# JA Konrath on luck



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

A couple of posts:

A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: How To Succeed

A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Maybe You Suck

I tend to lean toward Konrath's view on the luck component,  though it is hard to know for sure if he oversells it. I say that mainly because I've known some very good writers with traditional publishing contracts who haven't been able to sell enough to make a living, either traditionally or in self-publishing.  So I think there is a definite luck element, and I think you certainly help create your own luck by quantity and quality. But I also think it's entirely possible to have quantity and quality and never make a living writing fiction. What do you guys think?


----------



## acapes (Sep 28, 2015)

This is one of the great draws of modern publishing:

_Ebooks have an infinite shelf life, and ebooks stores have infinite shelf space. If your book is good, it has forever to be discovered.
_
I like the idea of having an audience find my work no matter when. Even if I think I've 'given up' on a published work finding its audience, by moving on and writing other stories, series, there's a chance that book will get some attention later on (so long as I keep publishing.)

ETA: I lean toward him not overselling it - there's just too much that is unpredictable about publishing for luck not to count. (Despite that, I try to do everything professionally and properly, even with passion I hope, which may or may not make a difference sooner or later )


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 28, 2015)

"Luck" is basically the word people use for all the infinite variables in the world around us that affects us, even tangentially, but that we have no control over. So yes, in that sense, a huge part of all publishing is luck based. Though I think the luck factor is different in trad and self publishing. 

In trad, you're basically sticking a whole lot of extra people and processes between you and the reader where "luck" can fail you. You don't have any control over whether an agent will like your book. You don't have any control over whether an editor will like your book. You don't have any control over whether the sales and marketing departments will support your book. You don't have any control over all the internal functions at the publisher that can make a book sink or swim. You don't have any control over whether bookstores will buy your book from the publisher. You don't have any control over whether readers will see your book and buy it. And you don't have control over whether readers will like your book and recommend it to their friends or hate it and give you 1 star reviews. 

But when you self publishing, you're cutting out all those things you don't have control over before the book gets to the marketplace. You don't have to worry about the luck factor with agents, editors, sales reps, marketing people, bookstore buyers, etc. You become responsible for all those things and can give it your absolute best effort. The only remaining luck factor is whether the readers will find your book and buy it and then like it or not. It's all in the hands of the reader, as it should be, in my opinion. 

So yes, luck is huge in all forms of publishing, but the more you eliminate factors you can't control, the less you have to hope for good luck.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

On the other hand, even though things are under your control in self-publishing, there is a much greater chance of getting lost in the crowd. If your book makes it onto the SF/F shelves are Barnes and Noble, I'm almost certainly going to see it. 

I like the point Konrath makes about quality not being an indicator. I know some good writers who have been discouraged due to lack of appreciable sales, either through traditional or self-publishing. One of them hasn't written in nearly two years. I think people tend to get down on their work when it doesn't do well, and it's worth remembering that failing to sell doesn't necessarily mean you didn't put out a good product.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 28, 2015)

I feel like a broken record, but Joe's message is not the one I'm hearing from most of the people who are making money.

A point of clarification first: The people I'm listening to aren't the ones who are getting movie deals and selling millions of books.  They're the ones making good 4 and 5 figure monthly incomes by churning out book after book.

Their overwhelming message is:

Write a "good" book (though I have no idea how to define "good")
Write a sequel to that good book.
Put the first book on sale and spend money to promote it.
Write a sequel to that second book.
Make the first book free and spend money to promote it.

You make your money by getting people to read your first book and "selling through" the rest of the series.

(Disclaimer: my bullets points above are diagrammatic and shouldn't be construed as anything other than a starting point.)

The message I'm getting is that success in self publishing is far more dependent on hard work than on luck.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

Brian - but if you compare the number of people you're hearing from to the total number who are attempting to self-publish, or the total number who are following the exact same principles, and not making money, what does that ratio look like? Is it even possible to know the answer to that? Because unless you have that figure, just going by the people making money doesn't contradict anything Konrath is saying here. Similarly, if you only go by the people who make a living in traditional publishing you miss all the people attempting the same thing, and writing well, but not able to break through. Happens in every commercial art form I think.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

Before someone reads the thread wrong, the point Konrath is making in the "Maybe you suck" column is the opposite of what the column title says. If it is true that all you have to do is follow steps A, B, and C, and if you have a certain level of quality you're guaranteed success, then when a writer follows steps A, B, and C and doesn't meet with success, the only conclusion is that they're not very good.  That is discouraging for writers, in my view. Sure, it MAY be that your writing is not very good, but there are plenty of good writers who are able to put out quality work at a good pace and still not do very well. You have to look at the quality of your work on its own merits, not let lack of success in the marketplace tell you that you're not any good.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 28, 2015)

I read the first one and that was kind of encouraging. The second one was more of a bit of a rant and a bit more predictable. I think the guy's got a point though. 
There's loads of circumstances outside of your control that have an impact on you in unpredictable and unfair ways - for better or for worse. You can (should) still do your best to turn fortune in your favour, but there's always a chance it won't work out anyway. 
Basically, the world isn't fair, but that's no reason to stop trying.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> Basically, the world isn't fair, but that's no reason to stop trying.



Yeah.

I think there are two important concepts to understand in self-publishing (or traditional publishing for that matter):

1) There are variables that will always be outside of your control, and you can do everything right and still not succeed because of those things; and

2) There are variables within your control - the things we talk about in the threads on what you need to do for commercial success - and the more strongly you pull those variables in your failure, the more likely you are to minimize the variables in #1, above, that aren't within your control.

That seems like something most people will agree on. I think "entertainment" is always this way. There are musicians who are extremely talented singers/songwriters/players who had everything seemingly going for them - talent, contract with a major label, rave reviews, and so on - but for whatever reason weren't able to break through despite all indicators pointing in that direction. It happens. 

