levels since.

Oh, and this will be a long post.  

Back last September, I was right with most of the people who posted on this thread. Self-pub - that was for bad books that couldn't get a real publisher, right? Well, that's still true...  But it's also for main-list books. There's traditional publishing for good books, too, but the odds seem to be shifting toward higher average income for a *good* self published book than for an average midlist trad pub book.

Why? It's all about the ebooks. Nathan Bransford (agent, writer) posted to his blog recently that fiction ebooks account for 20-30% of the current fiction market in the US. It's expected at this point that for fiction at least (and possibly all consumer books) that ebook sales will outnumber print book sales by the end of 2011.

This is huge. It means that a novel, released to ebook by the author in Dec 2011 will probably reach half the potential US audience (and a large percent in AU, UK, and other areas). And the author wil earn 70% royalties on those sales, as opposed to 14.9% (after agent fees) on ebook sales through a major publisher.

Borders's bankruptcy is accelerating the situation, so is the stunning success of the ipad and ipad2, and the Kindle passed Deathly Hollows as the best selling Amazon product of all time last December; they've sold over 12 million now. B&N is in trouble too, with stock values plummeting to less than half their 52-week high. They can't ditch most of their retail stores easily (they own the buildings), but print sales are falling, and more of their brick & mortar stores are losing money than earning money. It's possible we might see B&N in bankruptcy within a year or two, as well.

Over the past month, the top 100 fiction ebook bestsellers on Amazon have been 30-40% indie published. That's huge. The top ranked ebooks are still almost 2/3 traditionally published, but the fact that over a third on average have been published by the authors is a stunning, industry changing figure. (read about it here: 
Write to Publish: Amazon 100 - 3/19/2011  and other articles on the same site, she's doing an amazing job tracking this).

With ebooks growing like mad, and print-on-demand now easy, cheap, and getting you into Amazon and B&N.com, and letting customers order copies from most other bookstores - a lot of authors are asking "what can publishers do for me that I can't do for myself?"

Some answers.

Marketing. As most of you who've published before know, most books don't get publisher dollars for marketing to consumers. Publishers market books to retailers - put just enough behind each book to put copies on the shelves of major chains, and in some of the indie bookstores. For most books, virtually all of the marketing is done by the writer. However, for bestsellers, there is substantial marketing money put behind the book. If you've got a six-figure contract for a book, you can probably expect some decent money to be spent on the book, because the publisher wants to sell enough copies to more or less pay off your advance, and they only have 6-12 months to do that before your book leaves the shelves (publishers are still focused much more on print sale than long tail ebook sales).

I'm sure you all read about the Amanda Hocking deal - she's self published 9 books, sold over 2 million copies of them, got a $2 million deal for four more books from St. Martin's? The thing a lot of folks miss is that during the years St. Martin's will be putting out those four books, she plans to publish 10-15 additional self pub books. She knows that with that investment in her advance, they will pour marketing money into her books - and her name - boosting sales of ALL her books, including the total 19-24 she expects to have in print and ebook on her own by the time they release her fourth book.  This is almost a perfect storm for a writer today: a strong writer with a great audience who got big bucks marketing put behind a couple of her books, which benefits the majority of her books - that are self published, and therefore earning her more. She expects to lose money on the 4 books sold to St. Martins, but expects to more than make it up because of the boost those books will give her other work. I think she's right.

Now, let me be clear - you're no Amanda Hocking. At least, probably not.    Neither am I. Most of us aren't. And that's OK. But if we're going to market our own books, anyway, then that's not an advantage of traditional publishing.

What does that leave? Editing. Cover. Formating. Print distribution (because ebook distribution is the same for indie or trad pub).

Editing is where most indie books fall down. The biggest fail point. Editing is hard. You cannot edit your own book. Sorry - there are a few folks out there who can self edit well enough for publication. Most cannot. Betcha you can find a typo in this essay somewhere, if you look for it, and I'm pretty good at checking my work. Editing costs money. Content editing (to fix story issues) requires an accomplished content editor, and costs minimally $2k for most novels. Many writers get around this by partnering with another *experienced* (i.e. publishable quality) writer to content edit each others' work. You also need copy editing (checking for spelling, grammar, etc.), which costs minimally around $250 a book.

There are tricks which work to varying degrees to minimize these expenses, but you need SOME form of content editing (even if it's a few superb beta readers or something) and SOME form of solid, strong, reliable copy editing. Miss those, and people will notice.

Of course, this is part of the deal in traditional publishing. They edit your work. You should never be paying for editing on a book you're submitting to traditional publishers.

Covers are another "included" part of the trad pub deal. Covers are probably the #2 killer of a self published work. I'm sure you've all seen bad covers on trad pub books. But the depths to which "bad" can plummet are only truly plumbed by self publishers (and I say that with fondness and love). If your cover is bad, your book is probably dead on arrival. I have a background in art and design, and have started experimenting with covers. Mine are decent. They're not as good as I'd like, but I'm learning (and practicing NOW - before I actually try to release anything on my own). Most folks don't have college classes and pro work in computer art and design, so I'd be cautious about trying to go it alone. You can get nice art inexpensively from a college with an art program (go-go-gadget-starving-college-students!). Or you can hire an excellent cover artist for as little as $200-400, although a complex digital painting will probably cost you $500-1500.

Print book distribution is still huge, though. Right now, over 70% of fiction books are still sold in print. Maybe as high as 80%. That's a big chunk of the market. While indies can do print on demand (POD), that only hits the Amazon and B&N.com, pretty much (minimal if any orders at bookstores). You might be hitting as much as 40% of the total market with ebook and POD, but that's still almost 2/3 you're missing. And those bookstore shelves have a lot of impact on visibility.

This is the main reason to still use traditional publishers, and will be for basically as long as B&N keeps their stores open. They're probably closing at least a hundred stores this year, though, and that may grow next year even if they avoid bankruptcy. So we're looking at the potential for things just a few years down the road to be much more friendly to the indie, in terms of reaching the overall market. Right now? Still favors big publishers heavily though. And these folks (publishers) are smart, have deep pockets, and lots of experience - believe that they are working on ways to stay relevant even as they're being disintermediated.

That IS what's happening, though. They're being disintermediated. The more ebook sales grow, and the more people who order print books from a website instead of going to a bookstore, the more ground indie publishers gain on the overall market. Every passing month makes the climate better for self published books, and less strong for trad pub ones. I don't think traditional publishers are going to go away. I do think we're going to see a lot of change, though. Higher ebook royalties have to come. More focus on speed (indies can launch a book in a month, big publishers take 12-24 months during which the indie is already earning money). Probably more focus on building branding on the publisher imprint, rather than the authors - think about Baen, for instance, where the books tend to have a similar "tone", so readers who like Baen often tend to read most books Baen puts out, regardless who wrote them.

Things like that will keep traditional publishers relevant in the years ahead. But the indie is probably here to stay, too. Not with a majority market share; but with a noticeable one. We'll see most successful authors mixing it up, I think, publishing some books on their own and some through a publisher.

Kevin O. McLaughlin
Writing and Publishing blog at Kevin O. McLaughlin Â« Exploring the worlds of writing and publishing.


----------



## srg

Kevin, that was an excellent post.  Thanks!

Ravana, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  Obviously our thoughts on self-publishing are coloured by what we personally look for when buying books; unlike others in the thread, I *don't* look at the publishing house on the book.  About the only thing that constitutes a label that I look for is the author, and even then I will occasionally take the chance on a new author (regardless of how it was published).

I think that's why I don't see self-publishing as such a bad way to go if you're going to release a book.  Yes, if I'm going to self-publish, I have to do all these things myself (or at least hire somebody myself, as it were).  To be frank though, I would probably release my stuff for free rather than worry about making sales.  So why sink a ton of money into it when I can do as much on my own as I can?  People are a lot more forgiving when it comes to free stuff.

I also have reasonable expectations when it comes to self-publishing.  I definitely don't have it in my head (at least not anymore) that I'm going to make a decent income by self-publishing.  I know how much work is involved when it comes to self-publishing.

But I would still recommend it to anyone if they're on the fence about it.  Like I said earlier, if someone is dead set on submitting their manuscript to a publishing house, I wouldn't stop them.  I agree, there are plenty of advantages to going with a print publisher.  Still, I think there are more advantages to self-publishing.  But I'm looking at it from my own interests, and not everyone sees it that way.


----------



## Philip Overby

Be reminded that offering stuff for free also has a stigma attached to it.  Readers may shy away from something that is free, strangely enough.  I know I have in the past.


----------



## Ravana

srg said:


> To be frank though, I would probably release my stuff for free rather than worry about making sales.…
> 
> I also have reasonable expectations when it comes to self-publishing.  I definitely don't have it in my head (at least not anymore) that I'm going to make a decent income by self-publishing.



Well, I did say it depended on your goals. Myself, I'm going to write the stuff whether it ever sees print (or any other form of distribution) or not, and while I'd love for it to be at least a money-making hobby–my present output is too low for it to be a "career" in any event–I'm not worried about the difference between it making little money or no money. That being the case, though, I have no more reason to self-publish than to go a through traditional publisher… whereas I'd rather not _close off_ the possibility of traditional publication in the long run, which is a very real danger when one self-publishes. 



> I agree, there are plenty of advantages to going with a print publisher.  Still, I think there are more advantages to self-publishing.  But I'm looking at it from my own interests, and not everyone sees it that way.



Precisely. My warning applies mainly to those who are considering (or simply fantasizing about) writing as a professional or semi-professional career in the long term. _Maybe_ the attitude within the industry toward self-publishers will change over time, but I highly doubt it, simply because I can't see any reason why it would… quite the opposite, in fact. Certainly, e-books will continue to increase their market share–but I firmly believe that publishing houses (some new ones, some trad houses that acknowledge the trend and transition) will still ultimately control the overall market, through exclusionary distribution and promotion deals with online retailers. (In fact, I suspect most will start selling e-books directly… if they haven't already: I haven't looked. Though they'll still want to cut deals with retailers, because that's where customers are most likely to go looking for product.)

If all you want to do is make your stuff available to whomever, and maybe make a couple bucks a month off it, then sure, self-publishing is a viable option. If you think you might ever want to go beyond that… then you should avoid self-publishing, no matter the format: at best, it will be of no benefit, and unless long-hardened editorial attitudes toward self-publishing undergo radical change, it will probably be detrimental. I admit I could be wrong; maybe they will change… but I also know what they are now, and I'd like to see some reasons to believe that change might happen before trusting my future to that possibility–which, at present, I don't.

-

I will even go so far as to admit that I _have_ (gasp!) "self-published" a chapbook of poetry once–that is, I selected some of my poems, laid them out so that they'd appear correctly on folded, saddle-stapled 8 1/2 x 11 (which is actually harder than it sounds…), drew a cover illustration (poorly), then went down to (what was then) Kinko's, ran off a couple dozen copies on really nice parchment with a cardstock cover, and sold them to family and friends at cost. Maybe the remaining copies will be worth something, someday, to someone–as "rare juvenilia" (not strictly true) editions. So, yes, it all depends on your individual needs and aspirations.

And if you think I would _ever_ claim that as a "prior publication" on a cover letter–or even mention it in casual conversation with an editor–you're nuts. It will remain my little secret… at least until after, say, my fortieth published title: should be okay to admit it by then.…


----------



## srg

I think the bottom line is that in order to have a successful career self-publishing, you need to be writing on Kevin J. Anderson output levels.  And he writes a LOT.  I think he had a blog post one day where he basically said what some writers do in a year, he does in 6 weeks or something like that.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Srg, I think what a lot of folks miss is that you need to write at or close to that level to make a living in ANY form of publishing - for most authors, anyway. If you leave aside the top tiny percent who sell a book a year for hundreds of thousands of dollars in advance per book, and look at "everyone else" - you're going to see a lot of books that get very small advances, and almost require a writer to be producing 3-5 books a year to make a decent living.

Most professional, full time writers are producing at that speed. You just don't always see them, because corporate publishing usually puts artificial constraints on authors (one book per year, maybe two, for most people, the Nora Roberts of the writing world being the exception). So you have one full time writer producing four books - under four different names, possibly even in multiple genres.

(Incidentally, that's one thing indie publishing is doing away with - writers are free to produce books under their own names, rather than using pen names for "extra" books.)

Most writers who can only produce one book per year are working some other job at the same time, or being financially supported by someone.

I think Ravena is dead on about the attitude in the industry. Corporate publishing HATES self publishing. I don't see that changing. Why would it? Indie writers are competition for them. And the number of quality indie writers is continuing to swell, enlarging their competition manyfold. I don't know that indie published books will ever become a majority, but I think the future is almost certainly going to be one where indie publishing owns a significant minority of the market.

All you have to do is look at the Amazon ebook bestseller list, and see 38% of the top 100 fiction ebooks written by indies, and you can see the way that wind is blowing. The good news is though, that readers don't care. We've got multiple indies selling tends of thousands of copies of their books per day - hundreds more selling thousands per month - thousands more selling hundreds per month. This isn't small anymore. This is huge. It's a sea change in the way writing is brought to readers. It's still just drops in the ocean right now compared to the size and wealth of corporate publishers - but those drops are continuing to increase in number exponentially.


----------



## Kelise

Phil the Drill said:


> Be reminded that offering stuff for free also has a stigma attached to it.  Readers may shy away from something that is free, strangely enough.  I know I have in the past.


 
I agree here. I go to a few writing conventions a year, I follow publishers and other book groups on facebook and twitter and last year alone I got 36 free books just by putting up my hand, or answering a question in 25 words or less, etc. 

Some of those books are good deals - good books we've been waiting on for ages to come out, and YAY it's finally here. These kinds of books are usually given away singly, and you have to be lucky.

Then there's books that are given away in their 20s. Or, if you're paranormal romance - in the hundreds, literally. And these books are generally not worth the postage.

So be wary if there's giveaways of books that are too generous. It usually means they need all the help they can get for publicity. I'm yet to have enjoyed a book that was given away by the dozens, sadly enough.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I've actually enjoyed a book given away in the tens of thousands (John Scalzi's "Agent to the Stars", originally posted on his blog before he sold it to a publisher) but I think that's sort of the exception that proves the rule.  

I could see maybe posting short stories to your blog. I know some pro writers who do that - post the story to their blog for a week or so, then publish to ebook for sale at 99 cents. Publishing it on their blog might lose them a handful of sales once it goes "live", but it also draws readers in to their site, gives potential buyers of their novels a taste of their writing, maybe gets some more readers. You're only making 35 cents a sale on a 99 cent short story anyway, so losing a few sales there to pick up new readers? Sure, makes sense to me.

But seriously, if you want to write professionally - either your writing is good enough to sell, or it should probably stay in your desk drawer or hard drive. Getting an audience of people who like reading free stories probably isn't going to help you when you try to transition to selling your stories.


----------



## srg

What do you think of Cory Doctorow's success?  Granted, his books are both given away for free under a Creative Commons License AND published via traditional publishing.  I don't think he suffers at all by giving his books away for free (which, actually, does often promote sales of the real thing.  Another book doing this right now is Machine of Death - while they prefer sales, they're also giving away free PDF versions).


----------



## Ravana

It's the same as with most other "success" cases: since he's already published traditionally, he can get away with giving some of his stuff away if he wants.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Cory Doctorow's success is based on Cory Doctorow. He's a well known name, so people go and buy his books.

However, I don't think his model is sustainable. We've reached a point where a large number of folks in the field are expecting fiction, at the least, to be 50%+ digital by the end of 2011. Nonfiction is trailing fiction, but will pass that 50% mark in 2012 at the latest.

Mike Shatzkin just made a blog post today about another major change in publishing that just happened - albeit a quiet one. For the first time ever, publishers are beginning to make deals where *print* is the subsidiary right, and digital the primary. That's huge, because it means publishers are acknowledging that by the time books they are buying *today* hit bookstores, digital is already likely to be the primary format.

Giving away the digital and selling the print is going to be a losing proposition, very soon. For everyone, even Doctorow.



Ravana said:


> It's the same as with most other "success" cases: since he's already published traditionally, he can get away with giving some of his stuff away if he wants.


 
I guess that depends on how you define success, Ravana. I lost count months ago of the number of folks who had zero corporate published books, but are now making a decent full time wage from self published books. To me, that spells success.   At this point, I think there's literally hundreds of them, which is pretty amazing. Now admittedly, that's only hundreds, out of a couple of tens of thousands of people trying - but that's about the same odds you see if getting your book through the whole "get an agent, find a publisher" system, so the odds seem pretty even right now.

And I think the future is going to be one where publishers slash their midlist writers to the bone, concentrating mostly on guaranteed bestsellers. We're already seeing those cutbacks bump a lot of talented midlist writers into indie publishing, and I expect that will accelerate. My guess - which is all it is, and worth about as much as anyone else's guess - is that within a year, big publishers will be almost entirely bestseller focused, using their marketing push to make big sellers out of a few books; small press and agents-turned-publishers will be handling publishing for writers who don't want to do it alone. And most books - what used to be midlist and low list books - will be published by either those small/agent presses or indie published.


----------



## srg

I'm fairly certain (like 99%) that Cory Doctorow has always given away his works online. Also, I don't think he is successful because he is a previously published author; in fact I don't think he even measures up too well against most "mainstream" authors. He's mainly famous online amongst the early innovators crowd and people who are also big about creative commons. 

I'd have to dig around for it but I'm pretty sure he's established that he makes decent sales partly because he gives his stuff away for free.


----------



## Ophiucha

The problem still stands, though, that self-publishing is unregulated. I think, in light of ebooks boom in success, small publishers may become the more profitable option, but it should still stick with the publisher. Self publishing is still such a flawed industry. I might not be getting a good book when I pick something up from Ballantine or Tor, but at least I can feel fairly confident that it won't be missing any punctuation or misspelling words. And that is still a _big_ problem with self-published books. I browse ebooks online from time to time, reading excerpts to see if there are any gems in the rough, but once you hit your 90th copy with a typo in the first chapter, you just have to say "**** it, I'll shell out the money for a proper book."


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Ophiucha said:


> The problem still stands, though, that self-publishing is unregulated.


 
I think that's a misunderstanding. It's not unregulated - it's regulated by readers. Same as video is today, on YouTube. Same as music is today, on iTunes, and the same as blogs and community sites are, using Google. It's worked for every form of media that's been run through this "convert to digital" mill. I have confidence that it will work for literature as well.

