# Is publishing really this easy?



## Caged Maiden (May 13, 2015)

I read this article about how to snag an agent, and it warranted sharing. Publishing ... and Other Forms of Insanity: Getting an agent: Schmooze or you lose

Oh man, I wish it were this simple.  I've got a pretty serious year going so far, getting ready to finish a novel and begin a new round of querying, but now i'm reconsidering my approach (hence why I'm out reading more blogs).

What do you guys think?  Is face time the secret?  (Because, seriously...I don't know anyone who can give me a jump.  I'll be waiting all day in a lonely parking lot if I can't get this thing started on my own...)


----------



## CupofJoe (May 13, 2015)

I don't think it is that simple [right place, right time being the key] but unfortunately I do think that is how its done.
It is *who you know not what you know*. Nepotism, old-boy/school-network, friends of friends, call it what you will, it is the personal contact that is the key.
Any conversation that starts "Jane/Jon said I should talk to you" is going to go better than "Dear Sir/Madam, you don't know me..."
Okay - there will be exceptions to the rule but they are just that - exceptions.
And it won't get you published if you are not good enough, but it might get you to the top of the list...
The upside is that you get known too... 
I know at least one person [a friend and a poet], that now gets chased for their new work because they went out there [and on a limb for them], made contacts and eventually got a friend of a friend to look at it and take a risk on publish it [and their work is sublimely good, magical even - imho]. They had been self publishing for 20+ years before that and barely covered their costs on a good day. Now they have residencies, give talks and run workshops [especially for children], and are a full time poet.
Personally I also think it helps if you are near a major hub for your chosen art so you can go to three launch parties in a week or meet the interested person for a coffee at their convenience...
I wish you all the luck you can handle, because the prospect of doing it myself TERRIFIES me...


----------



## PaulineMRoss (May 13, 2015)

This sort of stuff makes me glad I self-published.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 13, 2015)

Psst. The secret is that you don't need an agent.


----------



## Philip Overby (May 13, 2015)

I think if you're going the traditional or self-published route, then yes, networking is sometimes key to getting your manuscripts in the right people's hands. I think writers are traditionally introverted and don't really want to do that kind of thing, but it's becoming more and more important to make connections when you can. That's doesn't mean you have to be an ass-kisser or schmooze people. Just connecting with people you genuinely like in the industry can be good. I feel like I'm made a lot of friends and it's not because of schmoozing. It's because they have similar interests like me and I like talking to them. 

So I do think it can help ease the process in some ways to make connections, but it doesn't have to be seen as "you gotta know someone to be someone" kind of thing. It can come organically. 

Even if you self-publish, you have to take on the role of marketer and promotion machine. So this will require you to get people interested in your work. Of course I know people that have said they don't do any of that and do fine. But I think you sort of have to choose your route and see what works before you know if it works or not.

So, no, I don't think publishing is easy. No matter which way you do it. You just have to choose what issues you do and don't want to deal with. I think in this case, this is just a story of someone who had a lot of luck on her side and I assume a great deal of skill also. No telling how much this happens, but I think if you run in certain circles, you're going to meet people who like you and want to see you succeed and not just because you complimented them on their jacket.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

For the vast majority of people publishing it is not that easy.  Her story is an outlier, and it is rather unfair and unwise of her to suggest that the process she went through represents the industry or good advise for others.  I see that approach a lot these days, I call it the "self referential error", it occurs when you think your own personal experience defines how the world, or an industry works.  If you wanted to follow her approach you may as well buy a lottery ticket.

I suppose I should be nicer to her position since when I went to her site it is promoting a non-fiction book I co-authored, but the truth wins out. 

I found this part particularly troubling:



> This is how the entire system works. You don't get an agent by sending out query letters. You get an agent by knowing a guy who knows a guy who can hook you up. That is also how you get a manager, and a publisher, and an editor. It's a sad fact of life – but getting your work into print is all about who you know.



If you are interested in traditional publishing an agent is a huge advantage.  But getting one is not just a matter of personal connections.  I know a large number of NYT best selling authors who have a stack of rejection letters from agents and editors and made their way up the chain in the traditional fashion, and I also know a number of new authors who are just getting published now who did things the same way.  In fact amongst many successful authors the number of rejections before success is almost a matter of pride, like scars amongst soldiers or athletes.