It's hard to put odds on the chances of success, no matter what steps you're following. Maybe impossible. Best we can say is that if you follow certain steps your odds seem to be a lot better than if you don't follow them, but don't get discouraged if you follow those steps and it doesn't work out. Heck, you may follow those steps for ten years without much luck and then suddenly make it. Who knows? You keep your chin up and keep writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 28, 2015)

> Brian - but if you compare the number of people you're hearing from to the total number who are attempting to self-publish, or the total number who are following the exact same principles, and not making money, what does that ratio look like?



I have no idea, and I agree with you completely.  The "survey" of people posting their experiences is flawed from a scientific standpoint.  If someone shows me data that disproves the hypothesis, I'm more than willing to listen.

At this point, I've seen a lot of people speak from experience and say, "Hey, I did this and this is what happened ..."  I haven't heard a lot of data to support the idea that following the procedure doesn't work.

Just going off the best data that I have now, it seems to offer an indie writer his best chance at success, and it seems like there are a lot of people achieving success that way.



> ust going by the people making money doesn't contradict anything Konrath is saying here.



Here's the problem, though.

I think that Konrath found success a while ago.  The marketplace is changing all the time.  Crap, it just underwent a huge transformation with the introduction of KU2.  As independent business owners, we absolutely have to adapt to the changing times instead of basing decisions off advice coming from someone who broke through years ago in a different marketplace.

The biggest difference between what Konrath says and what the other people making money are saying is that there are ROI-effective ways to promote your books.  From the stories I've read, you absolutely can find readers to put eyeballs on your free or .99 book.  All you have to do is schedule the promotions around your countdown or free kindle days and pay the money.

I remember threads from a few years ago on this site. The question was, "How do you promote your book? Ads on FB, Google, Goodreads? Blogs? What works?"

The answer was, "As far as we can tell, nothing is guaranteed to put eyeballs on your book no matter how much you spend."

That dynamic has changed.  There are a ton of services that, for a fee, email a link to your book to their subscribers.  From the experience of everybody posting stories about their promotions, these services work.  Some provide positive ROI for a single book at .99.  Others depend on sell through.

There are also other marketing strategies that have been proven to work. Permafree to build a email list is the best example.  Get a couple of thousand people to sign up for your list, and you're guaranteed sales with every new release.  Takes time to build up that amount of subscribers, but it's not luck getting them; it's work.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 28, 2015)

> If it is true that all you have to do is follow steps A, B, and C, and if you have a certain level of quality you're guaranteed success, then when a writer follows steps A, B, and C and doesn't meet with success, the only conclusion is that they're not very good. That is discouraging for writers, in my view.



I'm in a completely opposite place than you are.

I find the belief that my success is dependent on luck to be extremely discouraging, much more so than placing any blame for a lack of success squarely on my own shoulders.

Given the current marketplace, I truly belief that, if I do not succeed, it's solely because of one of three factors:

1. I didn't provide readers with what they wanted.
2. I didn't figure out how to put my books in front of those readers.
3. I didn't work hard enough to produce the necessary quantity of books.



> Sure, it MAY be that your writing is not very good, but there are plenty of good writers who are able to put out quality work at a good pace and still not do very well. You have to look at the quality of your work on its own merits, not let lack of success in the marketplace tell you that you're not any good.



At this point, I'm really unsure how much the quality of your writing comes into play.  I definitely do not believe that the best books will necessarily get the most sales.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Given the current marketplace, I truly belief that, if I do not succeed, it's solely because of one of three factors:
> 
> 1. I didn't provide readers with what they wanted.
> 2. I didn't figure out how to put my books in front of those readers.
> 3. I didn't work hard enough to produce the necessary quantity of books.



Empirically, I just don't see this being possible as the only explanations of lack of success. To me it seems pretty much a given in any entertainment area that you have really talented, hard-working people who do the right things and never make it. But the more right things you do, and the longer you do them, the better your chances.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 28, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Empirically, I just don't see this being possible as the only explanations of lack of success. To me it seems pretty much a given in any entertainment area that you have really talented, hard-working people who do the right things and never make it. But the more right things you do, and the longer you do them, the better your chances.



I don't know. Empirically, it sounds pretty thorough to me.

Following all the steps means I would have produced a bunch of books that readers want to read and then got those books in front of those readers.  Again, my definition of success isn't a Ferrari for every day of the week; it's monthly sales that consistently hit the 4 to 5 figure range.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't know. Empirically, it sounds pretty thorough to me.
> 
> Following all the steps means I would have produced a bunch of books that readers want to read and then got those books in front of those readers.  Again, my definition of success isn't a Ferrari for every day of the week; it's monthly sales that consistently hit the 4 to 5 figure range.



Problem is, if you can find only a single instance of someone who meets those criteria and didn't succeed, then the argument falls apart. Better to say those are all things that are vastly more likely to help you, not that they are absolute guarantees.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 28, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Problem is, if you can find only a single instance of someone who meets those criteria and didn't succeed, then the argument falls apart.



Actually, because each statement is so vague and hard to measure, it's hard to prove one way or the other.  How do I measure if my writing is what the readers want to read? How do I know if I've put the books in front of the right readers? How do I know how many books is "enough?"

Look, my driving motivation is this: If other people are doing it, I can, too!  I have to experiment and learn the market and figure out how everything works, but the bottom line is that people are doing it every single day.  They are seeing rising sales based with each new release.  Look at Pauline and Greg from this site.

You didn't mention what I thought was the most important part of my previous post - the availability of effective promotions.  It totally blew my mind when I learned that that was the case.  I'd always bought the luck principle because what was the alternative?  You put a book out there and then ... ????  There was no plan.  Nothing you could realistically do to help your book gain traction.

Now there are ways to guide readers to your books. 