And I don't think that confidence is really misplaced. Right now, somewhere in the 35% range of the top 100 bestselling fiction ebooks are indie published. That's astonishing - and spectacular! Because it means that when someone produces quality work, the reader really doesn't care. Heck - in a lot of cases, probably just doesn't even *know* it's a self published book.

I mean, think about it - how many thousands of small presses are there, out there? How many more are popping up this year to take advantage of epublishing? How many readers are going to bother remembering more than one or two small press names? Almost none.

So from a reader's perspective,_ assuming you write a good book, it is well edited, and packaged in a professional manner_, is the reader going to see any difference between that ebook, produced by your company "Magic Dragon Press" and stories produced by some other small press named "Twilight Stories" or "Amber Press"?

Probably not.

That quality is absolutely and completely key, though. It might not matter quite as much right this second - folks are selling thousands of copies of some less well edited books right now. It's sort of a wild west at the moment. But I do completely believe that will fade, and the folks who self-publish like pros will have pro careers. Those who don't, won't.


----------



## Ophiucha

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I think that's a misunderstanding. It's not unregulated - it's regulated by readers. Same as video is today, on YouTube. Same as music is today, on iTunes, and the same as blogs and community sites are, using Google. It's worked for every form of media that's been run through this "convert to digital" mill. I have confidence that it will work for literature as well.


 
I don't think that is quite the same, but... What do I listen to on iTunes? Bands I've already liked who are mostly if not entirely produced through labels, and if they are not, it is because they are famous enough to not need one. What do I watch on YouTube? Mostly music videos, produced by major record companies who have YouTube channels. The original content I watch varies wildly on whether or not it is 'popular' or not. I'll take my vihart and melinapendulum over Fred or sxephil any day, though, but really, most of those sorts of people I follow are friends-of-friends. Blogs? Again, most of the ones I follow are from people who are famous for something else, or who have well under a thousand followers (usually just my friends or friends-of-friends). By this token, I'd end up buying indie published books almost entirely by authors who have published something professionally before, or from people who I know IRL or at least very well online (good friends on writer's forums like this one). So...


----------



## srg

Ophiucha said:


> Bands I've already liked who are mostly if not entirely produced through labels, and if they are not, it is because they are famous enough to not need one.



First of all I think it's unfair to compair books to music - what's going on with the switch to e-publishing is somewhat similar to what happened with music 10 years ago, sure, but music is a different beast entirely.  However, when you say "bands that are famous enough to not need a label" - that's sort of the same thing as saying an author who is famous enough to not need a publishing house and is _self-publishing_.  Sort of the same.

Sort of the same as saying, "well, this self-published author is different because he's popular."  But what if said author got popular because s/he wrote good quality books that readers enjoyed, and bought en masse and spread the word to other friends?  You're saying you wouldn't even try them because they weren't previously published?

Either way, you're arguing your point of views against Kevin's points, which are about the average audience.  Maybe you're not the average audience then?  Indie published works aren't for everyone - that much has been established in this thread.  It's working for a lot of people who don't care about the label though.


----------



## srg

Gah I just lost a post I was working on because my browser crashed.

Anyway all I was going to say was that if you _did_ want to compare the music industry to the publishing industry, you'd find that there are also a lot of independant artists who are just as good, if not better, than those signed to major record labels.

They may not be on the Top 40, but they have their own fans and probably make a decent amount of money.  And they don't get screwed over by the label and get to keep most of what they make.

All of that to say, pretty much every entertainment industry has its own section of independant artists that are successful in their own right.  There is a window of opportunity for them, even if it's not your cup of tea.


----------



## Ophiucha

In regards to the original point, it isn't necessarily bands that started out indie and became popular, but ones who signed to a record and became popular enough that they could do it alone afterwards. And in that regard, yeah, the same stands for books. If Neil Gaiman self-publishes a book, it'll sell by the millions because he's _Neil Gaiman_. Similarly, if a band I like decides to abandon their record company, I'm not going to stop buying their albums just because they don't have the producers behind them. That all said, my experience with indie music has been basically the same as ebooks. I think there's only one independent musician I honestly really love, and a couple that have a good sound, but are just lacking the polishing.

And I hate the Top 40. Just like I hate most of the NYT Bestseller's List, honestly. I don't think public opinion is necessarily indicative of quality _either_. I've read _Marked_, which hit the list and went through a respectable enough publisher. And after reading that, I've crossed one publisher off the list, let me tell you. Doesn't help that they've also worked with Dan Brown.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

It's never going to be identical in two media. Wasn't trying to say that... Just saying that huge heaping piles of bad writing aren't going to make it much harder to find the ones which are good. Consumer-driven searching algorithms can handle enormous, insanely huge quantities of shlock with very small percentages of decent material, and still have no trouble finding the decent material. 

Bad books aren't going to sell. Good books *are* selling, regardless of who is publishing them.


----------



## srg

I'll agree with that.

(One more note re: music though.  I run a podcast/blog about creative commons music.  Trust me when I say there's a lot of good stuff out there that doesn't get through to people.  Again, it's not for everyone, but there is a lot of stuff with high production values that sounds really good.  And I was just using "Top 40" as an example, because that's primarily what you see pushed on the front of the iTunes store).


----------



## Ravana

srg said:


> I'm fairly certain (like 99%) that Cory Doctorow has always given away his works online.



Not exactly. He was established within the SF community prior to any of his novels being released under CC… just not necessarily as an author. His first book was one of the _Complete Idiot's Guide_ books, his second _Essential Blogging_, both "self-help" titles; he'd served as regional director of SFWA even before that (which means he was active in fandom–and the business–and was known by other writers and their contacts, as well as by anyone in the convention scene in his area, probably well outside it), and had seen some short publication. He is a co-editor of a SF weblog which was formerly a print mag and is a regular contributor to _Wired_, _Popular Science_, and _Locus_–just to name a few; I don't know when these activities began in relation to his first SF book, but they certainly contribute to his overall visibility and concomitant success. 

And his SF novels have all been released by Tor simultaneously with their releases under CCL. Which means that they were _accepted by a traditional publisher before_ they ever appeared in any other form. 



> Also, I don't think he is successful because he is a previously published author; in fact I don't think he even measures up too well against most "mainstream" authors.
> 
> I'd have to dig around for it but I'm pretty sure he's established that he makes decent sales partly because he gives his stuff away for free.



Think about those two statements a minute. If he's making "decent" sales, he's measuring up against other authors just fine; and if he's making "sales," it's not from giving his stuff away–that being somewhat of a contradiction. The availability of his books through CCL may serve as good advertising for the printed versions… but that's no different from having them appear on library shelves being good advertising. 

The one exact thing he absolutely did _not_ do was start out by self-publishing. In fact, as far as I can tell without digging through every last title with his name on it, _he has *never* self-published *anything*._ Every novel, short story collection, nonfiction book, story or article I've found so far has been accepted for publication by someone else. So, by all means, use Doctorow as an example of how to use digital distribution… as long as you also keep in mind using him as an example of how _not_ to.


----------



## srg

I never said CD self-published - I brought him up as an example of someone giving away their books and having it not hurt their sales (it actually helps).  Separate discussion from self-publishing.

Cory Doctorow on Giving Away Free E-Books and the Morality of “Copying”

This is a few years old now (I bet he would re-evaluate his stance on digital books not replacing paper books now, for instance) but pretty much explains his philosophy.


----------



## Kate

Wow! This _is _a contentious topic. And a discussion I'm glad to have come across.  

Self publishing has been on my mind for a while now, and I'm torn. 

Yes, there's a prestige in getting accepted by a publisher in the traditional way. It's a giant confidence booster to have someone say yes your work is good enough for us to spend money on.
Yes, I do think that there is a culture of skepticism around "vanity press" and I think that inhibits the chances of selling a SP book.

But on the other hand, the Internet has changed the world (not news, I know), and I think that with the explosion of ebooks now days, the perception of self publication is changing too.  But the problem is that it is changing slowly.

And there are people who HAVE succeeded in self publishing. And there are people who haven't.  Just the same as traditional publishing I suppose.  And also many who have started in SP, were picked up by a major house after they'd already made a name for themselves.  So really, SP may lead to traditional publishing, given the right environment. 

I think it ultimately depends on what each individual writer wants to achieve.  I have a friend who has one novel published in the traditional manor, but this year she's launching into self publishing rather than even trying to get another MS shopped around.  And she's absolutely over the moon about the decision.  She doesn't expect to make any money, and that's not why she's doing it.  So, naturally, she's going to be successful.

If anyone is going down this road, ebooks or otherwise, I sincerely believe that a having an air tight marketing strategy is the only way to succeed, and even then you're not guaranteed to make a cent.  But is that why you write?


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

The prestige point is interesting, Kate. I was arguing that same point with someone, not long ago - that there was more prestige involved in being with a traditional press. The reply was something along the lines of...if you are losing control of your work, and quite possibly losing money, for the prestige of that thing - has corporate publishing become the new "vanity" press? If a main advantage of that format is prestige at a cost of other factors?

That floored me. Didn't really know how to respond to that. I started arguing "more readership" instead - even if you earned less, you got more readers, or readers who shop in new places at least. (Which was true six months ago, but with Borders on its way out and B&N planning to close every store they can afford to this year, I have to wonder if it would still be true by the time a book you submitted today was in print.)

I gather marketing has changed an awful lot in the decade and a half since my last book was published... Used to be, publishers did marketing for you. Now, I am hearing from folks doing just corporate publishing or a mix of corporate/indie that they're not doing any more marketing for their indie books than they are for the corporate ones. Or maybe better to say: they have to do just as much for the corporate ones, because nobody else is marketing them. For most books, it sounds like publishers are mainly/only marketing to retailers now, not readers.

So I think you probably need a good marketing plan regardless how you plan to publish, right? And whichever way you go, you're not guaranteed to make anything. Just like most self published books don't sell too many copies, most books submitted to corporate publishers don't sell any copies at all... Gotta write a good book to do well either way, is what I figure.


----------



## Kate

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The prestige point is interesting, Kate. I was arguing that same point with someone, not long ago - that there was more prestige involved in being with a traditional press. The reply was something along the lines of...if you are losing control of your work, and quite possibly losing money, for the prestige of that thing - has corporate publishing become the new "vanity" press? If a main advantage of that format is prestige at a cost of other factors?



That's a fascinating point, Kevin.  I think I might agree with it too. It's that sense of acceptance - "my work is good enough for them, so it must be good". But thinking about it some more, it seems it could go the way of SP too "my work is good enough, it doesn't need corporate approval". 

Really, how different is a self published book that only sells a few copies, to a book in a remainder bin? And let's face it, a huge number of published writers do end up in the remainder bin.  

You're right too, Kevin. Online bookselling, over off the shelf retailing is a reality. So why shouldn't I be that first point of online retailing, for my own work?
And your last is a good point to remember, if you can't write a good book, then you can't sell one.  SP isn't a way to sell bad books because bad books don't sell.


----------



## Fnord

As I've pondered sitting down to write again, I've thought about this myself.  We all fancy ourselves good writers but being a good writer really isn't enough--especially now.  I'm a musician too, and I've recorded a lot because recording technology has gotten so much cheaper and I can record an album on the same machine I'm typing this post on.  20 years ago, I would have been paying $120 an hour for the privilege.  

But there's a double-edged sword to it.  Prices are a signaling mechanism and as the price of something drops, the more widely available it becomes.  While this is fine when it comes to computers or gadgets, in creative endeavors we end up drowning in a sea of noise.  When you were paying $120 an hour to record, you probably had a pretty good idea of how good you were, especially since the "tape didn't lie".  You didn't throw down that kind of money if you weren't at least confident that you had a product to sell.  But what happens when the price of those types of things comes down dramatically?  Well now people's decisions are going to change.  

And so just as the music market is oversaturated with every band in the world's demos, so too will the writing market.  Being a good writer hoping to make a living becomes harder and harder the more the "cloud" drowns you out.  I discovered it as a musician and I don't plan to make the mistake as I ponder returning to writing.  But, for me anyway, it will be a labor of love, regardless of who does or does not read it.  And just as I played music for my own enjoyment first and foremost, that's how I'm going to approach writing.  If someone else ends up enjoying it, great.  But I don't have the energy to try and claw my needle to the top of the publishing haystack.


----------



## Kate

You make some good points Fnord.  I agree that the relative inexpense of self publishing (and music too, but let's keep on track here),  has certainly allowed a mass of low quality material to flood the market.  It's similar to blogs in a way. Anyone can have a blog, and millions do because it's such an easy thing to do.  And of course that means that there are a million + low quality blogs out there, for whatever reason. The good ones stand out because people work hard at them and they work hard to market them, so a certain standard is naturally produced.  If what someone writes is awful, they're soon going to realise that by the public responses, or lack thereof to their work, and either keep going without improving because they just do whatever they do because they like it, or they're going to work hard to improve on it.

Yes, self publishing is also going to equal an increase of competition, even for good writers.  I think though, exactly like we see in the blog world, those that offer something a little different somehow will always be those with the most success in this arena.  

We're all, as writers, in the middle of the change now. To self publish, or not is something a lot of people I know (myself included) are currently weighing up. Who knows what changes in traditional publishing models will bring to the game as more people start getting their reading through self published channels.  All pretty exciting really..... Well, maybe just for me.


----------



## Ravana

> The prestige point is interesting, Kate. I was arguing that same point with someone, not long ago - that there was more prestige involved in being with a traditional press. The reply was something along the lines of...if you are losing control of your work, and quite possibly losing money, for the prestige of that thing - has corporate publishing become the new "vanity" press? If a main advantage of that format is prestige at a cost of other factors?



To be perfectly clear: the prestige issues I was arguing have to do with prestige _within the industry itself_… not with potential readers. It's possible you could build up a decent readership solely through self-publishing, along with aggressive self-promotion and good word-of-mouth recommendations. It wouldn't be easy… but it would be possible. 

_However_… if you have any ambition to eventually be published under contract–presumably in print, but possibly even solely in e-formats–then self-publishing will, at best, do you no favors once you finally do reach the point you decide to submit your works; and until (and unless) the vast inertial weight of opinion within the industry alters significantly, self-publication may well be held against you… as it is now.

I still feel that publication will continue to be controlled by professional houses, even in regard to e-books. I fully expect that once the publishing houses get up to speed on the new format, they will negotiate favorable, if not exclusionary, contracts with the major e-retailers. The "first point of contact"–be it Amazon, Google, or whomever–will preferentially display those works that have been published by such houses: it is these that will appear first to any reader "browsing" their electronic shelves, while less favored ones will be pushed toward the back of the queue… with self-published works coming in last. Companies such as Barnes and Noble, which is both publisher and retailer, may limit their content solely to those texts they publish… though it's more likely they'll also sell the products of certain other houses willing to contract with them (as B&N does now). (Actually, in B&N's case, it's even worse, since they're also one of the largest producers of e-readers: is it really escaping people's notice that they're trying to take _complete_ control of the supply chain? Where do you think that might leave indies, let alone self-pubs?)

-

srg: I stand corrected. What I said is no less relevant, though: he may be able to "get away with" giving his books away for free, with no loss to "prestige" (however defined), but he can do this _because_ he's Cory Doctorow, and because he _was_ known before he started doing this. As such, his giving his texts away is no different from any other free promotion. It may even reach more potential readers than other similar methods; wouldn't surprise me if it did, and, if so, it ought to lead to greater success. On the other hand, it can't help his sales if he isn't _also_ selling something… like, say, print books. Try offering your book for free online and also selling it online–_only_–and see how many people are willing to pay for the same thing if they don't have to.

I would add that the arrangement Doctorow presently has with his publisher is one that is probably going to vanish very soon, if it hasn't already (and I'd be surprised if it hasn't). He managed to sneak the idea in on Tor before there _were_ e-readers; I assume he set up a good long-term contract that says he can continue offering his books for free–at least until the contract runs out. Anybody signing a book contract today can probably expect to be signing away electronic as well as print distribution, now that it actually matters. (Which doesn't affect any of the foregoing discussions one way or the other: it's just the usual caution about reading the contract carefully and knowing what it is you're agreeing to.)


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Some interesting new tidbits over the last couple of days...

#1: The AAP just released new numbers for the US publishing industry in February. Ebooks have overtaken mass market paperbacks and become the largest share of consumer book revenue, representing 29.5% of sales in Feb, taking into account only the 14 largest publishers (i.e., not including any indie sales or small press, epress, etc. sales). Some estimates place the count including small press/indie sales at 34-35%.

This is HUGE. It means that, as of two months ago, print is a subsidiary right. Digital is now the primary right, after which are hardcover and paperback rights, then audio etc. It also means we can expect to see paperback prices rise this year. Mike Shatzkin (well known industry analyst) did the math a while back and showed that once ebooks took 20-25% of the market, publishers would lose their economy of scale, and prices on all print books would be forced to rise by 10-20%. This would then cause more movement to digital for readers, which would again hurt the economy of scale, eventually pushing print prices up to around the trade paperback level. They would stabilize there, because that's a workable price range for print on demand sales.

It also means that the acceleration of digital is happening faster than all but a few people thought it would. Going from 8.3% in December to 29.5% in February makes it seem likely, perhaps certain, that ebooks will pass the 50% mark in 2011 - not in 2014-15 like most analysts predicted last year. The upcoming $99 ad-supported Kindles and Apple's hopes to sell 45 million iPad2s this year will only fuel the fire.

#2: A number of authors have been on the web this week talking about missing ebook sales from major publishers. It seems like several major publishers have mis-represented ebook sales to authors in their royalty statements this week, reporting somewhere around 10%, possibly less, of the total actual sales. These folks (check it out in Mike Stackpole's Stormwolf blog, or Kristine Kathryn Rusch where Kristine Rusch talks about this at length - David Farland also blasted publishers for this in his "Daily Kick" email a few days ago) are calling for mass audits of the responsible publishers (major houses) by all of the national writing organizations.

Again, huge. When digital was only a few percent, writers tended to ignore the digital sales. They were not really tracking them well. Now, though, with digital representing perhaps a third of a traditional book deal's income, losing 90% of that income down some oddball accounting mess up is huge. And the fact that this seems to be systemic, not just one or two authors, means it represents a major issue. The fact that one publisher *refused* Stackpole's request for an audit, claiming their ebook accounting was "not prepared for auditing yet" is not only a danger sign, but a violation of the publisher's contract.