If you want to traditionally publish I would commend you to seek an agent.  I also tell people if they are serious about writing and have any patience at all that traditional publishing is the way to go if you want to write as a career.

There are ways to enhance your chances to get an agent.  You can go to conferences where agents and editors attend and book time with them to pitch your book.  There are events specifically set up for that.

You can go to writing retreats or courses where agents, writers and editors are part of the faculty and meet agents that way. I know a number of writers who got their agent by impressing the writer who was giving the course and being referred to that writer's agent by that author.  But they impress the writer with their writing.

You can go to social events that agents and editors attend and socialize with them and get to know them in a more relaxed environment.  I was a con once and went to the scotch tasting and poker game after and met a number of agents at both events who I would consider working with.

Parking lots and elevators are ineffective.  Bathrooms are definately a no-no.

However, in the vast majority of cases all that face time gets you is a card and permission to send a query, synopsis and a partial that skips part of the agent's slush pile.  It is a slight advantage not a major one.  Agents are business people, they might really like your shoes and your sense of humour but if they don't think they can sell your book, they won't represent you.

So while I do think it is a good idea to go to Agent Fests and Pitch Fests and social events to have a drink with an agent or two or twenty, I *know* that you don't have to in order to acquire an agent.  

If you are going to self publish you certainly don't need an agent, but they can be helpful.  If I had made the decision to self publish an agent would be much lower on my priority list.

Oh...and as an aside there are conferences where experienced agents, authors and editors will teach you how to draft and deliver in person pitches.  I recommend them.

Here is a part of a bio from a writer I know.  His last book debuted at #5 on the NYT best seller list.   I find his story inspiring,  educational and fairly representative:



> He made the decision to write a novel in 1990. It was something Steve thought about for years, but finally decided to act on. That first attempt was long and awful. The second and third attempts weren’t much better. It wasn’t until the fourth try that he began to appreciate the reality that writing novels is hard. Steve kept writing for 12 years and produced 8 manuscripts. Each one was a learning experience and, as he wrote, Steve studied the craft. His education was one of trial and error. He attended a writing workshop once a week for 6 years, where the participants would tear apart everything he wrote. Then he’d go home and put it all back together again, hopefully a little better than before. Between the workshop, the writers’ group, and writing everyday Steve taught himself the craft. Not until six years into the process was he fortunate to land an agent. She kept him around for 7 years until May 2002, when Ballantine Books finally bought The Amber Room. During those years five different manuscripts were submitted to New York publishers, each one was rejected, 85 rejections all total, until eventually, on the 86th attempt, the right-editor-at-the-right-time-with-the-right-story was found. Like Steve says, ‘he may or may not know much about writing, but he’s an expert on rejection.’


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 13, 2015)

Russ,

Great story.

I think that the realization that writing is really, really hard was a big step forward for me.

Thanks for sharing.

Brian


----------



## Steerpike (May 13, 2015)

Networking, and who you know, can end up being very important when going the traditional route. Particularly in terms of an agent, which you do still need for some venues that don't take unagented submissions. You don't need an agent with Baen or, I think, with Tor.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

Crap, I almost forgot.

Another way to meet agents in person is to go to events where they will be appearing and volunteer to help out the organizers.  This will often get you in at a discount, or free, and allow you to talk with the agents in the "Green Room" or similar away from teh maddening crowds.


----------



## Chessie (May 13, 2015)

Russ said:


> I also tell people if they are serious about writing and have any patience at all that traditional publishing is the way to go if you want to write as a career.


Russ, I appreciate your view and I'm glad you mentioned that the author of this article is an outlier. It _is_ unfair for her to suggest that everyone do it her way. Another thing, I'm not trying to turn this into a self vs traditional route however, traditional publishing isn't the only way to have a writing career anymore. Self-publishing, although just as hard if not harder because authors do everything themselves, sustains many a serious author these days. It's discrediting those that have worked their butts off to support themselves by writing to say that to be serious you must go traditional. Just saying.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

Chesterama said:


> Russ, I appreciate your view and I'm glad you mentioned that the author of this article is an outlier. It _is_ unfair for her to suggest that everyone do it her way. Another thing, I'm not trying to turn this into a self vs traditional route however, traditional publishing isn't the only way to have a writing career anymore. Self-publishing, although just as hard if not harder because authors do everything themselves, sustains many a serious author these days. It's discrediting those that have worked their butts off to support themselves by writing to say that to be serious you must go traditional. Just saying.