Old Paradigm:

Step 1 - put out a book
Step 2 - hope people buy it

New Paradigm:

Step 1 - put out a book
Step 2 - promote the book
Step 3 - If the book met expectations for sales/downloads from the promotions, you're on the right track. If not, something is wrong with your book!  Is the cover right? The pitch? Do you have eighty typos in the sample?  If it's not selling during the promotion, you've done something wrong.  It's incumbent upon you to figure out what that problem is.

EDIT:

Just to be completely clear - I do not want to come across as, "I know what I'm talking about."  As of right now, I have self published exactly one novella that, in its first 28 days or so, has made less than $1/day.  That's not exactly the voice of experience.

What I want to convey is: I've put a lot of time into researching self publishing as a business.  Based on my research, I truly believe there is a path to success that does not rely on luck.  It does rely, however, on working really hard, investing time and money, adapting to what the market is telling you, and soaking up as much knowledge from people who are where you want to be as you can. There is no guarantee that any one author is going to be able to work hard or smart enough to succeed.


----------



## acapes (Sep 29, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Again, my definition of success isn't a Ferrari for every day of the week; it's monthly sales that consistently hit the 4 to 5 figure range.



I would settle for income enough for one of these a week ;D


----------



## acapes (Sep 29, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Write a sequel to that good book.




This is the key - writing a series (or multiple series) I feel. Readers now tell me they finished Book 1 and immediately bought Book 2 of my Bone Mask books, which is awesome.

But no-one, after reading one of my standalones, says, "I just brought the rest of your books!" (sadly )


I can infer from that anecdotal evidence that either:


1. My standalones suck
or
2. Writing a series sells more books 

(because readers need to 'find out what happens' and a series/trilogy tends to leave a narrative unfinished until all titles have been purchased, of course)

ETA: Where luck comes in for me in that example, I guess, is when someone 'stumbles' across the books on Amazon/when my blurb/over/chapter1 clicks with one person (but not another) and various other factors, did I run a promo on a 'good' day? good time of day (to reach the right person) So, so, so many variables!


----------



## acapes (Sep 29, 2015)

(sorry, repeated post by accident)


----------



## Russ (Sep 29, 2015)

Let me get my bias out in front.  I have been following Konrath for years and I really don't think much of him.  He seems to support unethical practices and is really not well informed and often even misleading on a number of fronts.  The time Lee Childs kicked his ass around the block on his own site was just awesome.

Anyways, I still think that generally "luck" is an excuse and there is no reason to believe that luck plays much more of a role in writing than any other vocation.  

The fact is that making a living in writing is very hard.  It is a lot like college football.  There are thousands of kids playing the sport but very few will ever make much of a living at it.  A lot of people want to, and think they can do it, but the market is limited and crowded and competitive (either traditional or self).  In fact on the self pub side it looks positively flooded.  It is not "luck" that makes it a tough go, it is market conditions.

You might suggest that the guys who made high end wagon wheels were "unlucky" those darned motor cars caught on.  I don't see it that way.  They got killed by a significant change in market conditions.  

Think of it this way.  If you take 1,000 people who want to be mountain climbers probably 950 of them could do Mount Kenya while only a very small number could ever do a tough technical climb.  You would not suggest that the 10 who could do the hardest climbs are luckier than the others, they are, for whatever reason, better mountain climbers.  Making a half decent living at writing is that tough technical climb.

Now you might way that there is luck in writing, depending on how big a factor who think luck plays in success in life in general (you could argue you genes are luck I suppose, or the country you are born in, or the parents you are born to) but I don't see any reason to believe that luck plays a bigger role in writing than any other profession.  

Also, thinking about things in terms of "luck" is particularly not functional.  It may serve as a salve to a hurting ego but it doesn't give you a path forward.  You can't make yourself more lucky.  If you conclude your lack of success is a lack of "luck" what does that tell you to do.  It tells you to keep doing the same thing and hope you get "lucky."  That does not strike me helpful or healthy at all.

Market conditions make it hard.  

To me, being hard makes it a worthy endevour.


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 29, 2015)

Russ said:


> Let me get my bias out in front.  I have been following Konrath for years and I really don't think much of him.  He seems to support unethical practices and is really not well informed and often even misleading on a number of fronts.



Out of curiousity, what unethical practices and what in particular does he seem to not be informed about? I've followed him for a number of years as well and I think his worst quality is just that he tends to be a bit of a loud mouth and very... direct in his opinions. But I have not seen anything wrong with the actual content of his advice that I can remember.

And I don't think Lee Child kicked his ass at all. Child is very knowledgeable about his own publishing experience, which is totally uncommon. He has no idea how the system treats the average writer. He's a 1 % author thinking he can tell the 99% how things are.


----------



## Russ (Sep 29, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Out of curiousity, what unethical practices and what in particular does he seem to not be informed about? I've followed him for a number of years as well and I think his worst quality is just that he tends to be a bit of a loud mouth and very... direct in his opinions. But I have not seen anything wrong with the actual content of his advice that I can remember.
> 
> And I don't think Lee Child kicked his ass at all. Child is very knowledgeable about his own publishing experience, which is totally uncommon. He has no idea how the system treats the average writer. He's a 1 % author thinking he can tell the 99% how things are.



Among other things, which would take much longer to explain, I think Konrath's position on fake and bought reviews is completely unethical.

I do think Lee more than got the best of him in that exchange, but people can read it for themselves and decide what they think.

I also think you are being very unfair to Lee saying that he is a 1% author who is unqualified to comment on how the industry works overall.  That simply shows you don't know the man or his work in the industry and for authors.  Firstly Lee when he appeared on Konrath's blog was speaking as a rep for Author's United around the very troubling issue with Hachette, and I think Lee was on the right side of that fight, not for himself, but for authors and a good publishing industry in general.  