Closing: If ebooks are now the most sold book format - and the one format where self-publishing stands toe to toe equally with any publisher out there - then the reasons to sell to publishers have diminished greatly. With Borders on the way out, and B&N closing stores, that leaves indie bookstores as major markets - which Dean Wesley Smith has been writing about how to sell to this past week, over on his blog (Dean Wesley Smith). As the former owner of the 5th largest SF&F publisher, it's a field he knows something about...

And if publishers can no longer be trusted to accurately represent sales to authors, then there's simply something broken in the system. It seems to me like the reasons to self publish continue to grow rapidly, while the reasons against it shrink daily.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Quick side comment, re: what Ravana said.

About self publishing counting against you...
Less than it has for the last fifty years. In fact, I know personally of more self published books being picked up by publishers - either the books themselves, with rights sold over to the publisher, or simply future works by that writer (both have happened) in the last three months than I've heard of in the last ten years. Both editors and agents are actively scanning the ebook bestseller lists, looking for books and authors to pick up. A number of writers have told me they haven't even submitted their work - simply been offered contracts by publishers. Not talking about Hocking level sales here, either - even a few thousand book sales seem to be enough to get some serious interest going. Publishers care about "will your book make me money?" Nothing else. If your book is already making money, odds are good it can make them some, too, so they're increasingly happy to snag books already doing well. I see this as a trend which will grow.

On publishers setting up exclusionary deals with retailers:
Doubtful. Basically, they just can't do it, under US law. Major retailers tried before, and the smaller retailers sued and won. You cannot conspire to create an exclusionary environment in an industry. So NO deal between publishers and retailers will ever exclude small presses. Which is what the successful indies will morph into: small press publishers, producing their own work and perhaps a few others. There are things retailers can do to trim the slush, if it becomes an issue (say, tack a $100 fee onto each ebook upload - would cut out a lot of the junk books and not hurt any publishers). But indies will always be able to do anything a small press can do, and small press will never allow the big publishers to create an environment which excludes them. It might not always be as *easy* as it is today; but it will always be possible.


----------



## Ravana

> You cannot conspire to create an exclusionary environment in an industry. So NO deal between publishers and retailers will ever exclude small presses.



I'm sorry, but that's simply naive. (1) No law compels a retailer to carry a product line it does not wish to: replace the words "wish to" with "elect to contract with," and you have precisely the situation I describe. All the retailer need do is say that they did not consider a particular product line (i.e. publisher) likely to generate the sort of profit they're looking for, and they've more than covered themselves. Never mind saying that they regard the product as not meeting their standards (which leads right back to self-pub quality control), or that it isn't licensed for their proprietary format (B&N again), or that the product doesn't fit what they consider to be their market demographic, or that they're just flat-out not interested in carrying it (say, because they already offer too many similar products–"Sorry: 'shelves' are full"–and there's certainly no law saying a retailer isn't allowed to pass up something that might make them money, even where there is a reasonable expectation that it would do just that based on their sales of similar products). If you don't believe that, then go to the best bookstore you can reach, inspect their offerings of academic presses, and get back to me. Or, even easier, go to your nearest major-brand gas station and demand gasoline from one of their competitors: see how far that gets you. (Though, ironically, chances are what they're selling actually _is_ from a competitor, given the way gasoline distribution works… but it isn't likely to be tagged that way, and in any event you don't get to choose which one it comes from.) Or walk on to any number of college campuses in the U.S. and look for Coke and Pepsi machines side-by-side. Exclusive licensing and distribution contracts are the norm, not the exception… and are far from illegal. (2) The comic book industry, to take one specific example within the publishing world, is overwhelmingly dominated by a single distributor–Diamond–which, on the production end, won't distribute any publisher that's unwilling to do things their way (a fact that has driven more than one indie out of business)… whereas they are not obliged to sell to retailers that are unwilling to do things their way. Which is about as gross a violation of antitrust laws as you're likely to find outside of Microsoft, but… (3) Lawsuits can only be pursued to successful conclusion by people who can afford to do so. Small presses may have the wherewithal to sue large retailers–more likely, they'd do it collectively than separately; indie presses as a rule do not, and individuals are pretty much right out. Besides, all that needs happen is for the retailers to cut deals with the small presses in question–make them part of the system: they aren't going to go bringing lawsuits on behalf of their competitors simply as a matter of principle. And (4) even "small" presses are still traditional publishing. For that matter, even indie presses are traditional publishing, though they like to pretend otherwise; they are still selective as to what manuscripts they're willing to put their name on, and you still sign a contract with them.

Yes, the most successful indie presses will morph into small presses; it would hardly be surprising for a couple small presses to morph into majors… and will be equally unsurprising for one or more majors to go down if they don't embrace the new format quickly enough. I'd expect a certain amount of "slush-trimming" to start taking place soon, if it hasn't already, along the lines you suggest or any number of more devious ways the corporate world pays high salaries for people to come up with; to a minimal extent, this already happens, in the sense that most e-retailers pay out very different royalties if the price you want to charge doesn't fall within a certain range. 

As far as publishers picking up successful online books: yes, I agree that to some extent the prejudice is falling away–if _they_ find _you_. I'm not as sanguine as you are as to the rapidity with which this is fading, or the extent to which it ultimately will, and I'm far from convinced that listing self-pubs as "previous publications" on a query letter will be more rather than less likely to get your sample chapter read, at least any time in the foreseeable future. (And if the test is "a few thousand" sales, that'll keep the numbers of such successes fairly limited right there.) I may prove wrong about this: I've been wrong before–it's a job hazard when engaging in prognostication–and I will cheerfully admit it when and if this turns out to be the case. In the meantime, I'm not going to advise any friends to try self-publication if they have any aspirations to be anything _other_ than a self-published author. Some enemies, perhaps (that way, if I'm right, I'll derive satisfaction from it, and if I'm wrong, I'll at least benefit karmically form having done someone a good turn…  )–but not friends.

Consider, too, that even in the cases where stringers (more agents than editors, I suspect) are tracking down the good online sellers, all this means is that these books, or at any rate their authors, _are being brought back into the traditional channels of publication_… that the pros are trying to bring the market (back) under their _control_. Which, I believe, carries this full circle.…


----------



## Ophiucha

There _are_ small and even a handful of large publishers who are moving forward in the e-publication market, however, and I have _still_ yet to read a piece of even remotely convincing evidence that - medium aside - there is ANY benefit to self-publication over traditional publication. Because, let's be honest, traditional publishers aren't dumb. They are going to get on this in the next five years, probably less for some of them. Then we'll be back to where we were before. Do you self-publish for higher royalty percentages, but greater upfront costs, or do you go through traditional means, pay nothing, and get a small royalty back? Because once traditional publication gets their shit together in the ebook department, I am still very much in favor of the latter.

And, frankly, I would never want my book to be exclusively online.


----------



## Fnord

Kevin is right on the economy-of-scale thing.  I used to work in commercial printing; anything outside of flexographic label printing is a dying dinosaur.  Once the demand for something goes down sufficiently, the per-unit cost becomes higher than the expected revenue (especially accounting for the time-value of standing inventories).  Once E-readers achieve sufficient economies of scale and prices come down, it will be an effect akin to jumping off a see-saw. Industry bust.  

The music industry has been facing the ugly reality of this paradigm shift for awhile now, so it's probably best we pay attention to what has been happening there insofar as the future of creative arts like writing.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that retailers couldn't bar whom they wanted. That would be naive. What I was saying is that big publishers cannot *conspire* to create *special arrangements* with retailers which create an exclusive setup. They cannot even have the appearance of doing so. Not legal.

More, they don't want to. Really.  Do you think Amazon wants to cut out indies? Are you kidding? Thirty eight percent of their bestselling ebooks are by indies! Indies are pricing where Amazon wants ebooks, where big publishers are fighting every step of the way. Amazon is creating systems to let people get their blogs up, their short work up, their little one man periodicals up... Amazon is *pushing* indie right now very hard.

Indie - self published - sales make Amazon millions of dollars of profit every month. And every new program they've lit off in the last two years has been designed in a way which supports indie growth.

Other retailers are less friendly in this way, but that's where Smashwords comes in. Using Smashwords, your book gets into those channels which bar indie books (Sony, for instance) quickly and easily. Smashwords as an aggregator gives Sony great value - and indie writers great value in getting into those sites. The only major retailers which Smashwords cannot reach is Amazon and Google, both of which allow writers to go in directly.

Ain't going away.  All the signs point to the opposite, in fact. It's the large publishers - who expected change to happen years slower than it has - who are in trouble right now. Personally, I expect about half the largest 14 publishers to be gone by the end of 2012. Bankrupt. They changed too slow - they expected ebooks to hit the numbers they did in February, but they expected it in 2014. And at this point, it's almost too late. Changing would require incredible investment at this point to get it done in time. Writer trust in publishers is plummeting thanks to accounting errors and bad new contract clauses (non-compete, IP seizing, really horrid options clauses, etc.). And publisher profit margins, which were never much above 4%, are dipping into danger levels for some businesses.

I'm not saying publishing as a whole is going away... There's over a thousand publishing companies in the USA alone. Plenty will survive just fine. But I strongly suspect (as do a lot of other folks I've spoken to who are watching this mess unfold) that a number of the bigger ones are going to close their doors sooner rather than later.

(Edit to clarify: Actually, what I think will happen is major publishers will close their imprint sub-companies where they are unprofitable, gradually cutting back and cutting back operations. There will always be some areas where publishers are able to maintain a profit; for instance, K-12 education ebooks are about to explode, with several states planning to do to 100% e-textbook over the next couple of years, and that's a segment better filled by large textbook imprints than indies. But a lot of the largest, best known imprints may not survive this, especially for fiction.)


----------



## Ravana

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Actually, I wasn't suggesting that retailers couldn't bar whom they wanted. That would be naive. What I was saying is that big publishers cannot *conspire* to create *special arrangements* with retailers which create an exclusive setup. They cannot even have the appearance of doing so. Not legal.



Okay, I can accept that. But appearances can be _sooo_ deceiving. It's not "conspiracy" if it's carried out in "the regular course of business," after all. 

To wit:



> Other retailers are less friendly in this way, but that's where Smashwords comes in. Using Smashwords, your book gets into those channels which bar indie books (Sony, for instance) quickly and easily. Smashwords as an aggregator gives Sony great value - and indie writers great value in getting into those sites. The only major retailers which Smashwords cannot reach is Amazon and Google, both of which allow writers to go in directly.



So one channel (Sony) already refuses to work with certain publishers, while two others (Amazon and Google) already don't work with certain aggregators. Whether they will continue to work directly with individual authors is an open question; if I had to make a guess, Google will–for the foreseeable future–and Amazon eventually won't. 



> Do you think Amazon wants to cut out indies? Are you kidding? Thirty eight percent of their bestselling ebooks are by indies! Indies are pricing where Amazon wants ebooks, where big publishers are fighting every step of the way



Which means 62% aren't. Yes, I know those numbers will continue to change, but: if they were forced to jump one way or another today–to go with what is not only proven long-term success but also the majority, or to speculate on indies eventually becoming the majority source of sales–which do you think they'd choose? They don't face that choice, of course… yet. Maybe they never will. But if, as you say (and as I've been saying), big publishers are "fighting every step of the way," they may face something resembling that choice some day.

Besides, they don't have to "cut out" indies–not if they co-opt them instead. Again: indie pub is not the same as self-pub. Big publisher, small publisher, it's still a publishing company. 



> It's the large publishers - who expected change to happen years slower than it has - who are in trouble right now. Personally, I expect about half the largest 14 publishers to be gone by the end of 2012. Bankrupt.



I would guess fewer, but I don't have overall sales statistics at hand (nor am I aware of any way to get them through publicly available information… that's not the sort of thing most companies like to publish). I might guess that perhaps four will be unaffected or will expand (B&N being one of them); another six will contract somewhat but otherwise remain viable; the remaining four will either fold or drop to specialty-only markets–become "minors." More or less what you suggest in your edit. 



> Writer trust in publishers is plummeting thanks to accounting errors and bad new contract clauses (non-compete, IP seizing, really horrid options clauses, etc.).



That's another issue–two issues, really, with the contract clauses sounding very much like an echo of what I've been saying: that the publishers are trying everything they can think of to re-establish their control. And failing, in this case. Expect contracts to return to their normally exploitative natures, with the simple addition of an electronic publication clause, either buying those rights as well (the more likely course–possibly even _instead_ of buying print rights, for reasons I develop at the end of this post) or forbidding e-publication during the contract term, depending on just how close to the print profit margin they expect a given book to come. And expect companies that choose the latter to be among the ones that fail in the long run.

The "accounting errors" will need to be pursued, and sorted out, soon… since here there _is_ a real chance of a class-action suit from multiple aggrieved authors against whichever publisher(s), as these don't involve only marginal authors. Though don't be too surprised if at least some of these "errors" are a result of factors other than publisher malfeasance. Is the retailer tracking reliable? (I assume it would be for established online retailers such as Amazon; it might not be for others.) Were all the purported "sales" downloaded legally? If not, who gets shafted: the retailer, the publisher, the author? (All, of course… but it's one way in which the number of downloads might not match the number of "sales" recorded, and money changing hands, at another point in the line.) Do different retailers–or aggregators–report sales in different ways? Are any of these transactions outright being lost somewhere along the line… say, if the author never signed a digital rights contract with the publisher, but the retailer is still paying the publisher whenever a digital sale is made, because that's who _their_ contract is with? (I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the problem lies here, especially when older works from long-term contracted authors are involved. Wouldn't surprise me if some publishers simply made their entire active catalogs available for e-pub, without bothering to check whether or not they held the digital rights–or even realizing they might need to check this. And if so, it wouldn't surprise me if their accounting software doesn't have a way to credit such sales to an author's account, and the money's just going into a black hole somewhere: I've seen stupider things in accounting software before. Which doesn't make it right, let alone sound business, on the part of the publishers, but which would make any action brought against them much more complicated.)

-

We aren't really all that far apart here: more a matter of emphasis than anything else, I think. I guess I just have greater confidence in corporate America than you do… that is, confidence in its collective ability to exert control over a given market. No matter what changes occur in a given business, in the end it'll still be a business. E-books afford new opportunities, and some publishers–and retailers–will benefit by taking advantage of them; others will fail to take advantage of them, or do so in ways that fail (through a proliferation of proprietary platforms, for instance: remember Betamax?), to their eventual demise. 

But if self-pub is such a great thing, then why are these authors you mention, who are being trolled for and courted by energetic (or desperate) agents and editors, _actually signing contracts with them?_ Why don't they just tell the publishers to go to hell? Doesn't all the advantage lie with remaining self-published? Are they just stupid? Or so vain they want to see their book "in print," even if it means surrendering those advantages? (I'm sure a few are.…)

Or maybe they're thinking along the same lines as I am.

Give it a couple years for things to shake out, and I'd bet you'll find self-pub right back where it was a couple years ago: ostracized and relegated to obscurity. Once the industry adjusts to e-publication, the kind of authors who are today getting noticed by self-publishing won't have any particular _reason_ to self-publish–because of a factor not yet brought up. The profit margins for publishers on e-publication are going to be _huge_, compared to print at least… and once the publishing houses lay on a few more submissions readers (in place of the people who are trolling the listings now), _they'll be able to expand their own catalogs well beyond what they could physically handle, much less print profitably, right now_… they'll be able to accept manuscripts they would never have so much as contemplated "taking a chance on" before, since the number of sales required to reach their break-even will be far lower. (Nor would retailers have had the space to stock these even if they had been printed.) I can't imagine what upward limits might be–triple? quadruple? the number of titles they publish now; there might not _be_ a limit: the only controlling factor would be how quickly submissions could be read, evaluated, and edited. (If anything, e-publication will spell the doom of the agent, not the publisher. Though I have "confidence" in the ultimate resilience of this species of middleman, too.…) Which is great for us authors, as it'll become that much easier to get accepted… even if we might never get to hold our book in our hands, unless we order a print-on-demand copy. 

And which means that every author of even moderate quality _will_ get picked up by a publisher eventually, probably after very few attempts. And the ones who don't… well, I guess there will always be the option to self-publish.… 

"Meet the new boss: same as the old boss."


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Love reading your replies, Ravana. Intelligent, well thought out. Make me think. 

Couple of bit comments:
On the "14 biggest publishers" - I was talking about publishers, not retailers. It's the publishers whose business model is in trouble right now. Yes, absolutely, the digital book can be huge for them, but the largest publishers as a group have failed to adapt in time. We're sitting now where they figured ebooks would be in 2015. They're far, far, FAR behind the 8 ball right now, as a group. A lot of the smaller or mid size publishers are doing a much better job of converting. To be fair, they have less "corporate mass" to shift - it's easier to steer a little skiff than an oil tanker. But I think we may see a large number of those big publishing imprints go away, and little guys rise up to be the new big publishers. There's lots of publishers, though, so in the long run there will still be plenty of them. Just be careful who you sign with for the next year or two, since having a book in production with a company in bankruptcy might mean years before you get the rights back.

But about B&N: they're in trouble, too. They plan to close *every* store this year for which they do not own the property. They closed a net of 7% of their stores last year, and this year will see an even higher number go away. B&N lost money, on average, at their retail stores last year. They made up for it at B&N.com and their college stores to make a profit overall, but with print book sales plummeting, their core business is literally evaporating right now. Their stock is less than half the 52-week high, and they are the only Fortune 500 company right now whose stock is worth less than their estimated physical value - that is, if you added up the value of every share, and compared it with the physical assets B&N owns, the assets are worth more than the stock. That's a danger sign that bankruptcy is around the corner for a company. If B&N cannot begin dumping their stores at a faster rate, they're likely to move into bankruptcy in 2011 or 2012, I think. Smaller stores - focusing on bestsellers on shelves and POD machines in the back to print *anything* the reader wants - are the future for bookstores.

You're dividing "indie publishing" and "self publishing". It's worth noting that most self publishers today have adopted the phrase "indie publishing" to mean self publishing; but I think you're right in that there is a difference.