I am not at all opposed to self-publishing and have a good idea of how the field works, but I think for the person who wants to make a living at writing the odds of doing that are better with traditional publishing.

I agree with you that for the serious writer self publishing is harder, not impossible, but harder.  

I would analogize it to my own profession as a lawyer.  It is a more likely route for success for a new lawyer to join a firm and work their way up than to hang out a shingle right after  you graduate.  Some people do have success by the second route, but the odds of doing so are lower.

Self publishing is also allowing some really interesting co-operative efforts to take place and some really  new creative marketing ideas to be used.  I can't discuss them all, but some of them are great and experiencing significant breakthroughs.

I find both sides of the field fascinating.


----------



## Chessie (May 13, 2015)

I completely disagree but we are all entitled to our prerogatives.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

Chesterama said:


> I completely disagree but we are all entitled to our prerogatives.



Now I am lost.  Did you not say:



> *Self-publishing, although just as hard if not harder* because authors do everything themselves, sustains many a serious author these days.



I thought I was agreeing with  you.


----------



## Chessie (May 13, 2015)

Russ said:


> I am not at all opposed to self-publishing and have a good idea of how the field works, *but I think for the person who wants to make a living at writing the odds of doing that are better with traditional publishing.*


My apologies for not being clearer. The bold section is what I disagree with. There are ways to become a career writer on both ends, is what I'm saying. And it's freaking hard work either way.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

Chesterama said:


> My apologies for not being clearer. The bold section is what I disagree with. There are ways to become a career writer on both ends, is what I'm saying. And it's freaking hard work either way.



There are certainly ways to make a career of out writing either way.


----------



## Steerpike (May 13, 2015)

The article aside, I have heard lots of published authors recount networking or in-person encounters as being important in getting their foot in the door. I know at least one published author with a contract from Tor who had tried for some time to get a foot in the door and never succeeded, then met an editor at the swimming pool at a writing-related conference. They hit it off, and the editor said send me what you have, and it went from there.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (May 13, 2015)

Russ said:


> I think for the person who wants to make a living at writing the odds of doing that are better with traditional publishing.



I don't want to get into the trad vs self argument, but I can't let this pass.The odds aren't good, whichever route you take, but nowadays self-pubbers have a much, much better shot at it than trade-published authors. Not only do they keep a higher percentage of the cover price, but they can publish as fast as they can write, and they also have full control over marketing their work.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

PaulineMRoss said:


> I don't want to get into the trad vs self argument, but I can't let this pass.The odds aren't good, whichever route you take, but nowadays self-pubbers have a much, much better shot at it than trade-published authors. Not only do they keep a higher percentage of the cover price, but they can publish as fast as they can write, and they also have full control over marketing their work.



While those qualitative things may be true, the numbers don't match.  In traditional pub there is more money flowing to less people.  To suggest that self-pubbers have a "much, much better shot" is simply misleading.  

Every published study I know, and several unpublished studies I have read show that traditionally published authors make more money.

How Much Do Writers Earn? Less Than You Think - Publishing Perspectives

The reasons why are interesting.

But you are correct that it is very hard to make a living at writing either way.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (May 13, 2015)

Russ said:


> In traditional pub there is more money flowing to less people.



Yes, I would agree with that. A few people make a great deal of money, most (authors) make very little.



> To suggest that self-pubbers have a "much, much better shot" is simply misleading. Every published study I know, and several unpublished studies I have read show that traditionally published authors make more money.



The studies (including the one you link to) are deeply flawed. The methodology just hasn't kept up with the rapid pace of change in publishing over the last few years.

An author aiming for a trade contract will typically spend several years submitting, receiving rejections, submitting again, before acquiring an agent and then a publisher. Then the book will go through a long process of preparation before it's actually published. It could take 5-10 years from start to finish. Even then, the most likely return is a modest advance and nothing else (most books don't earn out). If the author's lucky, there will be another book every year or so, but very, very few earn enough to live on.

The self-pubber, on the other hand, doesn't have to wait. S/he can publish straight away, continue to publish as fast as the books can be written, and be building a portfolio and earning royalties before the trad-pubbing author has even got an agent. Over the 10 years or so it typically takes a trad. pubber to get one book on the shelves, the self-pubber could have a backlist of 30+ books. Which one will earn more over that time?