Further Lee works hard on behalf of other author's organizations who work hard on behalf of average authors, and aspiring authors.  He is currently coming off a very active term as President of ITW and has done similar *unpaid* work for other organizations.  During that time he has kept himself informed, and in fact commissioned studies on the state of the publishing industry overall and what that means for unpublished and not yet branded authors and their careers.  He has served his constituency very well indeed.  And I suspect considering his success and workload he had no need to do any of that work at all. I am grateful that he has.

I can guarantee you that Lee is extremely well informed on how things work for both the average writer and the aspiring writer because he has worked at it and genuinely seems to care about it.  To suggest otherwise is simply unfair and inaccurate.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2015)

Russ:

I don't find your analogies compelling. I think entertainment is an entirely different animal, and it's an area I work in. You don't know musicians, or actors, or writers who are very good and check all the right boxes and don't get anywhere?  I do.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 29, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Russ:
> 
> I don't find your analogies compelling. I think entertainment is an entirely different animal, and it's an area I work in. You don't know musicians, or actors, or writers who are very good and check all the right boxes and don't get anywhere?  I do.



I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.  If a writer isn't getting anywhere, he's doing something wrong.

A year and a half from now, I hope to have my fourth book published in my primary series.  At that point, I'll drop the price of _Rise of the Mages_ and promote the heck out of it.

Many other authors have pursued this strategy and succeeded. If no one buys Rise, that means that I've done something wrong with the cover or the pitch.  If I give up at that point, it'll be on me, not on luck.  The correct course of action is to evaluate the pitch and the cover, make changes, and promote it again.

If people buy _Rise, _but there's no sell through, then I know there's an issue with my writing.  It doesn't mean, "Oh, I'm unlucky."  If the book captured my readers' interest, they would have bought the next book.

Obviously, luck can play a role in attaining mega success.  Maybe Taylor Swift reads my book and tweets about it, catapulting me to fame and riches.  But on the low side, I just don't see it.  I have the ability to put my book in front of readers. If the readers don't respond, then that's on me, not on luck.

I have no idea about musicians.  If there's no avenue for them to get their music in front of listeners, then luck may very well be the dominant factor in their success.

I definitely think that luck plays a huge role in acting. There are only so many parts, and everything depends on being in front of the right decision maker at the right time.

Writing no longer depends on such.  There is no decision maker, and there is a way to get your books in front of an audience.

Explain to me, please, where the luck is in that equation?


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 29, 2015)

Well, Russ, I doubt we're ever going to agree on publishing issues. 

Konrath's take on fake reviews is not unethical, in my opinion. He's not condoning sock puppet reviews that authors use to boost sales. He's just saying that in the grand scheme of things, they don't actually do that much harm (at worst the convince someone to buy a book they end up not liking, not unlike back cover blurbs and advertisements have been doing for ages) and that beginning to police reviews will end up doing more harm than good. I have to agree with him there. 

I am completely against Authors United personally. I think their entire campaign is a hideous joke. They don't know what they're doing and they are NOT representing authors as a whole, which they keep claiming to do. Lee came to The Passive Voice blog often to argue his point of view, but he was not convincing. (He was also very belligerent, which didn't make him look good in the slightest.) He argues a very, very particular view of the publishing industry that does not mesh with the experience of many, many authors lower down on the totem pole than he is. He may think he is doing what's best for all authors, but he is looking at the big picture with a very myopic view. 

And Steerpike's point is entirely correct: there are hundreds of authors who going through the publishing process doing everything they are supposed to do, but getting nowhere because of factors out of their control. There are thousands of writers who never even get into the publishing process because no matter how hard they work no matter whether they are doing everything they are told will work they can't get a break. Being "accepted" into publishing is entirely out of their control. This is what people generally mean by luck. Either the factors out of your control come together in your favor or they don't and there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 29, 2015)

> And Steerpike's point is entirely correct: there are hundreds of authors who going through the publishing process doing everything they are supposed to do, but getting nowhere because of factors out of their control. There are thousands of writers who never even get into the publishing process because no matter how hard they work no matter whether they are doing everything they are told will work they can't get a break. Being "accepted" into publishing is entirely out of their control. This is what people generally mean by luck. Either the factors out of your control come together in your favor or they don't and there's nothing you can do about it.



Note that I agree that being accepted by a traditional publisher is luck dependent.

My position is that success as an indie author is not dependent on luck.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2015)

@Brian:

You keep posting those things, but I don't see any empirical data to back any of it up. It seems to me to be just wishful thinking. Of course there are things you can do to make success much more likely - no one is claiming luck is all there is to it. However, to adopt your position, then every writer who isn't making a living from their fiction (which, by the way, is the vast majority of them) is just doing something wrong as opposed to having done all the right things and just not made it. Every single one of them. Just from a sheer statistical perspective, that's highly unlikely. I think the idea that there is a formula X, Y, Z to follow to _guarantee_ financial success as a fiction writer is wishful thinking. If it helps motivate you, then great. We'll just have to disagree on the rest of it - no matter how many ways you reword it, it just doesn't hold up with what I actually see in the real world. To me, there's no argument but that there is a component of luck involved. The only question is how significant it is.


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 29, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Note that I agree that being accepted by a traditional publisher is luck dependent.
> 
> My position is that success as an indie author is not dependent on luck.



So you have a way to guarantee that readers will find your book, readers will buy your book, readers will enjoy your book, etc? None of those has a luck component involved?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 29, 2015)

> You keep posting those things, but I don't see any empirical data to back any of it up.



And your empirical data is ... what exactly?

All you keep saying is, "Entertainment is different."

Wow.  That's an impressive argument.



> However, to adopt your position, then every writer who isn't making a living from their fiction (which, by the way, is the vast majority of them) is just doing something wrong as opposed to having done all the right things and just not made it. Every single one of them.



Yes!