A self publisher is a writer who puts their own work up for sale in some manner (print, digital, combination, whatever). An indie publisher is a publishing company, one who sets standards to act in a certain professional manner, produce high quality professional books, and act as a professional press should. The indie publisher might be publishing works from many authors, or might just be publishing his/her own work. That's largely irrelevant, in my opinion. What differs is the *attitude*. An indie publisher approaches the publishing end of things as a business in its own right. I think that indie publishers will always find a way to survive, now, even the indie publishers who are self publishing. They'll emulate other small press companies, do things the right way, and produce professional work which makes retailers money. Do all that (especially the last), and you'll always find retailers happy to take your product. Fail in those things, and your future gets iffy.

I think you've got some interesting points on the "why would I self publish when publishers can take as many good books as they want, produce them for almost no cost, and earn money from them forever" model. But there's some answers right there. Writers can also take a good book, produce it for almost no cost, and earn *all* the money on it forever. I think the swing will depend upon how high royalties get. I mean, right now copy editing + formating + ebook cover costs about $1000 to have pros do all the heavy lifting for you. Less if you can do one or more of those things yourself. So writers need to sit back and do the math.

Say the breakdown is 30% to retailer, 20% to publisher, and 50% to author on a $5 book. The publisher kicks out $1000 to get the book copy edited, formatted, cover made, and uploaded, and makes a buck a sale. The writer makes $2.50 a sale. For every book pas the thousandth sale, the writer is now losing money compared to what they would have made flying solo. If you sell 10,000 copies over the life of the book, you just lost $9000. Multiply that by four books a year for a thirty year career, and you've paid out over a million dollars more than you had to.

And that's with 50% going to the author. Right now, nobody - not even small presses - is paying more than 50% net, or 35% of cover, to the author.

Publishers are going to need to find more ways to add value to the deal, and add it in an ongoing, continuous manner over a decades-long life span of potential sales. Otherwise, smart writers are going to do the math and just produce the books themselves. Maybe make unions to collectively bargain with retailers to get published, who knows? But the smart money would be doing it yourself even with only 20% of cover going to the publisher.

Publishers have gotten out of the business of adding those values. They've rested on the idea that since they had a lock on the major distribution channels, they didn't *need* to add more value than that - all that mattered was you had to go through them to get into distribution. And they were right. But the distribution lock is gone. And the spaces only large publishers can reach are shrinking fast. So they need to add more value, somehow. Editing? Maybe, but they've reduced editorial staff so badly that they can barely get good copy edits in on most books, let alone do serious content editing that might be worth something to a developing author. Marketing? Maybe, but they've slashed marketing for all but the top tiny percent of books they plan to market as potential bestsellers; most books receive just enough marketing money to get them into chain retailers, and not a penny more. Something else? Hey, these are not dumb people. I'm sure they're working on ways to add value. It's going to be tough to accomplish - they need to show writers will make more money, and reach more readers, going through them than they would alone. That's still true right now (at least for reaching more potential audience), but it's diminishing.

Publishers have a lot of work to do if they want to remain viable in a digital world. It's not a situation I'd want to be in.


----------



## Ophiucha

If I manage to sell 1,000 copies, I say 'awesome'. Yeah, you'll lose in the long run... _if_ you manage to make relatively big sales. How many of the people in this forum are likely to do that? Maybe two of us? _Maybe_. Call me a pessimist if you like, but self-published or not, few aspiring authors are going to be selling a thousand copies of anything, let alone enough more to care about the money you might have made. I'd rather get paid upfront for my novels until I feel I could sell those thousand copies and not have to worry about losing the money I put upfront for the cover, editing, formatting, etc. There are only so many books - self-published or traditional published - that are going to make sales, and that number is far, far smaller than those of the books that never break even, probably even smaller than those that never sell a single copy outside of friends and family.


----------



## Ravana

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Love reading your replies, Ravana. Intelligent, well thought out. Make me think.


 
Thank you. That is the goal. 

I was talking publishers too… I'm less pessimistic about their ability to survive than you are. (I'm pessimistic about plenty of other things: you can have that one.  ) And keep in mind that B&N is a publisher as well as a retailer–and since they're also putting out their own e-reader, any reason you can give for why e-books will play an ever-increasing role only means their chances of success are higher, not lower. In fact, if they aren't lying out the wazoo about the figures for their e-reader sales, they may be largely responsible for the dramatically higher-than-predicted numbers on e-book sales–a combination of more e-book _and_ fewer print book sales from the same source, doubling the net effect. 

(I am not, as happens, a big fan of B&N. For any number of reasons. Since few commercial ventures seem to have suffered obvious ill effects from my displeasure, however, I am forced to admit that they too will probably manage to endure it. Sigh.)

You neglected to take advances into account in your calculations, by the way. Even the cruddy ones relative unknowns receive will make a big difference. And anyone who can write four books a year and average sales of at least 10k copies of each is going to be getting more than industry minimum. (I can't imagine writing that much–not and have it worth reading, at least. Whereas I would be delighted to be told I was going to manage to sell 10k of anything I did work to completion. I'll let you know if either of those ever moves from "pipe-dream" to "disappointing" for me.…)

I still say you're going to have trouble making any money at all if you get blocked from the distribution channels. And I still expect that to happen. (I shall maintain my pessimism here… or is it my optimism about negativity? Not sure.…  )

No, I don't find the position publishers are in right now enviable, either. There are some obvious places they could start adding value back in, though–and you named two of them. Editing staffs and marketing have been slashed, in part, because they're trying so hard to stay afloat right now (though the spiraling cost of paper probably has had more to do with it). Given the difference between printing costs (a lot) and online publication costs (essentially nil), they could chop sales prices in half, double what they pay authors, and _still_ have money left over to do some of these things. Or whatever else they might dream up. With any luck, some of the smart ones will realize this… soon.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Ophiucha said:


> How many of the people in this forum are likely to do that? Maybe two of us? _Maybe_. Call me a pessimist if you like, but self-published or not, few aspiring authors are going to be selling a thousand copies of anything, let alone enough more to care about the money you might have made.



To some degree, I look at publishing - either form - as a gamble. You're betting on yourself. You're betting your time spent, your effort put in, and yes, your money spent (on books, conferences, submissions, etc.). It's a gamble because, as we all know, less than 1% of submissions to publishers and/or editors are accepted. Better odds than buying a Powerball ticket, last I heard - but still something of a long shot.

Writing to self publish is a similar gamble, because although most self published books will sell at least a few copies, the odds of selling several thousand or more copies is pretty slim. In fact, the percent of self published books which sell a few thousand+ copies is pretty similar to the percent of submissions to agents/publishers which get accepted for print. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Good books sell. Either way they are published today, good books sell. Poorly written books don't. They are either not accepted by publishers, or don't sell many copies if self published.

So I see writing-to-publish (writing with publication as the goal, which is different from writing for fun or writing to enjoy it yourself only) as an act of hubris. In a good way, I hope.   The odds are incredibly stacked against us. We do it *anyway* because we are gambling that we are one of the few, that our skills can make us one of those best fraction-of-a-percent. Maybe we're right; maybe we're wrong. If we're wrong, and stick with it, maybe we'll be right after more practice.

Writing anything with publication, trad or self, as a goal is a long odds deal. Have the courage to try anyway.


----------



## Kate

I came across this blog the other day - The E-book Revolution

It's very pro-self publishing, I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but she makes some valid points. As this is a realm that we're all still learning about, it's good to take notes from as many sources as possible.  This thread has been helping me a lot decide whether or not I want to take the leap. Still deciding.

Oh and I caught a Simpsons episode the other day. Lisa's new teacher tells her she'd going to help publish her book. "Self published or real published?" Lisa asks. "Real published."  Gave me a chuckle......


----------



## GameMasterNick

The best arguments that I've heard for the self-publishing route almost invariably come from previously published authors whose dedicated readership followed them when they made the switch.  A massive backlist of titles, an established base and the raw capital to handle your own marketing and promotions is the key.  New, previously unpublished, writers have a much harder time with marketing and distribution in self-publishing.  Most of them will sell a handful of copies, if that, to friends and family.

A Newbie's Guide to Publishing (J.A. Konrath / Jack Kilborn)

Lightning strikes like Amanda Hocking are still incredibly rare and that won't likely change.  

Authors catch fire with self-published e-books - USATODAY.com

Moreover, Hocking's books are almost all derivative works of the Twilight series (even to the point of using the same ancillary characters)... no lawsuit announced at this point... but many believe she crossed the plagiarism line.

I can't say too much without conflict of interest popping up, but there are other options.  Small presses, e-publishing houses (some with print options that allow bookstore listing and access) and non-vanity, non-subsidy (or any other colloquialism) presses can now offer the same benefits (editing, covers, publishing, distribution, marketing) as the big names.  

The big names are having trouble adapting.  eBooks are currently in a position to overtake print as the key part of contracts, a phenomenon that forecasters said would happen in 2015, and the slow-moving giant publishers have been caught with their pants down.  Smaller presses are taking a huge bite out of their lunch thanks to net neutrality.

Just remember Yog's Law:  "Money flows toward the writer" and it's easy to see there's a wealth of opportunities out there which don't require doing it all yourself.

Yog's Law | Writer's Remorse

(Hope that didn't read like sales copy.  And now, on to my morning tea!)


----------



## Telcontar

I've seen variations of that Yog's Law (another version simply states "THEY pay YOU"), but that was a nice, concise way of putting it. The continued points are also valuable.

Also hadn't heard that Hocking's stuff was basically Twilight with a new skin. Hilarious.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Hocking wrote one series that is vamp romance, which has most of the same tropes that Hamilton established with her Anita Blake series and everyone else (Meyers included) has been borrowing ever since. The rest of her books are a variety of other subjects, none of which include vampires at all...    And frankly, this is the first I've heard of anyone suggesting plagiarism. Having read neither the Twilight books nor Hocking's vamp books, I can't say for sure it's not plagiarism, but I am *fairly* confident that it would have been made a big deal of, had it been.

Remember, borrowing ideas, tropes, and bits about characters is not plagiarism. You can write a story about a very young starship character with a smart alien second in command and a doctor buddy, and not have it be plagiarism.    And again - as much as Hockings might have borrowed from Meyers, Meyers borrowed from Hamilton, so it's a little silly to worry about it.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

On other points...  

"eBooks are currently in a position to overtake print as the key part of contracts, a phenomenon that forecasters said would happen in 2015"
Already happened. According to the AAP, in February ebooks represented about 29.5% of all books sold in the USA (up from 8.3% in December), outselling any other category, including outselling mass market paperbacks for the first time. It now seems likely that ebooks may represent over half the market by the end of the year, of early next year at the latest.

"The best arguments that I've heard for the self-publishing route almost invariably come from previously published authors whose dedicated readership followed them when they made the switch."
You linked to Konrath's blog - but did you read it? He's interviewed over a dozen writers who had never sold traditionally, but are now on track to make good incomes this year. While there's certainly some advantage to already having an audience - for any sort of publishing! - there's no lack of folks who are selling quite a few books among new indie writers, too. In fact - almost 40% of the top 100 bestselling ebooks were self published - and a substantial percent of those were never traditionally published. More pertinent, perhaps - about 30% of the top 100 bestselling fantasy ebooks were self published, and the *majority* of those writers were never trad pubbed. If you write a bad book, it won't sell. If you write a good one, it will.

I do completely agree about non-subsidy "self publishing service" companies. Here's the rule.  If they are charging a percent of your royalty, PASS. What you want is a company that will do the work you need (editing, cover, and if your computer literacy is weak ebook formating too) for a *flat fee*. Then they give you the PDFs, which you then upload to your accounts on the various ebook retailers. If someone is charging you up front and taking a percent, they are a scam (see iUniverse, Westbow, Outskirts, etc.).

Small press is a tough call. If they're not getting your book into the big chains, they're not giving you anything you can't do yourself. So really, what they're doing is giving you free editing, cover, formating, in exchange for some percent of the income. Copy editing a 300pp book might take 5-10 hours (depending on how bad the writing is - could be more but a small press just won't accept it if it's that bad). Formating takes an hour or two, and a cover takes 2-4 hours. So say 8-16 hours of work, which if you're paying for it elsewhere will cost you $800-2000. So do the math. The small press is basically fronting you that money in exchange for around half the profits on the book - quite possibly all the profits forever, since "out of print" doesn't mean much anymore. If your book sells 10,000 copies @$5 over the next six years (that's not really a lot), at a 50-50 profit split, you've paid the small press $17,500 for their 8-16 hours of work. That's a *very* high interest loan.    Up to you whether you think it's worth it or not.


----------



## GameMasterNick

eBooks have outsold single categories (paperback, hardcover OR trade...) but not the combination.  They have yet to become the key negotiating point of contracts with the major presses, though smaller groups have definitely gone this way.  I do suspect that may be within a year of happening instead of four.

I've read just about everything Mr. Konrath has written on that site and in his essays and agree with 95% of it.  Including his admissions that most new writers starting out cannot compete with his level of success due to having those things behind him.  They don't need to, as this doesn't mean they can't make a decent amount of money, but the level of success he has achieved is usually beyond many first-timers.  Mainly, this is because many writers are more than willing to put in the long hours of creation... it's a passion in which we all indulge... but editing, packaging, marketing, promotions, accounting and the "back-end" are often outside of what they want to do or have the skills (knowledge + experience) to accomplish successfully.

Mr. Konrath relies heavily on freelance editors, artists and other industry professionals as well.  I wholeheartedly endorse this, mainly because it's been my job for the last five years.  Beyond his recommendations, few writers looking at self-publishing will find solid professionals in that market... and they'll walk right into the arms of the scammers.  Fewer still will ever find his blog or other sources of solid information on self-publishing... there's a glut of poorly-written, misspelled, grammatically horrible works out there right now.  Some of which may have been a diamond in the rough if the rough were edited by professionals.

I draw a lot of flak from my friends in the industry when I promote that blog.  Almost every time I do, someone will email me telling me that I don't understand how the industry works these days.  Biggest secret: from the largest print publisher to the greenest first-draft self-publisher (never publish your first draft... please?) no one does anymore.  It's an open market in a new era, and I firmly believe that what happens now will not just determine the course of the publishing industry (which, like all industries that specialize in the arts has become quite top-heavy) but possibly define the place of the written word in the future.  

Those who hope to remove editors or professionals entirely and have a writer-to-audience only route (and they seem to be gaining ground fast... some of Hocking's works are chock full of typos and grammatical errors) will produce a quality of work analogous to YouTube vs. Hollywood.  Sure, there are some great "indie" films on YouTube... there are also cats flushing toilets, and the scammers haven't quite infiltrated homemade YouTube videos the way they have "self-published" books.

If you're going the self-published route, there are few (possibly no) better sources of information than that blog.  And those who do follow the information advised by J. A. Konrath will already be far ahead of the average author in that arena.  I'm not actually advocating for or against self-pubbing, but meant to point out in my previous post that it isn't the only option vs. trade publishing.

Amanda Hocking borrowed characters wholesale, but limited herself to ancillary characters who were not well-defined.  You're right that you could write the work about the plucky young space captain... calling him James is going to require at least a nod to parody or tribute, though. I, personally, don't feel she crossed the line after reviewing some of her works... I do hope that she finds a good freelance editor for future works, but having reached success, what is she doing now?  Shopping big name publishers.

Most readers who aren't Kindle fans looking for inexpensive works in that genre still haven't heard of her, even after the million dollar news stories.  Most young adult fans (or fans of what my associates and I called "vampire porn" back when Anne Rice was the big name - not to malign her as she's an incredible writer!) don't read the Wall Street Journal or keep up with publishing news. She has the fortune and is now going for the fame.  The marketing and distribution of the house she ultimately signs with will ensure that for her.  

My hopes for the future in this arena are that the huge overhead costs of the big publishers... the massive cuts that weedle authors down to 14.9% or lower royalties on paperback, hardcover or eBooks... will encourage more people to look closely at what other options are out there.

I truly want to see the scammers exposed and the market focused on what it keeps forgetting:  readers come first.  Not publishers, not editors, not agents, not even the writers themselves.  Every one of those positions should be focused on the reader.  Writers should be focused on writing the best story they have to tell.  Agents must take pains to get the best stories available to "print".  (I won't discuss agents right now, my feelings on their place in the future of publishing is mixed... some are excellent pre-editors... others are 'preditors'). Editors must do more than pass a work through a spell-checker and proof for grammar; they should focus on honing the writer's craft to higher levels than they have achieved in the pre-published copy.  Publishers must be all about ensuring readers know of their authors' works, providing those readers with excellent, polished versions of the tale and must not stop marketing until the last book as sold, as the saying goes.

Full disclaimer:  I am a freelance writer, editor and translator by trade.  I am also part of one of those 'small press' publishing companies that I probably mention more often than I should.  Prior to joining this publishing group, I edited and packaged works for many self-published authors.  I am not saying you need a publishing house behind you, large or small, but I did hope to point out the difference between the big "trade" or "commercial" publishers and the smaller indie houses.  It isn't an all-or-nothing proposal, even though both those at the top (the big 6 publishing houses) and those at the bottom (the scammers who sell "self-publishing" packages) want writers to feel that it is.


----------



## GameMasterNick

As if my above post wasn't long enough:

On flat fees versus royalty/net profit/percentages - Flat fee isn't always the way to go.  Many scammers have "publishing package" deals that are flat fees and give all sorts of similar estimates to "Recoup your costs easily if you sell 10,000 books over the next five years."  Groups like PublishAmerica thrive on the idea that you can pay a 'small' fee and get the same quality work as if you were published by professionals instead of doing it yourself.  Their small fees can put you thousands into debt.  Realistically, you're probably going to end up paying separate editors, designers and possibly marketers, sales or PR industry reps (if you truly want the benefits of full publishing) quite a bit... and that assumes you are using quality professionals and not scammers.

Remember that all contracts are -not- the same.  A legit publisher will have a definite term set for a contract and will almost never demand "life of copyright" unless they're willing to compensate you for such (think advances in the upper five to six figures).  Scammers love to demand this, as it means your work will never go "out of print."  Many small press or e-publishers no longer offer advances at all, which allows them to assume less risk but still requires them to lay out a lot of money to get a new work off the ground. Signing with a legit publisher does -not- mean giving away rights to the work forever (good reversion clauses and definite terms prevent this).  The best publishers will only request specific rights for a specific duration, and then offer an extension if you are happy with their work.