Of course, whether the self-pubber _should_ jump straight to publication is another question altogether. ;-)



> But you are correct that it is very hard to make a living at writing either way.



Yes, but it doesn't have to be an either/or matter. An author can self-publish the easy-to-market genre series, while shopping the lit. fic. around the agents. There are lots of options now.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 13, 2015)

Russ,

It's not clear to me that the article you linked to makes a good apple to apples comparison of trad to spa's.

Lumping all spa's into one group and comparing percentages to trad is, imo, not valid.  You'd have to lump in all authors sitting in slush piles to make that chart even.


----------



## Steerpike (May 13, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Lumping all spa's into one group and comparing percentages to trad is, imo, not valid.  You'd have to lump in all authors sitting in slush piles to make that chart even.



Yes, this is exactly right. Since anyone can self-publish, the comparison that has to be made is between all authors _trying_ the self-publishing route and all authors _trying_ the traditional route, including those who get rejection after rejection and never get a traditional publishing contract. Comparing the ones who succeeded in traditional publishing (which are going to be the top tier amongst all of those trying) against all self-published authors isn't an even comparison.


----------



## Trick (May 13, 2015)

First flaw with the poll that I saw, which made me not read the remainder of the article: "65% described themselves as aspiring authors"

Uh, I'm an aspiring author and I make nothing at writing because I'm... wait for it... aspiring, not accomplishing. Seems like having 65% of the poll be people who admittedly don't write full time (who may in fact have no published work whatsoever) sort of skews this. These people, like myself most likely, have jobs, and in my case classes, and families. It takes a while to get to full time writer status when everything in your life takes priority before writing. They should not be included in this poll.


----------



## MineOwnKing (May 13, 2015)

Twitter is used by many of the agents I queried. Might be a way to get a feel for agents and their professional style. Writer's Digest sometimes throws out opportunities to meet people, but they always ask for a small fee. 

Agents are so buried under queries.

It's hard not to look desperate.


----------



## psychotick (May 13, 2015)

Hi,

I think it's pointless talking about the chances of financial success for authors choosing to try indie versus trade publishing. The chances of success are crap for everyone. And I wouldn't rate any studies on incomes as being that accurate - they all have inherent biases. Yes, as Hugh Howie says, you can't choose to go trade. You can choose to try - but the power is not in your hands. Whereas, like it or not, you can choose to go indie. That means if you write a crap book, you can publish it, and someone may even buy it. You will be better off in all likelyhood than your trade rivals, most of whom will never get a publisher.

The problem is, if you want to make a career of writing, you don't care about these things. You care about making a lot of sales. That means learning a lot of skills. Writing, editing, formatting, cover design, blurb writing, marketing, and being seen. A successful indie has to learn all of these skills. A successful trade published author has to learn writing, and then a whole lot of different skills. Schmoozing or making contacts, identifying agents etc, writing query letters and getting themselves seen.

One thing is certain, despite what the blogger says, there is no easy path to success. If there was, everyone would be successful.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## cupiscent (May 13, 2015)

The bottom line, of course, is that you don't get anywhere without a quality product, for whatever value of "quality" applies to what you're trying to do.

Getting back to the original question/article: you could know everyone in publishing, but if you're writing nonsense, having a foot in the door probably isn't going to help. Similarly, writing a great manuscript and a stellar query letter _does_ get you noticed in a slush pile. It gets you picked out, picked up, read and considered. I know; I've been there*. And for the agents who read my manuscript and, for whatever (explained to me and entirely justified) reason, declined to take it on, I doubt their answer would have been any different if I had been referred to them by someone else, or if I knew them personally, because the manuscript itself remains unchanged. 

I'm not denying that getting your work to a level where, say, an agent's existing client recommends it to said agent doesn't give you a bit of a headstart over the querying/slush pile process. But if your work's at that level, you're going to get attention anyway. I'm also not saying _don't_ schmooze, because discussing the industry with people in the industry is a great way to learn heaps and heaps that's going to help you in your writing. But I'd probably recommend going into it without the expectation that it's going to directly "pay off".

And no, you don't _need_ an agent to go the traditional publishing route - plenty of houses large and small have their own direct submission processes - but pub house slush piles are also enormous, and your contract is going to be better for you if an agent is involved in its negotiation.