Most small businesses fail.  Take, for example, a small shop in Corona that sold high-end used clothing for children.  They'd been around for years in a location central to lots of houses.  They decided to move to a high end shopping center outside of town.  Their lease cost a lot more at the new location, causing them to raise their prices.  Their stuff ended up costing as much as new stuff did when the new stuff was discounted.  With the combination of being further from their base customers and their higher prices, they ended up going out of business.

Is that bad luck?

No. They made a bad decision, and it cost them.

If a business doesn't do enough research to formulate a strategy or doesn't adapt to changing market conditions, is it "bad luck" when they fail? I don't think so. I think that it's luck if they succeed.

The fact is that writing as an indie author is a business.  Bad decisions will ruin you.  I truly believe that most indie authors do not treat their writing as a business at all, much less do what it takes to succeed.

Again, an indie author absolutely has to come up with a plan, respond to data, be adaptable, and be persistent to succeed.  The lack of any of those elements is likely to result in failure.  In my eyes, that failure isn't due to luck; it's inevitable.



> We'll just have to disagree on the rest of it - no matter how many ways you reword it, it just doesn't hold up with what I actually see in the real world. To me, there's no argument but that there is a component of luck involved. The only question is how significant it is.



Are you seeing authors develop a plan based on real life data, follow that plan, adapt their business based on their own results, and still fail?

I seriously doubt that you can honestly answer that question in the affirmative.

Sorry, but in this case, I don't think your personal observations are showing you the complete picture.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 29, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> So you have a way to guarantee that readers will find your book, readers will buy your book, readers will enjoy your book, etc? None of those has a luck component involved?



Mythopoet,

There are promotion services available that put your book in front of readers.  Author after author have tried these services and gotten great results.  Those who don't get great results on the first try typically find that altering their pitch and/or their cover makes all the difference for the next go around.

A percentage of the people reading that first book will enjoy it and move on to the next books in your series, resulting in profit.  The more entertaining your book, the more people go on to the next one.

Maybe you get "lucky" in that more than the average amount of people read your book, but it's not "luck" to hit an average ROI if your pitch and cover are right.  The more series you have out, the more times you can do this.

So, no. It's not luck.  It's getting books on the market in a series and promoting correctly.

EDIT: Note that this doesn't mean anything is easy.  For example, let's say an author chooses to write in a genre that doesn't have a lot of readers.  That author is out of "luck." From my perspective, though, I'd say that lack of "luck" was because of a poor decision on the author's part.


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 29, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Are you seeing authors develop a plan based on real life data, follow that plan, adapt their business based on their own results, and still fail?
> 
> I seriously doubt that you can honestly answer that question in the affirmative.



Yes. I've seen lots of these people. They research, the make a plan, they put their very best effort in, and the results just don't come in. Some of them give up, but many of them keep striving, keep looking for information that will help them, keep trying new things, keep working hard, and success still eludes them. It happens all the time. I've seen several people get frustrated because they work so hard, they invest, they do everything that is recommended, and they never achieve the success that some people who did much less achieve much faster. It's just that kind of business. Even when you do everything you can do, there's a luck factor. You can't force readers to respond favorably to the product you have to offer.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 29, 2015)

> You can't force readers to respond favorably to the product you have to offer.



That's the problem right there!

I agree. You absolutely cannot force readers to respond favorably to what you want to write.  A key component in the equation is that you have to write what the readers want to read.

Study the bestsellers in your genre. That's what the readers want. Give it to them, follow the plan, and you'll succeed.



> Yes. I've seen lots of these people. They research, the make a plan, they put their very best effort in, and the results just don't come in. Some of them give up, but many of them keep striving, keep looking for information that will help them, keep trying new things, keep working hard, and success still eludes them. It happens all the time. I've seen several people get frustrated because they work so hard, they invest, they do everything that is recommended, and they never achieve the success that some people who did much less achieve much faster.



And sorry, but I don't buy this at face value.  What exactly did they do to fulfill "everything that was recommended?" 

I only found kboards recently.  Were they members there?  Did they post their problems and get advice on how to fix it?  Were their cover and pitch awesome?

I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Are you seeing authors develop a plan based on real life data, follow that plan, adapt their business based on their own results, and still fail?
> 
> I seriously doubt that you can honestly answer that question in the affirmative.
> 
> Sorry, but in this case, I don't think your personal observations are showing you the complete picture.



Yes. And, in addition to the above, some of them have had the benefit of getting a series published through a traditional publisher like Harper Collins and then going through all the steps you're talking about both to support their traditional work and their self-published work, and it isn't panning out. And they're good writers. And the readers who _have_ read their work seem to really like it.

You're an engineer, right? You have to know that the absolute nature of the hypothesis you're putting forward makes it almost impossible to be true. Even a single case of what I'm talking about disproves your hypothesis. Instead of stubbornly trying to push the absolute vision here, you should be looking for a more reasonable middle ground that accepts that sometimes factors that are outside of your control (e.g. luck) come into play. 

My personal observations don't have to show a complete picture, they only have to show one instance that deviates from your hypothesis to demonstrate the hypothesis is wrong. You get that, right? I mean from a science point of view and all...


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 29, 2015)

> My personal observations don't have to show a complete picture, they only have to show one instance that deviates from your hypothesis to demonstrate the hypothesis is wrong. You get that, right? I mean from a science point of view and all...



But all you're saying is, "I know this guy and he followed all these steps and failed, so you're wrong."

How do you know that he followed all the steps?  What were his results when he promoted the first book in his series on his free days?  Which/how many promotion services did he use? How many people does he have on his email list?  If under 2000, what is he doing to increase it? What did fellow indie authors advise him regarding his pitch and cover when they didn't sell?  What changes did he make to those?



> Instead of stubbornly trying to push the absolute vision here, you should be looking for a more reasonable middle ground that accepts that sometimes factors that are outside of your control (e.g. luck) come into play.