Look at the EPIC contract for an example of what writers, many small presses and other industry professionals feel is a great example of a contract for e-publishing.  Scammer contracts look nothing like this... and the bigger houses are often far more restrictive.  Many of the biggest names in indie publishing for speculative fiction are members of EPIC or use variations of the same contract.

I'll stop there, because I think discussing contracts and how to effectively negotiate copyright isn't on-topic in a thread on self-publishing.


----------



## Ravana

GameMasterNick said:


> As if my above post wasn't long enough



Hey, I'm just happy I finally have some competition!


----------



## GameMasterNick

Here's a great blog entry on determining if you're ready for self-publishing.

Anne R. Allen's Blog: 3 Questions to Ask Before You Jump on the Indie Publishing Bandwagon

Many small presses are considered "indie publishers" by the industry and that title has been used for years (if not decades); self-publishing is self-publishing, not indie, though it tries to co-opt the terminology in order to sound better and integrate with "indie" musicians or other artists.  That one's always a heated debate in places like Absolute Write when it comes up.  Won't go off on those tangents.


----------



## Waltershores

I believe that self-publishing is totally acceptable.  Just make sure that the work is edited prior to submission.  Traditional publishing is great, but the time it takes to get published in that manner, as well as the limited advances available make it almost not worth it in my opinion.  To each his/her own however.  I say go for it and good luck.  

I did read a post in this thread that I disagree with that I wanted to mention.  I will paraphrase.  

"if my writing isn't good enough to be picked up traditionally then it has no place being self published."  

I would say that this outlook would be correct if every worthy book was published traditionally, however this is not the case.  Many great books are overlooked many times before they are picked up and many good books are never published.  If your book is good it will be read whether traditionally published or electronically.


----------



## Franz

I read through this entire thread non-stop. I feel humbled by the depth of knowledge and thought that is displayed here.

I have been writing novels for more than a decade now. I have submitted to countless publishers and agents and have a drawer full of rejections. I accepted each as an indication that I was not yet ready for prime time.

Last year the company I work for had to start laying off. We shrank from twelve people down to two and it looked likely that I would soon be added to the growing unemployment line. At my age it is unlikely that I would be hired anywhere else. So in desperation I turned to self-publishing as a hope. I invested a few hundred dollars in a web site and spent most of my off-time editing and creating covers to the best of my ability.

In the last year I have published ten novels through Samshwords. By December of last year I was fairly certain that the public was not going to save me. Luckily, at about the same time, business started a small turnaround and I was saved the bread line for now (but the beast is definitely still lurking in the wings).

However, around the start of the year numbers started appearing in the sales columns. A trickle at first. By March I was selling ten books a day. By mid June that had grown to twenty five books a day. In January I recieved my first fan letter. Now I receive several letters a week asking when the next book will be out. On top of this reviews started appearing on B&N. 

All of this is not to blow my own horn. It is to make a small point that I think might be pertinent. During this entire past year, I have had little time for advertising, and that primarily an occasional mention on Facebook. Like a fisherman I threw my line in the water and hoped that something would find it.

It seems to me that someone is out there looking and, once finding something they like, spreading the word. I know that my books were not perfect. I could not afford profession covers or editing (a fact that a few reviews have mentioned). However, returns are coming in and now I am starting to have a professional fix the editing and will publish new versions with (hopefully) no editing errors. The covers will still have to wait a bit.

So, to wrap this all up, I have little first hand knowledge about what is going on in the industry. I have no opinion on which way the industry will settle out. But I do know that there are people out there that want to read what I have written and, so far, are willing to find it. I would love to have a publisher come along and take some of the burden off of my back, but I do not see that happening any time soon. So, for now, I am forced to self-publish. 

I have considered myself an author from the first day I penned a complete story. I now have a form of validation in the readers that love my work. For now that, and the income that is growing monthly, is sufficient.

Okay I have rambled enough.

Have a great Indepence Day weekend,

Franz


----------



## Jenna St. Hilaire

Congratulations on your success with ebooks, Franz! That's great to hear.

A couple of notes on some things that were said in earlier posts:

First, according to former agent Nathan Bransford, publishers don't save much on ebooks vs. print. Here's his piece explaining that, along with thoughts on the Hocking and Konrath success stories.

Second, there's a difference between being a potential bestseller and a potential midlister or niche interest. Much as there are bestselling high fantasy works, starting with the great and mighty Tolkien's, most of us are going to wind up on a midlist or publishing modestly with small houses. I've nothing against that; if either of those worked out to sales and further books, I'd call it success. But when you know it's hard work and self-marketing either way, this tale of moderate self-publishing success holds some appeal.

The self-publish vs. traditional publishing question is a very, very close call for me. I'm pursuing the latter at this moment. But by analogy: I don't have a television and don't listen to the radio, so my TV and music are made up of a bunch of fairly successful young YouTubers (whom, frankly, I generally prefer to the Lady Gagas of the world), which makes me wonder if there is/will be a comparable bookish underworld. And whether I could succeed in it. Music and TV are not exactly comparable fields to the production of novels, however.

If I've misstated anything, you can all feel free to enlighten me...


----------



## Jenna St. Hilaire

It's past one AM and I'm only half awake, but I just read through this thread thoroughly. Probably should have done that before I posted, as my second point was much better explained by--if memory serves me accurately--Kevin. Whose positions I generally agree with.

Just a couple of things to add:

First, I may be pointing out the obvious, but I'd clarify the statement that good books get read and poorly written books don't. I think marketable books get read, with a certain level of disregard for quality. Paranormal romances are very marketable, which certainly helped Ms. Hocking. They're so marketable that it didn't matter that the copyediting in _Twilight_ is surprisingly lousy for something out of a mainline publishing house, nor that Ms. Hocking's books are, by all allegations, riddled with copy errors. And the wildly popular _Twilight_ isn't great writing. It's not even really good writing. 

It is, however, readable. Truly poorly written books are absolutely less likely to get read. Readers walk away after a convoluted sentence or two, and we all have our limits on typos.

Second, to expand upon my last point. Thanks to affordable recording equipment, a skilled musician with a decent sound engineer's ear can create very listenable music. They can put a solid song together in a few days, make a simple music video to advertise, and upload the former to iTunes and the latter to YouTube, rinse, repeat, and make themselves a living. Few of us can write, revise, and polish a novel in anything less than a year. Of those who can, very few are good editors, and even they will need a reader or two with a strong editorial eye. Even fewer will have graphic design skills and the resources to turn out a good book cover.

I claimed the decision between self and trad is very close for me. Here's why: I edit myself with above-average skill, have a copyeditor for a critique partner, am blessed with an incredibly artistic family, and happen to love graphic design. I've put in my ten thousand hours learning the craft of writing, and to the best of my ability to tell--and according to my beta readers--I've written a solid story. And I'm a perfectionist. It may be hubris, but I don't doubt my ability to turn out a good product, even as a self-publisher. Whether it's marketable is far beyond my power to say, but it wasn't hard to come up with a couple of reasonable comp titles for my query letter.

With the bulk of the marketing probably on my shoulders either way, then, the decision really comes down to this question: is it worth the risks to try for the prestige of the traditional imprint, and the much-higher likelihood of getting the coveted label of _classic?_ The risks are considerable. If you have bad sell-through on your traditionally published debut novel, suddenly it becomes much harder to publish a second novel. Considering how high the odds were to begin with, this equates to near impossibility. And if your second novel happens to be a sequel, will your publishing house relinquish their rights over the storyline to allow you to find a different publisher for (or self-publish) that sequel? (Honest question, here. I suspect the answer is no, but might be wrong, at least in certain cases.)

The major houses may despise self-publishers, but they'll most certainly take you if they think you'll make them money. I seem to recall a blogging agent or two noting that if your self-published book was very successful, you mention it in your query letter. If it wasn't, you don't. That seems simple enough.

As for the bookish underworld I wondered about: I'd completely forgotten about Smashwords. But I can't imagine using a service that doesn't sell through Amazon. I wouldn't use Lulu, either; some friends and I used them to put together some mini-books of selections from our group blog, and I was downright unimpressed with their print-on-demand service. CreateSpace, on the other hand, did a fantastic job with both my NaNoWriMo 2009 proof copy and with a friend's full-color children's book. If I did self-publish, I'd look into them first.


----------



## TWErvin2

Jenna St. Hilaire said:


> With the bulk of the marketing probably on my shoulders either way, then, the decision really comes down to this question: is it worth the risks to try for the prestige of the traditional imprint, and the much-higher likelihood of getting the coveted label of _classic?_ The risks are considerable. If you have bad sell-through on your traditionally published debut novel, suddenly it becomes much harder to publish a second novel. Considering how high the odds were to begin with, this equates to near impossibility. And if your second novel happens to be a sequel, will your publishing house relinquish their rights over the storyline to allow you to find a different publisher for (or self-publish) that sequel? (Honest question, here. I suspect the answer is no, but might be wrong, at least in certain cases.)


 
Jenna St. Hilaire,

It depends on the terms of the contract you eventually sign as to the status of your second novel.

The contract may call for the publisher to have rights of first refusal--if so a timeline would be very good--60 or 90 days. (and it may only relate to characters and books that are the same or closely tied to the first novel and its world).
The contract may be silent on this--a one book deal with no strings attached either way.

Watch out for restrictive claims on second and any future novel type language and what I would term as possible 'no competition' clauses. If they exist, they should be restrictive in scope and time with respect to the publisher's rights.

Most publishers will negotiate, at least some terms of the contract. Any publisher going for a massive grab of rights without adequate compensation is one to avoid.

It's rarely a bad idea to consult a literary attorney or have an experienced agent's representation. You'll find across the internet (and maybe even among authors you know) beliefs that one does or doesn't need representation or legal advice.  Some writers cross that bridge by seeking an agent right off the bat, while others cross that bridge if they find a publisher interested in their work.

Contracts with respect to short fiction, the publisher (magazine/ezine) rarely negotiates, but there is also rarely a massive grab of rights attempt--usually only first electronic/print rights for a certain release format are requested and paid for. Still, it is wise to read and do your homework before signing (such as whether they're seeking non exclusive or exclusive rights and for how long). Agents don't represent short stories, and I suppose one could hire a literary attorney to review the contract, but for what one is likely to earn from the story--it's probably not worth it.

With self publishing, you do have the contracts with any printers/distributors you form a business relationship with, but I'm not really familiar with that and it wasn't part of your concern.

Note: What I said is based on my limited experience. There are others out there far more knowledgeable than I am.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

In general, I agree with the above. Watch out for restrictive contracts, especially non-compete clauses. Many publishers are beginning to add these, and many of them are absolutely deadly. Watch for durations of "first refusal" rights, as publishers are now trying to push these back as much as two years past *publication* date - which means that if you sell a book, and have another book written in six months, but it takes the publisher 24 months to produce the book (not unusual), you might be left unable to sell that new book (or, in some contracts, ANY other book) for up to four years after signing the first contract.

Potentially devastating to a career.

An IP attorney can be very useful in spotting these things. Agents tend to be less so, because a) agents are not trained in law, and only the most canny/experienced agents have learned through experience how to navigate these increasingly nasty contracts, and b) it's often in the agent's best interest to convince the writer to sign anyway, even if the contract is bad - because they have lots of writers, but only a few publishers. If it comes to a question of who they want to tick off, most agents know where their bread is buttered: by publishers, not by writers.

Smashwords does not work with Amazon (yet? they are in negotiations). But that's OK - they are not exclusive either. Nor is Amazon. Most self publishers put the book up on Amazon, then on Smashwords as well. Smashwords distributes to B&N (you can use Pubit instead to go direct to B&N, if you prefer), Kobo, Apple, Sony, Diesel, and a new company which makes Android and iOS apps available for the books is coming on line soon. Apple is easy to get onto - if you have a Mac; if not, you can't get the book up at all unless you go through Smashwords or some similar company. Kobo and Sony are notoriously hard to get books onto without an intermediary. So Smashwords has real value in opening these other markets.

Smashwords is also great for marketing short stories (or other 99 cent stories) to B&N. Pubit only pays 40 cents for a 99 cent book. Smashwords pays 60 cents for a 99 cent sale on B&N. For prices 2.99 and up, you make 65% via Pubit, which makes Pubit often the better choice (although there could be some advantage seen in NOT having the "Pubit" logo appear on your book page at B&N.com - Smashwords books do not have that logo, nor do they have the "Report this book for bad content" link, and if you buy a $10 ISBN from Smashwords, they list you as publisher, not Smashwords). But for 99 cent books (really, anything under 2.99) Smashwords is a clear win.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Jenna St. Hilaire said:


> I wouldn't use Lulu, either; some friends and I used them to put together some mini-books of selections from our group blog, and I was downright unimpressed with their print-on-demand service. CreateSpace, on the other hand, did a fantastic job with both my NaNoWriMo 2009 proof copy and with a friend's full-color children's book. If I did self-publish, I'd look into them first.


Re: Lulu
They're another valid company to try...but they cost more for printing than Createspace or Lightning Source. Honestly, I would say *always* use Lightning Source if a) you have good experience with book design and b) you are sure your book will sell at least 50 copies in print. The experience is necessary because Createspace doesn't charge you to make changes to your book - but LSI does ($37.50 every time you upload a new interior, and the same every time you upload a new cover). Those extra charges mean you want it right the first time!

And the higher up front expense means you need to sell more to break even. Createspace costs about $50 for pro plan and ISBN. I will need to sell about 14 copies of my next book on Amazon to break even on that. LSI would have cost me $75 for upload (assuming I had no errors) plus a bunch more for an ISBN ($100 for one ISBN, or $250 for ten, a better deal but more cash up front). Minimally, I'd be looking at more like 25 copies to break even - and practically, because I'm still learning and likely to make mistakes, it could be even more.

So I see Createspace as a great place to learn the ropes, and LSI as a great place to hit once you're experienced, because you can sell the books from LSI for a 20% retailer discount, Amazon and B&N.com will pick them up just the same, and you end up earning quite a lot more per sale.


----------



## Jenna St. Hilaire

Wow. Terry and Kevin, thank you so much for your thoughts! You both know more about all this than I do; I've been reading industry blogs for a couple of years, but haven't the experience yet.

At the moment I'm just beginning the query process, and hoping to get agent representation as I definitely don't trust my own ability to catch all of the more dangerous clauses in a contract. But perhaps I should think about having a lawyer look any contracts over, too. If I'm lucky enough to get there... Self-publishing or traditional houses, I'm thinking there's a certain amount of luck involved in success. Not to discount good hard work, of course. 

Thanks again!


----------



## TWErvin2

Jenna St. Hilaire said:


> ...I've been reading industry blogs for a couple of years, but haven't the experience yet...
> 
> ...I'm thinking there's a certain amount of luck involved in success. Not to discount good hard work, of course.



Jenna St. Hilaire,

That you're reading up and paying attention puts you further ahead. Even if you may not know the answers, you know some of the questions to ask. One way I learned a little was to compare short fiction contracts sent to me to sign with model contracts posted by the SFWA (Fantasy & Science Fiction Writers of America ( SFWA ).

I agree there is a degree of luck involved in success but primary is a quality work. 

Even so, does the submission show up on an agent/editor's desk after they've just signed a contract with someone with a very similar book? Or does it go to the slush reader of several who finds it of great interest and pushes it up the line?

Do they look at the slush pile/query stack that has grown too large and just clear the deck with form rejections? Or is it the first one looked in the few minutes the editor/agent has between phone calls or taking a cup of coffee?

Does a published work (self or traditional) get reviewed by a respected review site and it sparks interest in followers of that review site? Or does the review site close for considering new reviews days before your book is ready to be sent?  

Do you cross paths with someone online or at a SF/Fantasy Convention or Writers Conference, or do you sit next to someone else during that panel? 

In each of those cases, if luck did come up positive, if the work wasn't really good, nothing would come of it. But one thing is certain. If you don't complete a work and send it out there, there is absolutely zero chance for success.

Maybe others feel differently, but I think you can set yourself up for 'luck' by doing the right things the right way. And you know, it may not be luck. Just hard work and doing the right things the right way.


----------



## Map the Dragon

Just to throw this out there...I'm not experienced enough with one published novel, but maybe we can toss the idea around...but is anyone going to play devil's advocate and speak out against self-publishing or talk about the cons therein? This is in no way a statement of my own opinion, and maybe somewhere in these 10 pages someone did do this. I'm just curious what everyone thinks here.


----------



## Donny Bruso

@Mapdragon:

Ravana weighed in on the cons pretty heavily in the early pages of the post. I tried reading through a few days ago, but this argument has been going on for months, and hasn't seemed to cover any new ground. The people for it are still for it, the people against it are still against it.

I'll paraphrase and condense Ravana's arguments for you (Apologies if I miss or butcher some, Rav)

You won't be taken seriously by 'real' publishers if you self-publish first

You do not receive any free support from the publishing house, such as cover art, editing, marketing, etc.

Your work will most likely be lost in a sea of other self-published titles unless you essentially desert your day job and devote yourself to marketing your work yourself.

To reach the quality of a professionally published novel will be prohibitively expensive and come from your own pocket rather than the publishing house's.

Instead of being given an advance for the rights to publish your book and being instantly profitable, you first need to recoup the expense of self-publishing and marketing.

I think that was all the big points. I may have missed a few since after the first four pages of arguing I kind of zoned out.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Let me toss out a couple of responses there, then I'll devil's advocate based on my own experiences with both commercial publishing and self publishing.



Donny Bruso said:


> You won't be taken seriously by 'real' publishers if you self-publish first


But if you've made a solid career self publishing, do you care if a handful of folks in New York don't "take you seriously"?
More importantly, perhaps, is that it seems like NYC publishers are taking self publishing more seriously all the time. There is a trend toward "picking up" hot names from the self publishing crowd. It's nowhere near common yet, mind; but it's growing.



> You do not receive any free support from the publishing house, such as cover art, editing, marketing, etc.


Those services are not free. You simply pay for them in a deferred manner, on "loan". You pay for them by the publisher keeping 75% of the post-retailer on each ebook sale.



> Your work will most likely be lost in a sea of other self-published titles unless you essentially desert your day job and devote yourself to marketing your work yourself.


All books - self published and commercially published - are increasingly going up into the same big morass in the internet. With publishers slashing marketing budgets for books, the difference in marketing given by commercial publishers is often insignificant. More and more, writers are forced to find ways to market their books regardless how they are published.