*Editing to add: it's not just me. Every "how I got my agent" that I've read involved the traditional process: querying, full requests, The Call, signing.


----------



## Russ (May 13, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Russ,
> 
> It's not clear to me that the article you linked to makes a good apple to apples comparison of trad to spa's.
> 
> Lumping all spa's into one group and comparing percentages to trad is, imo, not valid.  You'd have to lump in all authors sitting in slush piles to make that chart even.



The chart is actually the summary of a large study commissioned by Writer's Digest and DBW.  IIRC the price is $295 if you want the whole report.

I have read it.

The authors of this study, and related studies actually conclude that it is likely that the data we have now overstates the income of self pubed people, while the data is better for traditionally pubbed people.  And the category for Aspiring Writers does include people who answered the surveys sitting is slush piles.  That is why there is a category for making $0.

To really even it out you would have to know how many people have written a work they are thinking about self pubing, but have not yet spent the coin on art, editing, etc.  But you just can't get data on those people.  You have to work with what you have.

There is more hard data available for traditionally published people, but there is some good data available for the self pubbed crowd.  People in the industry pour over it relentlessly.  Some advocates of the self-pub model have gotten in some significant hot water for misrepresenting some of the advantages of that approach.

I found a little more in depth analysis on the DBW site here:
Self-Publishing Debate: A Social Scientist Separates Fact from Fiction | Digital Book World

Their conclusion that relates to my point is:



> The new lesson from this study is that the chances of having a financially viable writing career may be best for hybrid authors and traditionally published authors.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 13, 2015)

Russ,

I read the article you linked.  Based on your post, I expected it to say one thing.  When I read it, however, it seemed to say something quite different.



> This group, the majority of self-published authors in the sample, publish work that other authors might hold back or spend more time preparing, have written and published fewer manuscripts than authors who have ever traditionally published, and make little to no money from their publishing endeavors.
> 
> The other end of the self-publishing spectrum is represented in large part by the hybrid authors in the survey. These authors have a greater focus on earning income from their writing, have produced more manuscripts than either their self-published or traditionally published counterparts, and are earning higher incomes on average.



Basically, the article says - those self publishers who are serious about making money from writing tend to make more money than those self published authors who publish crap that should have been left to rot in a slush pile.

Really?  Shocking!  I had no idea!

Basically, I'm not sure what the heck that article said that supports your contention.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## psychotick (May 14, 2015)

Hi Russ,

No survey cuts it. None can because none have compared apples with apples.

In essence you have to have two matched groups. And to make it more tricky, two studies. (Actually three but the third one is for those who are "aspiring writers" and haven't produced anything - and so the results are big fat zeros for both indies and trade.

The first matched groups are those who have written a book they think is ready for publication and are determined to do so. Now either they will take their work and go indie or trade. The indies will win hands down here in terms of income, the reason being that ninety something percent of those who go trade will never be published. Maybe ninety nine percent. Whereas one hundred percent of indies can publish, and most will make money - if not a fortune.

The next matched group to compare are those who have published, either through self publishing, or because they have been picked up and trade published. Now here the trades win in income stakes. Most indies make little money despite their advantages for a variety of reasons. However most trade published authors don't make a lot. Most don't earn enough to live on for example.

The lesson here is simple. If you try to go trade, your overall chances of success in terms of income are worse than those who go indie. Ninety nine (?) percent of you will make nothing and never be published. But if you go trade and get picked up you do a leap frog in prospective incomes - but you're still unlikely to make a living at it.

The decision to go indie or trade is of course up to each writer to make for him or herself. But whichever route you take, don't expect fame and fortune, and do expect to have to work damned hard and have a steep learning curve just to make a modest income. Plan for the long run.

And above all else, do not let yourself be swayed by the success stories. The ones who say I went indie and sold a million books, here's how I did it. Or who say I would never go indie because my publisher sold a million books, and heres how I did it. These people are almost always full of the brown smelly stuff, seldom understand how much luck played a role in their success, and usually have bugger all useful advice. Because what worked for them won't work for most anyone else. These guys are the outliers.

If you want advice go to the midlisters and the ones who have moderate and achievable success, because the chances are that what they did will work at least a bit for others. And in any case at least you'll get a reasonable perspective of what you can achieve if you really put your energy into it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Basically, I'm not sure what the heck that article said that supports your contention.