I think I'm taking a very reasonable position.  I am not saying in any way that an author will absolutely become the next JK Rowling or Stephenie Meyer through hard work.  That level of "success" is dependent to a large degree on luck.

What I'm saying is that, if you write enough books in genres that readers want to read that follow the tropes and formulas that the readers want and (perhaps?) your writing is of some minimum level of quality and you promote correctly, you absolutely can reach a monthly income in the 4 to 5 figure range.

I don't understand why that is deemed a crazy notion.



> You're an engineer, right? You have to know that the absolute nature of the hypothesis you're putting forward makes it almost impossible to be true. Even a single case of what I'm talking about disproves your hypothesis.



And you have to understand how many qualifications I put on my hypothesis.  How in the world could you possibly think that any anecdote you come up with meets all those criteria?

What I don't get is why you have such a vested interest in luck being involved.


----------



## Russ (Sep 29, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Well, Russ, I doubt we're ever going to agree on publishing issues.
> 
> Konrath's take on fake reviews is not unethical, in my opinion. He's not condoning sock puppet reviews that authors use to boost sales. He's just saying that in the grand scheme of things, they don't actually do that much harm (at worst the convince someone to buy a book they end up not liking, not unlike back cover blurbs and advertisements have been doing for ages) and that beginning to police reviews will end up doing more harm than good. I have to agree with him there.
> 
> ...



Lee is a very tough man from a very tough background.  While he speaks directly and aggressively, I can respect that.  In context I find his arguments far less outrageously phrased that Konrath's who often likes to make noise just to attract attention.  

The funny thing about Lee is that he actually really knows the current data on the business and works hard for authors who are not as his level.

I bet you didn't even know he was coming off a very well regarded two year term as ITW president.  How do you feel about his work as ITW pres and president of the Mystery Writers?  

I *know* you didn't know he commissioned a major study that put together a whole bunch of data to understand how authors who are not yet branded should promote themselves, because the last time we discussed the traditional publishing industry you had *not even heard of the company that does this work most frequently and with the most data.* 

We don't agree because you simply don't have much real knowledge about the traditional publishing industry and don't seem interesting in learning about it.  

Judging by the slush piles (now inboxes I suppose) and the number of indy publications going on it seems that there are more people trying to get into the industry than ever.  These hoards of people who have quit are nowhere to be seen, or at least, are not growing in any way we can tell.  It really seems that with word processors more and more people are willing to have a crack at it for good or ill.

Factors out of your control are not the same thing as "luck".  Luck is unpredictable and uncontrollable.  They are things that cannot be foreseen or rationally planned for.

Market forces, which while they  may be beyond our control, can be seen, studied, understood, often predicted and rationally planned for.

They are two different things.  Not all things beyond our control are "luck" or chance.


----------



## Russ (Sep 29, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Russ:
> 
> I don't find your analogies compelling. I think entertainment is an entirely different animal, and it's an area I work in. You don't know musicians, or actors, or writers who are very good and check all the right boxes and don't get anywhere?  I do.



I think entertainment is a very, very hard way to make a living. 

I am not a proponent of the school that says there is as clear a path to success as "checking all the right boxes."  When you are dependent for your living on getting a subjective positive reaction from the public there are a lot of variables that you need to deal with, some of which are hard to measure.

Having said that I am certain that there are many musicians etc who are very good, and follow conventional advice and don't make much money.  There is definately luck involved and market forces that impact musicians.  I just don't think that luck is significantly more important in these fields than other endeavours where the market only seems to allow an elite few to make a living at it.

I think of those types of endeavors as having really tough filters along the road, it is hard to get through them.  There may be several filters along the road in fact.

I don't suggest the filters are perfect either.  There will be times when a demonstrably poorer musician does better than his superior for some reason.  But I would suggest the measure of an entertainer (at least for this discussion) is very much about giving the audience what they want.  Figuring out what the audience wants, and how to get it to them is very, very hard indeed.


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 29, 2015)

Russ said:


> Lee is a very tough man from a very tough background.  While he speaks directly and aggressively, I can respect that.  In context I find his arguments far less outrageously phrased that Konrath's who often likes to make noise just to attract attention.
> 
> The funny thing about Lee is that he actually really knows the current data on the business and works hard for authors who are not as his level.
> 
> ...



You're making a lot of assumptions about what I know and don't know, Russ. Though I admit, I certainly have not studied Lee Child as much as you must have done to have so much intimate knowledge of him. And of course I'm sure you have very good reason to think that Child's argumentativeness in a comments sections is because he's a tough guy with a tough past but Konrath is only trying to make noise to get attention. I'm sure you're not being biased at all. 

To be honest, I don't care at all about Lee Child. I don't read his books because I have no interest in them and what I have seen of him on The Passive Voice blog and Konrath's blog has not given me any reason to be interested in what he has to say. Nor do I generally care in the slightest about traditional authors associations and most of them have given me no reason to. I don't even know what ITW is. Google says... Illinois Tool Works? International Telecoms Week? Doesn't sound right. And I'm sure you're not just using the initials intentionally to confuse others and appear more enlightened. 

I'm not sure what knowing the company that performs a study has to do with being well-informed. What matters is the study itself and its methodology. If you have valid studies to cite, then I suggest you actually cite them instead of just name dropping. 

I learn more and more about the traditional publishing industry every day from people who have been part of it and lived to tell the tale. Authors who have been in the trenches for decades. I wouldn't dare to guess where you're getting your so-called knowledge from, Russ, or how much of it you have because I don't know you. All I can do is debate specific facts and their meaning. But you seem to prefer name dropping and then acting as if mentioning Lee Child makes you an expert on publishing. Well, it doesn't. Not even if you happened to be Child himself.


----------



## Russ (Sep 29, 2015)

> You're making a lot of assumptions about what I know and don't know, Russ. Though I admit, I certainly have not studied Lee Child as much as you must have done to have so much intimate knowledge of him. And of course I'm sure you have very good reason to think that Child's argumentativeness in a comments sections is because he's a tough guy with a tough past but Konrath is only trying to make noise to get attention. I'm sure you're not being biased at all.