> To reach the quality of a professionally published novel will be prohibitively expensive and come from your own pocket rather than the publishing house's.


Depends on your skills, your resources, and your network of friends and acquaintances. In my own case, I manage my own cover design and interior design, so my costs there are basically zero except for a few hours of my time. Ebook formatting, of course, is so simple my four years old managed it without trouble. Copy editing - proofreading, really - is *extremely* inexpensive if your work is already very clean to begin with. Plus you can always novel swap with another writer. 

I asked a friend in publishing whether he thought I could make a bid to outsource ebook conversion for their company at $1000 a novel. He said that was too low, they would not take me seriously. Said conversions AND proofing the conversions AND correcting any small errors in conversion takes me a few hours, tops. I found myself really interested to learn that there were folks willing to pay me $500 an hour to do that.  



> Instead of being given an advance for the rights to publish your book and being instantly profitable, you first need to recoup the expense of self-publishing and marketing.


No argument here. See my devil's advocate section.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

OK, Devil's Advocate.   I've had some work self published. I've also had some work commercially published, in periodicals and one nonfiction book. So I've seen (a little bit!) of both sides.

What is good about commercial publishing?

1) Advances can be life changing.
If I was offered a $5k advance by a commercial publisher tomorrow, I'd turn it down. I'd either hold out for a better offer, or self publish. I have confidence I could make that much myself. On the flip side, if I was offered $50k, I'd probably snap it up in a heartbeat. That would let me drop my day job, which would let me commit to writing more, which would double or triple my writing output, which would mean more new books produced each year - all good things.

Now, what level "life changing" is for you may be different from what it is for me. But at some level, an advance simply rocks the foundation of what you currently have going on in your life, and lets you readjust priorities and refocus on your writing career. And that sort of advance, used that way, can be a powerful boon.

2) Professional, quality content editing can be of enormous use.
Our (co-credit) NF book didn't get much in the way of editing from Wordware, unfortunately. And it could have used it. A lot of books published today are not getting the same level of editorial review that you'd hope to see. But - many do. And the learning one can acquire by having a strong professional editor go over your work and make suggestions can be extremely useful, especially I think for the early to mid stages of your writing career. Say if you're in those first two million words. You can learn a lot from the experience. That learning can inform your future writing, which improves the quality of story you produce.

You can BUY that level of quality editing; but it's expensive (think thousands of dollars) and for every freelance editor out there who actually knows their stuff and is being honest and useful, I think there must be a dozen who are not going to be what you're looking for. You want a true pro who knows their craft, knows your genre, and has been doing this, ideally for decades.

3) It's nice to be in bookstores.
OK, the bookstores are going away rapidly, and in a few years this won't, perhaps, be such a big deal. But right now, it's still REALLY cool to see your book in Barnes & Nobles. Trust me. Been there, done that.  =)  It's a fun feeling! That said, I got my proof copy back last night for the first print book I had completely made entirely myself - cover is mine, interior is mine, and of course the writing is all mine. I think the feeling was just as good; maybe better, because I had more invested in the project personally.

But yeah, being in bookstores is still pretty nice. It *feels* good. And for the next few years (at least!), it's also a boost to sales, because half the people in the US still buy books in bookstores, not online.

4) If you can get it, a big commercial marketing push is HUGE.
Amanda Hocking signed a four book, $2 million dollar deal. She was already selling millions of ebooks - why did she do this? It wasn't for the cash - she said in her blog she expects she'd earn more self publishing those four books. It wasn't because she dislikes self publishing - she's self published another book in May, and plans to self pub 3-4 books for every one she commercially publishes. She did it for the marketing push. Because at $500k a book, SMP needs to sell hundreds of thousands of her books just to break even. And they want to profit, not break even - so they will push her books like mad. She'll get special placement in bookstores paid for by her publisher, hundreds of copies sent out to reviewers, ad dollars, and many other forms of marketing assistance. The publishers will push the books. And that will help build her name, which will help build the 12-16 *other* books she self publishes over the four years she'd contracted with SMP, along with the ten she already has out.

But whether or not you're self publishing other books, that marketing push can be huge. IF you get it. The bigger your advance, the more heavily they have to push your book. Related to "big advances matter", above, this sort of PR push for your name can be a huge boon to your career, obviously!

5) Self publishing makes YOU responsible for everything.
Submitting to commercial publishers, if the book gets rejected a whole bunch of time, you can still tell yourself that it's not the book - it's the publishers who are wrong, the book is really good and would sell. If you self publish, and you get the word out, and it doesn't sell? You really have to face the music at that point: something is wrong with your book. Might be a lot of things, but something *you* did is wrong. With a publisher, if the book flops, you can blame poor distribution, poor cover art, or lack of publisher marketing effort. If you self publish, you have no scapegoat for a book doing poorly. You have to look in the mirror, face facts, try to figure out what went wrong, and move forward to fix those errors (in future books, if you can't with the current one). It's a level of responsibility which many writers simply do not want to have anything to do with.

6) Self publishing is scary.
It means learning new things, which is always uncomfortable. It means ditching old ideas of how "things are done", which is always uncomfortable. It means adapting to the new ways books are being published, means focusing on being attentive to your audience, means focusing on building a larger body of work - all of which can be uncomfortable. Add those all up, and it can be a scary place.

The truth is, writers have always been running their own businesses, and essentially being entrepreneurs. But for the last couple of decades, they've increasingly been encourages to let agents "take care" of the business end, and "focus on writing". Sometimes that's worked out well; sometimes not. But it's raised a culture of writers to whom business is mysterious, a black box thing that they don't understand and never wanted to understand. It's a *radical* departure from most successful writers of the first two thirds of the 20th century.

And honestly? Today, I think it's a career ending attitude. Whether you commercially publish books, self pub, or mix the two, you are going to need to learn business. You're going to need to figure out contracts yourself. You're going to need to understand finance and expenses and what you should be able to get for a given book - and what you put INTO that book as well (time is an expense, remember). Writers who can't do that are going to begin failing (have begun failing, if you read Kris Rusch's blog from last week). Writers who learn business will have better odds of success in these rapidly changing times - regardless how they publish.

But it's STILL a scary thing. It's just a scary thing we're all going to need to face to pursue this career.


Those are the big ones that come to mind, right now. Probably more too.   I'll think on it and do more counterpoint arguments if I think of some.


----------



## Jenna St. Hilaire

TWErvin2 said:



> That you're reading up and paying attention puts you further ahead. Even if you may not know the answers, you know some of the questions to ask.



Thanks. I think this is true, and am grateful to have started two years ago, and not last week.

Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your points about a quality product, and how that intersects with luck.

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:



> ...But it's raised a culture of writers to whom business is mysterious, a black box thing that they don't understand and never wanted to understand. It's a *radical* departure from most successful writers of the first two thirds of the 20th century.
> 
> And honestly? Today, I think it's a career ending attitude. Whether you commercially publish books, self pub, or mix the two, you are going to need to learn business. You're going to need to figure out contracts yourself. You're going to need to understand finance and expenses and what you should be able to get for a given book - and what you put INTO that book as well (time is an expense, remember). Writers who can't do that are going to begin failing (have begun failing, if you read Kris Rusch's blog from last week). Writers who learn business will have better odds of success in these rapidly changing times - regardless how they publish.
> 
> But it's STILL a scary thing. It's just a scary thing we're all going to need to face to pursue this career.



Also agreed. I'm pretty sure there's no way to success through either path except by courage and determination. Maybe if I think of it as a Quest.... 

And thank you for writing your perspectives on the two sides; that gave me a lot to think about.

This probably won't be most people's perspective, but I find that the two paths terrify me to an approximately equal extent. And attract me likewise, neither really overpowering the other. (Which means I could stand at this fork in the road for an eternity... but I will move forward! I promise.) So if any of you really wanted to persuade people to follow (or not to follow) your path, what would you say about the road and the golden city at the end of it?

Not to discount the excellent ten pages of discussion thus far, and there's no obligation to reiterate already well-expressed ideas for the indecisive.  It's just clear that there are strong feelings on this topic, and I'm curious whether this question will bring out additional thoughts.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

If I had something new to say, it'd be this:

Back in 1997, a friend and I co-created a non-fiction book. It was published by a regular commercial publisher. I have to say, going into a B&N and seeing a book on the shelf there that had MY name in it was pretty thrilling.  =)

But yesterday, I got back my proof copy of my first completely self-made print novel. *I* made the cover. *I* did the interior design. And of course, I wrote the book.   And I'm having a hard time thinking which was the bigger thrill - seeing my own work, finished, polished, and professional-looking; or seeing my work on that B&N shelf.

Now, I've got backgrounds which include some time doing both print layout and graphic design professionally. So in many ways, the new sort of writing is like a "perfect storm" for me - I've done art, I've done layout, I love writing, and I've run three businesses already. So none of this is entirely new - just new enough to be exciting and interesting, but not so new as to feel alien or frightening.

But then again, maybe how I'm feeling now, with my background, is just how you'd feel with no background in those skills after practicing them for a year or two. And let me tell you, it's amazingly fun.


----------



## TWErvin2

If one goes straight to self-publishing without attempting to get published the 'traditional' route, might that same writer wonder down the road if they could have found a publisher, maybe one of the big houses? One could argue that if you find great success with self-publishing, that traditional route remains open...but that is a very rare occurrence and not one to be counted on.

I believe you're correct, Jenna St. Hilaire, in that it's not necessarily an easy choice--both sides having some potential drawbacks.

I think you'll find that the strongest advocates for the 'traditional' route are those that have found some success that way. I think you'll find the strongest advocates of the self-published route are those that have found some success that way.

But there are far many more writers who have tried the 'traditional' route and didn't find a publisher than those that did. You may not hear them touting the traditional route as loudly as those that have found some success.

There are also many more self-published authors that went that route but don't manage to sell many copies beyond the circle of family, friends and acquaintances. You may not hear them praising the path they took as loudly as those that have found success beyond that.

A writer has to look at themselves and examine their goals.

Submitting to agents/publishers takes time with odds stacked against the writer. But while you're doing that, write something else. It's hard to break in, but not impossible.

There are no true gates or barriers to self-publishing. One can succeed without too much effort or technical skill, getting a work out there, electronic and/or print format. More money up front can garner assistance with editing/cover art/formatting if it's needed. But what happens once it's on the market with the ocean of other self-published works...that's where the high odds are back loaded as compared to front-loaded with the traditional route.

But, in the end, a quality work and diligence will have a lion share of influence on success with either route. A little luck, maybe, but it's more placing yourself in a position through hard work, developing necessary talent and skills, and professionalism to take advantage of that potential bit of luck.

For me, the tradtional route is where it's at. But that's me.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

TWErvin2 said:


> But what happens once it's on the market with the ocean of other self-published works...that's where the high odds are back loaded as compared to front-loaded with the traditional route.


I agree with very nearly everything you wrote, but this bit I have trouble with. I'm not sure quite what you mean by back-loaded instead of front-loaded... But remember, ALL books are ending up in the same ocean of works, now. Side by side. Self published or otherwise.

That's really the difference which has made self publishing viable today, when even two years ago it basically was not.


----------



## Jenna St. Hilaire

Thanks, guys! You've given me loads and loads to think about. I've really appreciated this discussion.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

I don't have too much info on this, but from what I gather, is self-publishing not akin to Indie music?  For the most part, worse production, lower chance to succeed, word of mouth as a main factor, have to take on your own costs.  Seems like the same thing.  Don't get me wrong, my two favorite bands- Dispatch and State Radio, and another of my favorite, Barefoot Truth, are indie bands, and they have had a fair amount of success in the industry (although SR has piggybacked to an extent off of Dispatch as the frontman was also one of the trio in Dispatch).  But there is a lot of Indie music that, frankly, is crap, and even good indie artists struggle to make a lot of money.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Elder the Dwarf said:


> I don't have too much info on this, but from what I gather, is self-publishing not akin to Indie music?  For the most part, worse production, lower chance to succeed, word of mouth as a main factor, have to take on your own costs.  Seems like the same thing.



Those things are all much more easily dealt with when it comes to publishing. Not that it's trivial, but:


*worse production*: With the rise of e-publishing, it's relatively easy for an indie e-book to be exactly as good quality as one from a big publishing house. It just takes some time (to do research and practice, mainly, and some free software), which indie authors tend to have in great supply. Physical publishing is another story, but there are plenty of small indie publishers out there who are more likely to take a risk on a new author.
*lower chance to succeed*: Depends what you mean by "succeed." If one of the Big Six isn't interested in your book, no matter whether or not there'd actually be an audience for it, then you have a 0% chance to succeed. Getting past the gatekeepers is a tough job. Whereas if you publish yourself, you might find some small audience. For me, personally, I can afford to never "succeed" -- I make a good living at my primary job, and I'm happy to continue working there as long as necessary for my writing career to take over as my primary source of income.
*word of mouth as main factor*: True; marketing is expensive, but if you've got good quality, word of mouth might be all you need. (And keep in mind that self-publishing is a way to get past the gatekeepers; if you can show that you can sell books _without_ the help of a big publisher, one of them might be willing to take a chance on you.)
*have to take on your own costs*: The costs beyond time are pretty low for writing. ;-)



> But there is a lot of Indie music that, frankly, is crap, and even good indie artists struggle to make a lot of money.



_Most_ artists struggle to make a lot of money. Not all acts that go through big publishers (either in books, music, etc.) necessarily make a great living. It's a _job_, and there's a lot of competition.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

I agree with and understand most of what you're saying here but I disagree to a point with this one:



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> _Most_ artists struggle to make a lot of money. Not all acts that go through big publishers (either in books, music, etc.) necessarily make a great living. It's a _job_, and there's a lot of competition.



I think you misunderstood me.  I'm not saying that signed artists are guaranteed to become rich but it is much more likely that they make money.  Even some of the more successful indie musicians don't come close (for the most part) to the mainstream artists, most of which (in my personal opinion) have a very average sound.  Lyrically, mainstream music is especially weak, except for some rap.  And I'm getting way off topic.  What I'm trying to say here is that it is much easier to make money as a signed artist or traditionally published author.  Am I off base?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Elder the Dwarf said:


> What I'm trying to say here is that it is much easier to make money as a signed artist or traditionally published author.  Am I off base?



No, I totally agree with that. However, it's _much harder_ to become a signed artist than it is to publish independently. To throw out some (made-up) numbers:

In the set S of people who want to write for a living, 1% (set T) are able to publish through big publishers. Of that group (T), almost all of them make a decent or better living.

Of that same set S, 99% (let's call this set Q) must either publish independently or not at all. Most people in set Q will not make enough money writing for that to be their primary source of income... but some will, and let's call that group (people who publish independently and make a living at it) set X. Set X is probably going to be larger than set T, if it isn't already.

I think it's safe to say that virtually no one would choose to publish independently versus going through a big publisher _if they could pick_. But most people never get that choice, so the writers who are in set Q _have_ to publish independently if they want to publish at all.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

I agree with everything you just said, Benjamin, I think we just misunderstood each other at first.  That was a really good way to explain it by the way, so thanks.  And by no means am I knocking self-publishing, I don't have nearly enough experience to have an opinion on that issue, or anything else really (which brings up the question, why would any of you listen to me?)

On another note, I apologize to everyone that is getting sick of my ignorant self being all over the message boards.  I think I have a predeliction for addictive behavior.  This forum is my thing for the moment, which is probably preventing my followers on twitter from murdering me for the moment.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I think the indie music comparison is fairly appropriate.

Like indie music, indie writing has a wide range of quality - from kids in the garage to full pros, from novices at writing to bestselling novelists.

Like indie music, indie writing has seen technology break the barriers of cost in production. A kid with a computer can compose, record, and upload music to sell. Likewise, anyone can now upload an ebook or even POD print book.

Like indie music, indie writing has seen an enormous number of failures - mostly people who did not create quality work, or who did not learn some aspect of the business involved, or who produced just one thing (song or book) and assumed that was enough.

Like music, publishing is a field where a small number of companies still reap the majority of the sales. But like music, writing is a profession where a percentage of sales that would have been astonishing just a few years ago now belong to self publishers.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

I'm new to this forum and I've not read the whole thead - in particular because the landscape has changed a great deal between when it was first started and where the publishing business is now.

There was a time when self-publishing was 'the last resort' after many attempts at traditional pubishing.  When I self-published it wasn't because of that, it was more of a matter of I had to in order to make some deadlines (my small press could not get the second book out on time for a scheduled release date that already had book signings and book club readings scheduled for). 

I'm now traditionally published (my first book (Theft of Swords) is coming out in less than a month from Orbit - and I wouldn't have had the size of advance I received, nor the attention from the publisher if I had not first built an audience with my self publishing.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> In the set S of people who want to write for a living, 1% (set T) are able to publish through big publishers. Of that group (T), almost all of them make a decent or better living.



Just because you are published through a big publisher doesn't mean you'll earn a decent living. Most advances for new fantasy authors range from $5,000 - $10,000 which is obviosuly not a living wage. And only 1 in 5 books earn out so for most people the advance is the only income they will receive. Many authors who are professionally published still have "day jobs".



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I think it's safe to say that virtually no one would choose to publish independently versus going through a big publisher _if they could pick_. But most people never get that choice, so the writers who are in set Q _have_ to publish independently if they want to publish at all.



I may be an exception to the rule but I'm really not sure which way I'll go for "my next project". There are things I like about my big-six publishing expeirence (having others to do a lot of the work, seeing books in bookstores, a sense of validation), but there are also many things I like about my self publishing (full control, larger share of the sales price).  

When I started self-publishing it really wasn't a viable choice for earning a living. Now, you can make a living wage from self, small press, and big-six publishing so deciding which way to go really has ore to do with aligning your desired goals with a paricular platform. The good news is now there are options whereas in the past, big-six was really the only choice if you wanted any chance at making a living from wrinting.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

MichaelSullivan said:


> Just because you are published through a big publisher doesn't mean you'll earn a decent living. Most advances for new fantasy authors range from $5,000 - $10,000 which is obviosuly not a living wage. And only 1 in 5 books earn out so for most people the advance is the only income they will receive. Many authors who are professionally published still have "day jobs".



Fair enough; I was pulling numbers out of my, er, nether vortex. I don't know very much about the traditional publishing industry.