You mean other than the quote in post 26 above that says exactly what I said?  The part that says the chance for a financially viable writing career is better for traditional and hybrid authors than self-published?  Which was my point?



> Self-published authors in the sample earned a median income in the range of $1 to $4,999, while traditionally published authors had a median writing income of $5,000 to $9,999, and hybrid authors earned a median income of $15,000 to $19,999. Comparing authors with the same number of manuscripts (analysis not shown), there is a strong similarity in income between hybrid and traditional authors, but hybrid authors outperformed their self-published counterparts on earnings.



The only way that you can get to the false conclusion that self pub on average is successful as traditional pub is by conflating (inaccurately) that hybrid and self are the same group, they are not.  Hybrid have more in common with traditional (which is why analysts deal with them that way) because both groups have gotten past the traditional pub gatekeeper.

The article, and many other studies are clear.  The chances of having a financially viable writing career may be best for hybrid and traditionally published authors.

You also have to keep in mind that the more self published crap there is out there, the harder it gets for the reader to find self published gems and the louder you have to shout to get noticed even if you are good.  Even the NYT has suggested that the very short golden age for super prolific self pubs is coming to an end.  

By the by, the data is clear, that study took into account people whose work was sitting in a slush pile and thus has never had a chance to make a nickel from a consumer purchase.  And traditional published authors still average more income than self pub.  

I would be happy to see any data or study that concludes self pub authors are more likely to be financially viable.  I spend a lot of time with people in the industry, on both sides of it, and I have never even heard of such a study.


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

psychotick said:


> The lesson here is simple. If you try to go trade, your overall chances of success in terms of income are worse than those who go indie. Ninety nine (?) percent of you will make nothing and never be published. But if you go trade and get picked up you do a leap frog in prospective incomes - but you're still unlikely to make a living at it.



The lesson is not quite that simple.

If you make $0 by not getting published, or take a loss at getting self pub, or make a small amount it doesn't change the point I was trying to make from the beginning:

If you want to make a living at writing, your odds are better with the traditional publishing route.  That is what the data, and the analysts are telling us.

I do disagree with you about not being able to get useful information from people who have been successful.  There is a lot to learn from them and I don't come to the conclusion that just because someone is very successful they are "full of the brown smelly stuff."

I am not swayed by success stories, but I listen very carefully to people who have been successful because I am not convinced that luck plays a big a role as you suggest it does.  Would you say the same for a master electrician teaching an apprentice how to wire a factory, or how to find work?  Is there some reason to believe contingency, or luck, plays a bigger role in writing success than other professions?  When I was a young lawyer I went to a lot of conferences where older successful lawyers talked about what worked for them and guess what...that same stuff worked for me too.  Some portion of what lead to someone's success cannot be emulated, but a great deal can, and it is not that hard to spot the difference.

Luck plays a role in almost everything, but to discount advice from people who have been successful for that reason strikes me unwise.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (May 14, 2015)

Russ said:


> The article, and many other studies are clear.  The chances of having a financially viable writing career may be best for hybrid and traditionally published authors.



Statistically, that may (or may not) be the case. The studies are deeply flawed, and, to be fair, it's very difficult to make valid comparisons anyway. Every author is following a different career trajectory.

The point *I'm* making here is that self-pubbers have a better shot at it because they have far, far more control over every aspect of their career. It's perfectly possible for a determined author to set out from day one to make a living from self-publishing - by choosing the genre, for instance, writing to a specific audience, marketing intelligently, constantly tweaking keywords, etc, and (most of all) by publishing frequently. It's hard work, but it can be done, and I've seen authors do this.

Now, most self-pubbers really don't want to do that. A lot are simply publishing that one special book (a family history or memoir, say), or are hobbyists happy to make a few bob to supplement the day job. So that skews the statistics. But for those who *do* want to make a living from it, it's easier to achieve that by self-pubbing.

Trad pubbers just don't have the same options for their career. You're in other people's hands, and nobody cares as much about an author's work as the author herself. There are innumerable cases of trad pubbed books that reverted to the author because they weren't selling, who then repackaged, self-pubbed and made good money (and they show up in studies like the one mentioned as hybrids, I believe, even though most of their money came from self-pubbing; just one more way those studies lose a lot of nuanced detail).