Actually they are deductions, not assumptions there is a difference. Everything I post about Lee is easily verifiable.  As is everything I post about Konrath.  I admitted my dislike on Konrath upfront.  I thought that was the fair thing to do.



> To be honest, I don't care at all about Lee Child. I don't read his books because I have no interest in them and what I have seen of him on The Passive Voice blog and Konrath's blog has not given me any reason to be interested in what he has to say. Nor do I generally care in the slightest about traditional authors associations and most of them have given me no reason to. I don't even know what ITW is. Google says... Illinois Tool Works? International Telecoms Week? Doesn't sound right. And I'm sure you're not just using the initials intentionally to confuse others and appear more enlightened.



You cared enough to come to the conclusion that he is a 1% telling the 99% what to do based on his experience.  That was factually wrong.  He has studied, represents well, and continues to represent large groups of regular authors who like how he represents them.  You made assumptions about his lack of knowledge that are simply factually wrong.

Good of you to admit that you just don't care what large well informed groups think or say.  That just means that you are not open to different opinions from people who work within the industry.  

Oh...ITW is International Thriller Writers.  A large well respected organization.  I use ITW because it is a common shortform.  I also use SWFA, and many other shortforms that pretty common in the industry.  Feel free to google SWFA (hint they don't make sports optics), or other writers group shortforms.  



> I'm not sure what knowing the company that performs a study has to do with being well-informed. What matters is the study itself and its methodology. If you have valid studies to cite, then I suggest you actually cite them instead of just name dropping


. 

In context this would be correct.  But we were not discussing the contents of studies (which I have happily done on many occasions in the past) but the level of Lee Child's knowledge of more common writer's experiences.  The fact that he has commissioned studies on those experiences and has read them etc conflicts with your claims of his ignorance.

Not knowing the name of the company that does the largest, most and best studies for the industry just shows a basic lack of knowledge on the subject.  It would be like talking about the automotive industry and someone making strong claims about what they do, or don't do, and then not knowing who Toyota is.  Or about political polling but never having heard of Gallup.



> I learn more and more about the traditional publishing industry every day from people who have been part of it and lived to tell the tale. Authors who have been in the trenches for decades. I wouldn't dare to guess where you're getting your so-called knowledge from, Russ, or how much of it you have because I don't know you. All I can do is debate specific facts and their meaning. But you seem to prefer name dropping and then acting as if mentioning Lee Child makes you an expert on publishing. Well, it doesn't. Not even if you happened to be Child himself.



You certainly weren't debating specific facts when you claimed Lee was ignorant of the 99% experience.  You were rather quick to make those comments either not knowing or caring if they were true.  You were quite unaware of his work in the field, and when it was brought to your attention you certainly showed no openness to changing  your position.

I did post once before about my sources of knowledge about the publishing industry.  It is entirely possible you  missed it.  I know the industry well because my father spent his whole career in it, I worked in it when I was younger, and my wife works in it full time right now.  Many of the people I spend time with away from the office make their living in it right now as agents, editors, writers etc.  Despite that I try to always post things that are easily verifiable from public sources and not just gossip.  It is just common courtesy.  

No name dropping involved.


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 29, 2015)

Russ said:


> You cared enough to come to the conclusion that he is a 1% telling the 99% what to do based on his experience.  That was factually wrong.  He has studied, represents well, and continues to represent large groups of regular authors who like how he represents them.  You made assumptions about his lack of knowledge that are simply factually wrong.



All of his comments on The Passive Voice, which is what I have been talking about, my only real exposure to him and his arguments, were clearly based on his own experience. Nothing he was saying was representative of authors in general. If anything, it was representative of particular groups of authors or particular situations. So if he has studied the industry so much, he is using his knowledge to come to the wrong conclusions. It's useless to say "but he does this and this, he must know what he's talking about!" That just turns it into an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. I can only judge Child by what he actually said there. And his arguments were highly flawed. 

I'm sure you would disagree, because we really do seem to see things in completely opposite ways. So I just don't think I'm going to respond to your comments anymore. Honestly, when I saw your comment in this thread I had forgotten you were that very myopic person I had argued with before. If I ever forget again and say something to you, just mention Lee Child or something so I remember to stop getting involved in futile discussions I don't have time for.


----------



## Russ (Sep 29, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I'm sure you would disagree, because we really do seem to see things in completely opposite ways. So I just don't think I'm going to respond to your comments anymore. Honestly, when I saw your comment in this thread I had forgotten you were that very myopic person I had argued with before. If I ever forget again and say something to you, just mention Lee Child or something so I remember to stop getting involved in futile discussions I don't have time for.



How about as a reminder I say "Codex" to remind you of the time you asserted that the industry didn't do much if any research on what consumers want based on no fax and didn't even know the leading company in the field or had read of their studies?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 29, 2015)

How about if we _all_ get back to debating the topic and not the personalities involved in debating the topic


----------



## kennyc (Oct 1, 2015)

Was reading this thread yesterday....ran across this article just now:



> *The Unfair Truth About How Creative People Really Succeed*
> 
> On Networks, Connections, and Relationships
> 
> ...



https://medium.com/hackerpreneur-ma...w-creative-people-really-succeed-f61afb6f2f09


----------



## Russ (Oct 1, 2015)

kennyc said:


> Was reading this thread yesterday....ran across this article just now:
> 
> 
> 
> https://medium.com/hackerpreneur-ma...w-creative-people-really-succeed-f61afb6f2f09



Really good article.  I don't think one can or should underestimate the importance of building good personal relationships in building a successful career.  I am always pleasantly surprised with what happens when I socialize with very successful people in the publishing field.  I find most of them kind, thoughtful and helpful.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Oct 3, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> A couple of posts:
> 
> A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: How To Succeed
> 
> ...