> I may be an exception to the rule but I'm really not sure which way I'll go for "my next project". There are things I like about my big-six publishing expeirence (having others to do a lot of the work, seeing books in bookstores, a sense of validation), but there are also many things I like about my self publishing (full control, larger share of the sales price).



My two priorities are: 1) control, 2) money. I have no interest in signing contracts that put any kind of burden on me. I realize that that may not mesh with what publishers, even small ones, want authors to do, and if that's the case, then oh well, I'll just stick with self-e-publishing (KDP, PubIt, iTunes) and earn whatever I can that way. And then maybe some day I'm big enough that I can dictate terms. ;-) My wife is good friends with someone who runs a small indie press that publishes (among other things) fantasy fiction, so I might go that route.

Money isn't a huge priority because I have a day job that I really like, earning good money. I enjoy writing _more_, though, and I do want that to become my primary career, but I'm prepared in case it doesn't. In that eventuality, I've lost nothing (not even time spent, for I enjoy the writing process itself).



> When I started self-publishing it really wasn't a viable choice for earning a living. Now, you can make a living wage from self, small press, and big-six publishing so deciding which way to go really has ore to do with aligning your desired goals with a paricular platform. *The good news is now there are options whereas in the past, big-six was really the only choice if you wanted any chance at making a living from wrinting.*



I think this is what I was getting at; self-publishing gives you more options. The Big Six still exist, but now it's possible for a dedicated soul to get around them.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

MichaelSullivan said:


> Just because you are published through a big publisher doesn't mean you'll earn a decent living. Most advances for new fantasy authors range from $5,000 - $10,000 which is obviosuly not a living wage. And only 1 in 5 books earn out so for most people the advance is the only income they will receive. Many authors who are professionally published still have "day jobs".



Yup, what Michael said. Most novelists either write multiple books per year, often under multiple pen names, or they have some means of financial support other than writing.



> I may be an exception to the rule but I'm really not sure which way I'll go for "my next project". There are things I like about my big-six publishing expeirence (having others to do a lot of the work, seeing books in bookstores, a sense of validation), but there are also many things I like about my self publishing (full control, larger share of the sales price).
> 
> When I started self-publishing it really wasn't a viable choice for earning a living. Now, you can make a living wage from self, small press, and big-six publishing so deciding which way to go really has ore to do with aligning your desired goals with a paricular platform. The good news is now there are options whereas in the past, big-six was really the only choice if you wanted any chance at making a living from wrinting.



For myself...? I have one book trade published, but it was nonfiction and almost fifteen years ago. I'm interested in giving trade press another try, I think. The difference is that today I'll simply walk from anything except a good deal, because I know I can just self publish the book instead.

And that's power. Power in the writer's hands. Even a few years ago, writers had to take what publishers offered, like it or not, because there were not a lot of other options. Today the writer has the power to say NO - because those options now exist.

BTW, for those who don't know Michael yet, he's an awesome guy and an excellent fantasy writer. I don't know what lucky chance brought Mike over here, but he'd be an incredible asset to any community.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> BTW, for those who don't know Michael yet, he's an awesome guy and an excellent fantasy writer. I don't know what lucky chance brought Mike over here, but he'd be an incredible asset to any community.



Wow, thanks Kevin. I found the forum through a fantasy blogger...the reason I'm here is because in the past I was pretty clueless. Since I've now done each type of publishing, I thought I would at least share what I've experienced to shed some light on what can seem pretty mysterous sometimes.


----------



## Matthew Bishop

Wow, that took a while to read through. Lots of helpful ideas though. Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread.

So I'm completely anal about my books being the best they can be. I've been editing a stack of books that I've written, rewritten, and revised for the past ten years and had very little time to write. Now that I am worn out and confident about their final form, I'm reedy to publish the books-- but I've been away from the actual _writing_ for so long that it's taking a toll on my health. I'm now devoting all my time trying to find a publisher or an agent-- I am thinking I might be better off e-selling the books, establishing a collection, and then hoping someone will notice the collection and pick up on me as a writer to represent me. That way I can get back to writing while marketing what I've already written on the side. I have marketed before-- I run a nonprofit media company so I have some alright connections.

BUT, my ultimate goal in publishing will always be to get my story out there and make an impact. I want an agent someday, without any doubt. I want to be a career novelist. I am struggling with the most central question: If I e-publish or self-publish now, even with a great commitment to marketing, will it actually damage my chances of being picked up by an agent or published traditionally? There seems to be some bad blood between ebooks/POD and agents/Mass market


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Matthew Bishop said:


> I am thinking I might be better off e-selling the books, establishing a collection, and then hoping someone will notice the collection and pick up on me as a writer to represent me.



A lot of writers are trying this; keep in mind that you don't have to _wait_ for someone to notice. Once you establish some sales, you can say to an agent/publisher, "I've sold X thousand copies of my books on Amazon." (Or whatever number is high enough to help entice them.) Agents/publishers, when looking at new material, have to try to gauge (by reading it) whether it can sell, but if you take something that's _already_ sold, they won't even have to read it. (Though they might anyway.)


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Matthew Bishop said:


> BUT, my ultimate goal in publishing will always be to get my story out there and make an impact. I want an agent someday, without any doubt. I want to be a career novelist. I am struggling with the most central question: If I e-publish or self-publish now, even with a great commitment to marketing, will it actually damage my chances of being picked up by an agent or published traditionally? There seems to be some bad blood between ebooks/POD and agents/Mass market



In today's climate it won't damage - and if you get decent sales will actually help. The average advance for a debut fantasy novel is $5,000 - $10,000...but because I self published first my three-book deal was six-figure. In the "old days" yeah some publishers didn't want the first publication rights cherry busted - but nowadays some look at self-publishing as a proving grounds.


----------



## boboratory

I read a Publisher's Weekly article today about indie bookstores being angry about Amazon's new app. There was a self publishing quote that motivated me to write a response: Indie Bookstores and the Self Published Stigma


----------



## Dreamhand

BAM!  Great post, Bob... and some very interesting statistics.  Deeply ironic that the independent bookstores cry "foul" against the big box stores but still pander to the big box publishers.  I get that they're trying to pay the rent, but your right... they apparently don't want to promote books, just be an outlet for selling them.

I wonder if the continuing evolution of the self-publishing/small-press phenomena will inspire indie bookstores to re-evaluate that model.  One would think that someone out there would see the change coming and move to capitalize on it.


----------



## Dreamhand

Some interesting observations regarding e-books, indie book stores and Google Books in this article... Resolved: Kick the Amazon habit in 2012 .  

The market continues to evolve, shifting and heaving like a giant squid with harpoon in its head (just watched Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea for the first time in years).  I take comfort in the fact that the emphasis seems to be expanding options for consumers with tech leaders responding to user demand rather than perpetuating a (dying) paradigm.  Everyone's still trying to make a buck, but the trends seem to support a more "open market" mentality.


----------



## Telcontar

"Expanding options" - That's the ticket! At the beginning of 2011 I was still leery of self-publishing, as you might see in the beginning of this thread. Now I've changed my mind enough to give it a try, and I certainly hope to become a true believer before long (as that would mean I'm selling things!) .

JA Konrath recently published some numbers for his December sales, and gives a nice encouraging little blog post on it. Now, obviously this should be taken with a grain of salt by true newbies like me - Konrath has been around a while, and has many fans already - but still, the numbers and the conclusions he draws are heartening.

I wonder if, by the end of the year, I'll even _want_ to publish traditionally any more? As you said, the paradigm is dying. I keep expecting them to do something drastic to stick around, but they keep making all the wrong choices.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I don't want to publish traditionally at all. Well, not at _all_, I just mean I'm not planning on ever going hat in hand to the traditional publishers. If I get successful enough that they come to me, I'm not going to turn them down on principle (although if the terms aren't favorable enough, I will).

*(puts on prognostication hat)*

I don't think the traditional publishing paradigm will ever die completely; the majority of the world still does not have e-readers and distributing paper books is still going to be pretty cheap for a while. Even in the wealthy West we're still going to have a lot of people who like paper books for a long time; it'll be a generation or two at least before paper books die.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I don't think traditional publishing is going to die anytime soon, either. But that's because it's a $24 billion business in the USA alone - I mean, really.    It's not like indie writers are suddenly going to start writing tech manuals and college biology textbooks. (Yes, some will, some already are, but large publishers have a big edge there and will for a while yet, due to reputation.)

What will change? Fiction. Hugely.
- Most estimates place fiction at 50% ebook in the US sometime in the first months of 2012.
- Some estimates place ebook fiction at 80% of the market within 2 years. I concur.
- This will force most bookstores to close. B&N will be gone as a major chain within three years. Most indie bookstores will die sooner than that.
- Traditional publishers will have ups and downs. Once the big name writers begin jumping ship - which could happen in 2012, but will happen by 2013 at the latest - publishers will be hurting. Many imprints will close. Publishers have lost substantial market share already, and will continue to lose more before things settle down.
- However, somebody is going to figure out a way to slip themselves into the revenue stream. There's too big a margin going to writers at the moment - it represents a business opportunity that someone is going to take advantage of. Hopefully, they will offer good value for the share they take (I'm think of publishers who learn to specialize in marketing to readers, instead of marketing to bookstores as they do today - this represents the best avenue for publisher success, I think). Writers as a class tend to be fairly poor businesspeople, however, so I'm watching carefully to see where the axe is going to fall. Ideally so I can figure out a way around it. 

Paper books might last for generations - after all, LPs are still around. But within five years, I suspect most books (even textbooks) in the US will be ebooks. And within ten, that will be worldwide.


----------



## morguloth

A friend's dad self published. It takes a LOT of motivation and time.


----------



## Telcontar

... and now Konrath has followed up the previous post with another, containing some clarifications and even more inspiring words. Do your best to keep your head out of the clouds when reading this one.


----------



## boboratory

I'm with Morguloth, self publishing takes alot of energy and time, and as more people do it, the energy needed to stand out enough to make a living becomes greater and greater.

I don't expect that the "Industry" is going anywhere anytime soon... (arguably) they market well, have deeper rescources, and if it makes life easier for the writer to continue to write, then there will always be a place at the table for them. They just have to get their game face on now, because they need to offer a compelling opportunity and advantage to prospective authors... 

One one of the other forums I follow, there was a writer who was fabulous and posted a complete record of her experiences self publishing, I am not sure if I posted that link here (let me know if you want it and I will), it was fascinating to read through her posts, because they were real time as she learned, and she taught me alot about offering books (for free) and the impact it can have on your sales. She was a romance writer, so the genre's are different, but the lessons I think are universal.


----------



## boboratory

The irony of this, is that indie bookstores are turning to Google for their eBook solution- Google, who offer the books as well through their own Android marketplace, effectively making the indie bookstores nothing more than promotional tools for Google's eBook offering...



Dreamhand said:


> Some interesting observations regarding e-books, indie book stores and Google Books in this article... Resolved: Kick the Amazon habit in 2012 .
> 
> The market continues to evolve, shifting and heaving like a giant squid with harpoon in its head (just watched Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea for the first time in years).  I take comfort in the fact that the emphasis seems to be expanding options for consumers with tech leaders responding to user demand rather than perpetuating a (dying) paradigm.  Everyone's still trying to make a buck, but the trends seem to support a more "open market" mentality.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

boboratory said:


> I'm with Morguloth, self publishing takes alot of energy and time, and as more people do it, the energy needed to stand out enough to make a living becomes greater and greater.
> 
> I don't expect that the "Industry" is going anywhere anytime soon... (arguably) they market well, have deeper rescources, and if it makes life easier for the writer to continue to write, then there will always be a place at the table for them. They just have to get their game face on now, because they need to offer a compelling opportunity and advantage to prospective authors...



The question is, does working with a major publisher actually save you any time and free up more time for 'justthe writing'? That seems highly debatable. The additional headaches involved in dealing with agents, dealing with nasty clauses in publishing contracts, dealing with publishers orphaning work, dealing with slow production schedules and attempts to limit your productivity all seem to add up to quite a few headaches all on their own.

And part of the trouble of course is that major publishers are NOT good at marketing books. They're good at marketing books to bookstores, which are fading fast. They're rather bad at marketing to readers, in general, and that's the important form of marketing today.

In other words, unless you snag a six figure advance, figure on having to do most of your own marketing anyway.

Right now, self published ebooks dominate 72-92% of the Amazon genre bestseller lists across every genre I checked. At this point, trade publishers have a lot of work to do just to catch back up with Indies. They're behind, losing market share monthly, and not showing many signs of changing their methods.

When B&N starts mass closure of brick and mortar stores, which is almost certainly within the next 2-3two years, publishers will have run out of breathing room. They have only until then to create a new business model which will be viable in the new market.


----------



## boboratory

I would disagree with some of your assessment. I don't believe local bookstores, or even chains for that matter, "market" books. The model of the book store is predicated on being the place where people go an buy a book they were "sold" on in some other way. Sure they know, about books, but beyond subsidized marketing (often provided by publishers), I don't see bookstores as effective marketers of books, or even themselves at this point at the rate they are closing.

The evolution of the bookstore in the last couple years, to a "cultural center" with events extending beyond the occasional author signing is a clear indication that bookstores are having to learn new skills to bring people in.

To arbitrarily dismiss a multi-billion dollar business as unable to market is a little questionable to me. 

I also wouldn't necessarily place alot of faith in Amazon's "Best Seller" lists, which are based on algorithms of limited timeframe. So, a book that pops 10 sales in one hour could certainly appear on the "best seller" list for awhile, then disappear for six months with no sales at all. For some insight, look here or here The NYT Bestseller list clearly continues to demonstrate an entrenched presence for traditional publishing houses, so surely they are convincing someone to buy their books... 

As for the issues dealing with Agents versus going alone, I'd have to defer to writers that have experience is such matters, I have not had an agent, and thus, could not comment on whether it is beneficial or detrimental to writers. I would say that self published authors, in place of those challenges, have the challenges of actually getting into stores, formatting and editing their works and in essence, running their own publishing company.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The question is, does working with a major publisher actually save you any time and free up more time for 'justthe writing'? That seems highly debatable. The additional headaches involved in dealing with agents, dealing with nasty clauses in publishing contracts, dealing with publishers orphaning work, dealing with slow production schedules and attempts to limit your productivity all seem to add up to quite a few headaches all on their own.
> 
> And part of the trouble of course is that major publishers are NOT good at marketing books. They're good at marketing books to bookstores, which are fading fast. They're rather bad at marketing to readers, in general, and that's the important form of marketing today.
> 
> In other words, unless you snag a six figure advance, figure on having to do most of your own marketing anyway.
> 
> Right now, self published ebooks dominate 72-92% of the Amazon genre bestseller lists across every genre I checked. At this point, trade publishers have a lot of work to do just to catch back up with Indies. They're behind, losing market share monthly, and not showing many signs of changing their methods.
> 
> When B&N starts mass closure of brick and mortar stores, which is almost certainly within the next 2-3two years, publishers will have run out of breathing room. They have only until then to create a new business model which will be viable in the new market.


----------



## Graham Irwin

Per my own experience with self-publishing:

I am still finishing the third book of a trilogy that I started in 2005. I really wanted to get out the first two books, in some form, for feedback and for my close friends and family, so I put up my book on CreateSpace and Amazon.com. I've sold a few copies online, enough to make some money, which is pretty cool. My big idea is to finish up 3 and then take all the advice I've gotten and rewrite the whole thing, or at least send it all into publishers, once I revise everything and make sure it all lines up and has dealt with the themes I want to properly. 

We're in an age when self-publishing can be a great tool for promotion. I created my website, it gets about 100 hits a day, many of them turn into sales. I'm building a brand recognition for my fantasy world, The Legend of Alm. Then, when I'm ready for the big-time, I can take my small audience with me to the bargaining table with a legitimate publisher.

All in all, if I have one hard-bound, fully illustrated copy of my trilogy on a dusty shelf somewhere for some young person to read and understand, I'll be happier than happy


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I didn' t say bookstores were good at marketing books. I also didn't say big publishers were bad at marketing. Big publishers are in fact excellent at marketing books to bookstores. This is their primary area of expertise: getting big retailers to buy lots of copies of their books.

Where publishers tend to fall down is in marketing to readers. And that's logical; they haven't needed to. Bookstores sell what's on their shelves. Publishers just needed to get the books on those shelves.

Past tense. "Needed."

As brick bookstores crumble, that model is fading. Online bookstores of print or ebook don't generally require one to market to them.  They take everything from the latest hot book to great aunt Hilda's memoir. As book buying moves online, marketing to bookstores - the primary job of publishers for decades - is losing importance, being replaced by marketing to readers. A job which has mostly been done by writers for the last decade or so. Publishers have a lot of catching up to do in that arena.

I'm glad you mentioned the NYTimes list. I assume you're aware they solicit data from publishers for the ebook lists, right? There's no central tracking for ebook sales. Publishers report the data, NYTimes prints it. But they only solicit from major publishers. The reason so few indie books show up there is because the only one's they grudgingly add are the ones which get so much media attention that it embarrasses the paper to.not list them (as happened last spring when USA Today called them on it about Amanda Hocking).

In a world where the top ebooks were mostly sold by big publishers, that wouldn't matter. But we're not living in that world anymore.

The Amazon list does track very fast. It's updated hourly. Books move up.and down quite a lot. Except at the top - top ranked ebooks tend to stick for days, weeks, even months.

But even if they didn't stick. Even if every day it was a new crop of indie books in those top 25. It would still mean that indie books are not only consistently holding most of the best selling seats in the house; it would mean that the share of top seats Indies hold is growing week by week.

The reason many trade pub authors still scoff about ebooks is because their royalty statements still don't show many ebook sales. But more often than not, the reason those ebook sales are low is because the book is trade pub - or rather, because big publishers continue to mismanage ebooks.


----------



## Jabrosky

I've only started my current WIP last night, so perhaps I shouldn't think about publishing yet, but...

 I'll probably go the self-publishing route because I've already posted an excerpt of my WIP on MS's Showcase for critique, and it's my understanding that old-school publishers don't like it if you post excerpts of your stories online. Unless they're willing to make exceptions for this message board, I'm stuck with self-publishing even if it isn't the best option.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I didn' t say bookstores were good at marketing books. I also didn't say big publishers were bad at marketing. Big publishers are in fact excellent at marketing books to bookstores. This is their primary area of expertise: getting big retailers to buy lots of copies of their books.
> 
> Where publishers tend to fall down is in marketing to readers. And that's logical; they haven't needed to. Bookstores sell what's on their shelves. Publishers just needed to get the books on those shelves.
> 
> Past tense. "Needed."