I definitely agree with Joe. His "maybe you suck" article really makes his case.

Of course talent and perseverance are factors (within the writer's control), but the most wildly successful people I know admit to luck being a factor. R.A. Salvatore (who lives ~5 miles northwest of me, but I don't consider him "someone I know") told me he "got lucky" and "wrote the right book at the right time."

If you think of luck as the factors outside of your control (such as the right person discovering your book or someone getting movie rights to a story that's coincidentally similar to your 90%-complete WIP), then it's hard to make the case that successful people aren't lucky to an extent.




EDIT - @Russ, very true! I've found successful writers and other creative artists are very helpful and encouraging when it comes to advice. Especially when I compare them to people in other fields (such as education) where some successful people are snobs with a superiority complex.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 10, 2015)

Hi,

I don't always agree with Jo, but in this case I do 100%. Yes luck is a huge factor. And here I refer to luck as factors that cannot be controlled.

But it's important to realise that as Goins says, you don't have to simply accept it. You can nail down some of those factors that are luck and make them yours.

So Konrath says go for quality and volume. Abso-bloody-lutely! If you want your best chance of making a success of this business, then you need to put out more books and they need to have good covers, good blurbs, be well edited and have good plots etc. This is the minimum you need to do. The idea of putting out one book and simply expecting to be an overnight success is basically crap. This is a marthon not a sprint.

Look at it this way. It's a lottery. There are things you can control and things you can't. But the first thing every author can control is how many tickets he has. The more tickets the more chances.

Next there are rules to help authors. One is write series. Another is stick to a single genre. I do neither but that's just me. In essence these rules help you to get more tickets and place them in a smaller section of the lottery thus increasing your chances of being noticed.

Promotion is valuable. How valuable I don't know. And the bitter truth is that no one knows. Yes there are zealots who talk about getting perma frees in book one of their series. There are zealots who talk about using particular add campaigns. There are zealots who talk about using social media including mailing lists and so forth. There are zealots who talk about pricing as if it was the golden goose. Problem is they're all zealots. What works for one will not work for another. And what worked once may not work again. To me most promotions are a hit and miss thing. As for me I don't promote. I go back to basics and write more books. Twenty three out at present. I never change my book prices either. These days it's $3.99 for a novel, 0.99c for a shorty. I've got no freebies and won't have any. My social media skills are crap too.

Next we can talk about reading the market and looking at what's hot and trying to guess the upcoming trends. Again I don't do it, but what the hell - I'm an antediluvian with limited PC skills and no interest in most such things. So my thought is first how much time can I spend writing more books if I don't spend my time looking for market research gold? And second even if I knew for certain what was going to be the next big thing, could I write that book? (I'm a pure pantster for those who don't know.)

And last you can analyse successes and failures - though of course no one analyses failures which is 99% of the problem. So if a book does well who can say whether it was due to good promotion, good writing, good cover, good blurb etc. Or if it was just dumb luck - the right book in the right place. For your information in a few instances you can. Hugh Howie for example attributes his success to a certain celeb having read his book Wool and raved about it. Of course the other bases with the book - cover / blurb / writing are covered too.

As for my success it's up and down. I know some genres do better for me than others - pity I can't stick to them. I know that covers are vital - and for that reason using cover artists I respect is my new best laid plan. And I know that some changes in markets can send me flying through the atmosphere or sinking beneath the ocean. KU2 for example just tripled my income which was very nice. So I hope Amazon continue with it.

I also know that the more books I have out there the better my chances become - which is why writing more books is my plan.

As for success, so far this year I've put out two novels. The first - The Stars Betrayed has failed dismally and probably earned around five hundred bucks. The second - The Arcanist has done well netting me around twenty K in the last few months. And while I have some idea of the reasons for the difference - specifically genres and cover, I don't actually know it.

But what I do know is that the more books I put out the more chances I have to strike another Arcanist.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## kennyc (Oct 10, 2015)

and what an appropriate goodreads quote of the day:

"Some things in life are out of your control. You can make it a party or a tragedy." 
 - Nora Roberts 
Happy birthday, Nora Roberts! Her novels have spent a combined 861 weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list—almost two and a half years.


----------



## M P Goodwin (Oct 11, 2015)

I have twenty years of experience in my chosen career, in a field of work that is trying to say the least, and there are few difficulties that I cannot overcome with the right planning, right attitude etc. But when all looks likely to fail, I have always relied on luck and with good measure, as that has seen me through some very problematic times. However, I am an utter novice when it comes to publishing and having reviewed these few threads I am very heartened by what I have read. It seems to me that whilst there are various  formulas for gaining momentum, developing strategies and approaching the rather gargantuan task of writing, editing, publishing and then marketing a novel, the truth appears to be the same as it is in any field; hard graft, unwavering self belief, worthy colleagues and friends and perhaps above all...some talent for the work itself. Beyond that it appears we are all in the lap of the gods/monotheistic belief system/quantum field variability we cleave to...or as is more often the term, 'luck', and that alone is actually quite comforting to me, given my past experience. 

And wandering slightly off topic, I now realise that I have a great deal more to learn in regard to self-publishing despite, or more likely entirely due, to having actually published one novel, and discussions such as these are the exact form of mentoring that any apprentice might find from simply being in the company of the old hands on the shop floor so to speak, so many thanks from an old apprentice.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2015)

Seems self-evidently true that luck factors play a certain role. You can see this just by looking at traditional publishing, where it is easier to make a given book stand out because the field is smaller. There are some very good fantasy novels by writers who got a traditional publishing contract, got good promotion from a company that knows how to promote, got review blurbs from well-known authors, etc., and for whatever reason they just never made it. It happens. You can do everything right and still not succeed. If you do everything right, though, you increase your odds of succeeding.


----------