Kevin is 100% right here.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> As brick bookstores crumble, that model is fading. Online bookstores of print or ebook don't generally require one to market to them.  They take everything from the latest hot book to great aunt Hilda's memoir. As book buying moves online, marketing to bookstores - the primary job of publishers for decades - is losing importance, being replaced by marketing to readers. A job which has mostly been done by writers for the last decade or so. Publishers have a lot of catching up to do in that arena.



Also agree.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I'm glad you mentioned the NYTimes list. I assume you're aware they solicit data from publishers for the ebook lists, right? There's no central tracking for ebook sales. Publishers report the data, NYTimes prints it. But they only solicit from major publishers. The reason so few indie books show up there is because the only one's they grudgingly add are the ones which get so much media attention that it embarrasses the paper to.not list them (as happened last spring when USA Today called them on it about Amanda Hocking).



I think they are also getting some numbers from Amazon and B&N otherwise Rick Murcer (an indie thriller writer) couldn't have gotten on the NYT and USA today list - and they have.  But you are right in that the VAST majority of the indie sales are not taken into account.



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> In a world where the top ebooks were mostly sold by big publishers, that wouldn't matter. But we're not living in that world anymore.
> 
> The Amazon list does track very fast. It's updated hourly. Books move up.and down quite a lot. Except at the top - top ranked ebooks tend to stick for days, weeks, even months.
> 
> But even if they didn't stick. Even if every day it was a new crop of indie books in those top 25. It would still mean that indie books are not only consistently holding most of the best selling seats in the house; it would mean that the share of top seats Indies hold is growing week by week.



Without question the indie books are dominating the "bestselling" lists. Most are doing so based on low price points ($0.99 and $2.99) The real test comes when indie and traditional titles are evenly priced.  The interesting thing though...is that due to "cross selling" the indies seem to do better at the low price point than the big boys. Several houses lowered pricing on books for Christmas.  Some to $0.99 and others to $2.99 - interestingly enough the "indies" at that range were still beating out the "top titles" from the big-publishers.  



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The reason many trade pub authors still scoff about ebooks is because their royalty statements still don't show many ebook sales. But more often than not, the reason those ebook sales are low is because the book is trade pub - or rather, because big publishers continue to mismanage ebooks.



My publisher is reporting 10% - 25% (I've not seen my royalty statment yet) I don't know that they "continue to mismanage" it is true that they still "price them higher than indie" but I've never been fond of the $2.99 or $0.99 price point.  Now it may be that I'm out of touch with the market - which might be expecting that price - and in that case pricing at $7.99 and $9.99 would be mis-management. But I woud hate for the lower price to become "the norm" as I don't think many writers will make a living wage off of $0.34 per book sold.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Jabrosky said:


> I've only started my current WIP last night, so perhaps I shouldn't think about publishing yet, but...
> 
> I'll probably go the self-publishing route because I've already posted an excerpt of my WIP on MS's Showcase for critique, and it's my understanding that old-school publishers don't like it if you post excerpts of your stories online. Unless they're willing to make exceptions for this message board, I'm stuck with self-publishing even if it isn't the best option.



You are not "stuck" with self-publishing...you can...but the fact that you posted in MS's Showcase WILL NOT prevent a publisher from picking it up.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

MichaelSullivan said:


> My publisher is reporting 10% - 25% (I've not seen my royalty statment yet) I don't know that they "continue to mismanage" it is true that they still "price them higher than indie" but I've never been fond of the $2.99 or $0.99 price point.  Now it may be that I'm out of touch with the market - which might be expecting that price - and in that case pricing at $7.99 and $9.99 would be mis-management. But I woud hate for the lower price to become "the norm" as I don't think many writers will make a living wage off of $0.34 per book sold.



By mismanage, I mean price out of the market. Books above $6 seem an especially hard sell, yet publishers are still staying above $10 for many newer releases. This is *killing* them in ebook sales.

FWIW, with the current market share estimates, an indie putting a 99 cent book up on Amazon and then via Smashwords to everywhere else is earning about 42 cents per book sold, on average.

Which incidentally is very close to the same price many writers get for a trade published mass market paperback that sells for $8.  

I agree - writers being paid 42 cents a copy is a TERRIBLE number. Writers have been putting up with that number for decades now, and it's awful. Ironically, publishers have spent decades training writers to be OK with earning that little per sale, and are now reaping the rewards of those actions.

One of the best parts of going indie is that the income per sale should be enough higher to make it so writers don't need to sell as many copies to make a good wage. Going at 99 cents defeats that.


----------



## Codey Amprim

Okay, so I've been worried about this for quite some time. I've read a page or two on here but haven't had the time (or attention span) to read all of the pages to see all of the info. I know I am sounding quite lazy when I ask, can somebody make a pros and cons table for traditional vs. independent publishing? I am very curious to see where my road as an aspiring writer may take and what I am to expect. Or should I just make a new thread altogether?


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Codey Amprim said:


> Okay, so I've been worried about this for quite some time. I've read a page or two on here but haven't had the time (or attention span) to read all of the pages to see all of the info. I know I am sounding quite lazy when I ask, can somebody make a pros and cons table for traditional vs. independent publishing? I am very curious to see where my road as an aspiring writer may take and what I am to expect. Or should I just make a new thread altogether?



This is a bit difficult as it depends on what each author's value systems are based on. For instance in traditional publishing someone else does everything for your (editing, cover design) etc. Some writers consider this a huge positive...others a huge negative (because they want full control).  Also one has to consider if you "can" get traditionally published. Many toil for years, or even decades without getting "picked up" but in self-publishing there is nothing standing between you and getting a book out there.


Traditional Pros
- Widespread distribution
- Easier to get foreign language translation deals
- Full staff for editing, marketing, sales, (public relations - sometimes)
- Credibility
- Advances (5,000 - 250,000)
- Eligible for awards

Cons
- Hard to get an offer
- Low per book earnings ($0.48 - $2.50)
- Long time to market (12 months to 2 years)
- Paid 2x a year


Self-publishing Pros
- Higher per book income
- Faster time to market
- Full control
- Paid monthly (60 days after sales)

Cons
- No advance
- Up-front investement for editing and cover designs
- Self-publishing stigma
- Only online distribution (ebooks, Amazon online, B&N on line )
- harder for foreign sales
- harder to get reviews 
- Have to do ... or hire all activities

Notice I didn't put the $'s in either category because that will depend on "how good" the books are.  If your talking a "midlist" title - then there is no doubt in my mind that you'll make more money self-publishing than traditional.  But if you are talking a "breakout novel" then you'll probably make more money in traditional. 

I also didn't mention "marketing" as I think regarless of which approach you take the author needs to dedicate themselves to promotion of the work.

Achieving "success" (read good income) is...in my opinion...easier to obtain when self-publshing (assuming a good book and dedicated self-promoter).  Getting a traditional contract is difficult (and rare) and it is no guarantee of good sales (and sales have to be much higher than self-publishing) as you are making just a fraction of the income.  Bottom line - you don't have to sell nearly as many books when self-published as you do when traditionally publihsed to makes the same amount of money.

I've done both...and like both...but I have a REALLY good publisher and they've given me a much higher than normal advance and they do actively market the books (beyond just buyers at bookstores).  I've been ranked high on Amazon both as a self-published $4.95 - $6.95 title and as a traditionally publishined $9.99 - $14.95) title.  But I would say in general that my success in both cases - were better than most.  In other words I wouldn't expect similar results.  I like to think of my example as "achieveable" but not necessarily "expected".  If that makes any sense at all.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> By mismanage, I mean price out of the market. Books above $6 seem an especially hard sell, yet publishers are still staying above $10 for many newer releases. This is *killing* them in ebook sales.



Yeah I suspected that's what you meant.  The "above $10" is too high - but the majority of big-six ebooks produced are $7.99 - $9.99. Martin's latest is $14.99 but seeing as it's been in the top 100 since release - I think they are obviously getting that amount for them. His other books are $8.99.

FWIW - my rankings as a $9.99 traditional book are about the same as they were at a $4.99 self-published book.  I make about 1/2 as much money but I also have much higher paperbook sales.  Will that offset the loss on ebook revenue?  Not sure - don't have a royaltly statement yet. But I didn't go traditional to make more money (in fact I predicted I would make less) I did it to expand a brand and reach a larger audience - and I do think that has indeed happened.



> FWIW, with the current market share estimates, an indie putting a 99 cent book up on Amazon and then via Smashwords to everywhere else is earning about 42 cents per book sold, on average.
> 
> Which incidentally is very close to the same price many writers get for a trade published mass market paperback that sells for $8.



Close...a $0.99 makes .3465 per book a $7.99 paperback makes .6392 - but the mere fact that a book is being produced in mass market format is an indication that the publisher expects to sell a lot of them (30,000 - 50,000) copies minimum with an expectation of 100,000 - 300,000. Are you more likely to make a living wage at $0.99 ebook or $8 mass market?  I say neither.  If we pick an arbitary $50,000 a year income then the $0.99 ebooks would have to sell 147,000 books and a mass market author 78,000. Both are pretty tall orders and I don't "the average" author will hit either of thos goals.




> I agree - writers being paid 42 cents a copy is a TERRIBLE number. Writers have been putting up with that number for decades now, and it's awful.
> 
> Ironically, publishers have spent decades training writers to be OK with earning that little per sale, and are now reaping the rewards of those actions.
> 
> One of the best parts of going indie is that the income per sale should be enough higher to make it so writers don't need to sell as many copies to make a good wage. Going at 99 cents defeats that.



I don't subscribe to the "publishers" training authors that it is okay sentiment. Traditional publishing, as it has existed, is a venture capital business where most projects will fail and therefore the "backer" takes a higher cut of the winners to offset the losers.  The amounts they are offering maks sense given their risk/reward potential.  Do I think authors should get more?? Hell yeah, but I understand why they have typically priced that way in the past and agree that to be competitive in the future they will make adjustments to their business models and payment terms.

Right now it is the traditional publishers who are keeping the price of ebooks off the very bottom levels of $0.99 and $2.99. I think this is ultimately a good thing for authors.  In a world where all books are $0.99 and $2.99 VERY few authors will make a living wage. The volumes required at that level means that a very narrow band of authors will achieve this.  If we can allow a price point of $4.95 for authors...THEN there is real money to be made and a larger number of authors will earn well.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

On the income thing:
You make 35% on Amazon for 99 cent book. But you make 60% on other venues thanks to Smashwords. Amazon holds 60-70% of the market, but the other 30-40% earns more. It's also possible to make 70% on 99 cent KDP books, although it requires some extra effort. (I think it still is, anyway.) On the trade pub end, I've personally spoken to midlisters making 6% of cover price on mmps from a major press. That's 48 cents, and when you take away 7 cents per copy for the agent...?   I know some (how many I don't know) midlisters make as much as 8% on mmp sales, but that's not universal.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> On the income thing:
> You make 35% on Amazon for 99 cent book. But you make 60% on other venues thanks to Smashwords. Amazon holds 60-70% of the market, but the other 30-40% earns more. It's also possible to make 70% on 99 cent KDP books, although it requires some extra effort. (I think it still is, anyway.) On the trade pub end, I've personally spoken to midlisters making 6% of cover price on mmps from a major press. That's 48 cents, and when you take away 7 cents per copy for the agent...?   I know some (how many I don't know) midlisters make as much as 8% on mmp sales, but that's not universal.



As far as I know, it's 70% if the price is between $2.99 and $9.99 inclusive, 35% if below $2.99 or above $9.99. That's what the KDP site lets you do when you're setting prices, anyway.


----------



## gerald.parson

Nothing wrong with self publishing, its a viable option. Plenty of books have been rejected countless times by agents and publishers only to get picked up one day and do very well. Point being that this is an opinion driven business, and agents and publishers have an opinion, their opinion, not the potential readers. There is a lot of red-tape with publishing, and headaches and hassles. While there are many bonuses with traditional publishing, in today's market and internet driven society, self publishing is perfectly respectable route. Book stores are closing and Amazon is selling, e-books are picking up steam, all these things are obtainable with self-publishing. 
     I look at self publishing much like I look at Indie movies and video games, it's just people (or groups of people) trying to make their mark at their own expense and hard work. 
     I don't think when a book is published in a traditional way it automatically makes it a good book. And that also means when a book is published via vanity press it isn't going to be bad. 

    Put it this way, and I read this somewhere from a author who is self-published so don't quote me, and I am paraphrasing. 
 If you enjoy what you are doing (writing) and you believe in your product ( the book ) then invest in yourself, do the extra leg work and make things happen. If you won't invest in yourself, than don't expect anyone else to invest in you.
     Makes sense to me. So in short, self publishing is cool. Nothing wrong with it at all.


----------



## gerald.parson

I personally think this is a great model to follow. Best of luck. 





Graham Irwin said:


> Per my own experience with self-publishing:
> 
> I am still finishing the third book of a trilogy that I started in 2005. I really wanted to get out the first two books, in some form, for feedback and for my close friends and family, so I put up my book on CreateSpace and Amazon.com. I've sold a few copies online, enough to make some money, which is pretty cool. My big idea is to finish up 3 and then take all the advice I've gotten and rewrite the whole thing, or at least send it all into publishers, once I revise everything and make sure it all lines up and has dealt with the themes I want to properly.
> 
> We're in an age when self-publishing can be a great tool for promotion. I created my website, it gets about 100 hits a day, many of them turn into sales. I'm building a brand recognition for my fantasy world, The Legend of Alm. Then, when I'm ready for the big-time, I can take my small audience with me to the bargaining table with a legitimate publisher.
> 
> All in all, if I have one hard-bound, fully illustrated copy of my trilogy on a dusty shelf somewhere for some young person to read and understand, I'll be happier than happy


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> On the income thing:
> You make 35% on Amazon for 99 cent book. But you make 60% on other venues thanks to Smashwords. Amazon holds 60-70% of the market, but the other 30-40% earns more. It's also possible to make 70% on 99 cent KDP books, although it requires some extra effort. (I think it still is, anyway.) On the trade pub end, I've personally spoken to midlisters making 6% of cover price on mmps from a major press. That's 48 cents, and when you take away 7 cents per copy for the agent...?   I know some (how many I don't know) midlisters make as much as 8% on mmp sales, but that's not universal.



I'm surpriesed to hear contracts for MMP at 6%.  My publisher didn't do my books as MMP but if they did I would have gotten 8% which is what I used for the calculation.  They did my books as trade paperbacks and for that I get 7.5%.


----------



## gerald.parson

You lost me here Michael, could you go further into detail to help me better understand? Please.


MichaelSullivan said:


> I'm surpriesed to hear contracts for MMP at 6%.  My publisher didn't do my books as MMP but if they did I would have gotten 8% which is what I used for the calculation.  They did my books as trade paperbacks and for that I get 7.5%.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

MichaelSullivan said:


> I'm surpriesed to hear contracts for MMP at 6%.  My publisher didn't do my books as MMP but if they did I would have gotten 8% which is what I used for the calculation.  They did my books as trade paperbacks and for that I get 7.5%.



You also received a six-figure advance, Michael. You're not midlist - or if you are, you're at the very tippy top of the midlist.   Midlist MMP royalty is generally 6-8%, from what I've heard from other writers.


Benjamin, the 70% rate IS between $2.99 and 9.99. However, it used to be that if you put the book on Amazon for any price in that range (and turn on the 70% rate), and then put it for 99 cents on Smashwords (and through them B&N and Apple), when the book hit Apple/B&N, and Amazon noticed it (or was informed of it), they dropped the price on their version but not the royalty rate. In other words, you retained the 70% rate even on a 99 cent ebook. NOT sure if it still functions that way or not, however.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Benjamin, the 70% rate IS between $2.99 and 9.99. However, it used to be that if you put the book on Amazon for any price in that range (and turn on the 70% rate), and then put it for 99 cents on Smashwords (and through them B&N and Apple), when the book hit Apple/B&N, and Amazon noticed it (or was informed of it), they dropped the price on their version but not the royalty rate. In other words, you retained the 70% rate even on a 99 cent ebook. NOT sure if it still functions that way or not, however.



That sounds like a bug/exploit. I wouldn't count on it staying around forever.


----------



## Telcontar

Yes, they mention in the terms that the royalty rate stays the same through price-matching. I imagine they'll eventually fix this little loophole, though.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Yeah, it won't shock me when that changes, which is why I said I'm not sure if it still works or not.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

gerald.parson said:


> You lost me here Michael, could you go further into detail to help me better understand? Please.



Gerald...in your contract they have different royalty rates for different formats.  There can be a range - for instance as Kevin pointed out some mass market paperbook (MMP) contracts he's heard of are 6%.  To be honest I thought the contract I received was pretty "industry standard" and I still do think it is.  One thing to keep in mind whenever you are looking at royalties is whether the percentage is based on cover price (list price or gross) or net (and how is net calculated).  FWIW here are the rates in my contract:

hardcover (retail price):
10% first 5,000
12.5% next 5,000
15% all copies after that

Trade paperback (retail price)
7.5% (no escallation)

Mass Market Paperback (retail price)
8% for first 150,000
10% all above that

Audio books (net sales)
10% of CD versions
25% digital downloads

ebooks (net sales)
25% 

There are other numbers - slightly different values for UK, Large Print, etc but the above cover the "bulk" of the royalties


----------



## Stuart John Evison

My first post about my own experience of seeking publication.
The first thing that always gets to me about submitting work to agents or publishers is "submission guidelines", never having been any good at being submissive by very nature I find them too restrictive. I like to illuminate and illustrate my work and they do not seem to be willing to accept this old fashioned idea. This gave me no other recourse but to go the self publishing route in order to make people take notice. I expect the experience of this is different for  everyone but for me it has perhaps been relatively easy. I am lucky enough to have worked and still have friends in the magazine publishing world so I just went for it.
"Muddle Puddle and the Whistling Shell" will be available shortly from Apple's bookstore.


----------



## morfiction

I self-published with Lulu.com. It only costs money to print the books. There are other optional services but they are purely optional.


----------