I'm not trying to beat the self-pubbing drum here, because there are pros and cons to both sides, but self-pubbing is (in my view) a surer route to financial viability, for those prepared to do what it takes.


----------



## psychotick (May 14, 2015)

Hi Russ,

No. If you want to make a living at writing by trade publishing, your odds are considerably worse than they are if you go indie. 99 percent of people who go trade, never get an agent or a publisher. They just get rejected. Your odds become much better however, if you do get an agent and publisher. Then you have a better chance than the average indie of making a living from your writing. And unfortunately the option of getting an agent or a publisher is never in the writer's hands. 

People submit, and if they happen to submit on the right day with the right manuscript and the publisher had a good lunch etc etc, they do well. It would be grossly unfair to tell anyone, any aspifing author, that they have a better chance of making a living if they go trade. It is extremely fair to tell anyone who has gone trade and has got an agent / publisher that they are more likely to make a living than an indie.

Now having put this into frame, take a look at the figures from that infamous income survey of writers, and ask yourself, what does it mean? Sweet FA I'm afraid.

These are medians, and if you do not plan on being a median, if you intend to make writing a career, then your question has to be, which route will benefit me more? 

These days indie publishing has the edge for two groups of writers. Firstly for those who have no intention of making any sort of special effort to make their book the best that they can - because they would have no chance of getting representation anyway. So indie gives them a chance to make a couple of sales and let them call themselves authors.

Indie also rules to an extent for those writers who are utterly committed to producing the absolute best product they can. Who will strive to master every skill out there. For them the advantage of going indie is control. The indie has total control of his or her product. They can publish as often as they want. They can publish in whatever genre suits. They can master cover design and blurbs, and carry out their own marketing campaigns. The only thing an indie can't control is if people will read and enjoy the book.

By contrast the trade publishing writer who has not been picked up, has two significant areas that he cannot control. The first is as for the indie. He cannot make readers pick up, buy and enjoy his book. But by far the more important thing out of his control is getting an agent / publisher to pick up his book.

I know there's this myth out there that books that agents don't pick up aren't picked up because they're inferior. In some cases that may be true. In many cases it simply isn't. Agents get far too many submissions. They can only accept a few per year out of the hundreds or thousands that they receive. And the shit arsed fact of the matter is that you can polish your book until it shines like a diamond and there is still no way you can force an agent to read let alone pick up your book. Your chances are still bad. You can make them not truly awful as they were originally when the book was a turd, but they're still bad. 

But you can publish it indie.

So unless you have an inside edge - you know someone - or you can go to an agent with a proven track record of books published or alternatively untold thousands of followers on your social media what's it, your odds are better going indie if you fall into one of the two categories I set out.

To put this into dollars and cents for you, last year according to my tax docs from Amazon I earned more as a pure indie than any of those groups in the survey. Not a fortune at all. Not enough to live on. But enough to beat the indies, the trades, and the hybrids in terms of median income from that survey. And the sad tuth is that if I wanted to make more money as an indie from my writing I could. I could start writing series which sell better. I could concentrate on the more commercial genres. I could actually get off my arse and do some marketing and social media - maybe even attend a con. Instead because I really just want to write for myself, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing.

Now if I can do that, and I claim no literary genius, while controlling only a couple of things in terms of selling - ie story telling, editing, writing more books, cover design etc, imagine what those more gifted and determined than me could do, if they were prepared to do the rest of it. And then imagine how many of those same people if they went trade (sorry I keep forgetting - tried to go trade) would still be earning nothing in ten years time.

Makes you think doesn't it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 14, 2015)

Russ,



> You mean other than the quote in post 26 above that says exactly what I said? The part that says the chance for a financially viable writing career is better for traditional and hybrid authors than self-published? Which was my point?



Look at how the article defines a hybrid author:



> The other end of the self-publishing spectrum is represented in large part by the hybrid authors in the survey. These authors have a greater focus on earning income from their writing, have produced more manuscripts than either their self-published or traditionally published counterparts, and are earning higher incomes on average.



It further basically defines self published authors as mostly a group who throws out crap that should have been left to rot in the slush pile (as I quoted above).

Therefore, the statement that you have more chance at success being a hybrid or traditionally published author is, using the articles definitions, saying:

If you concentrate on being professional and making money writing, you have a better chance at succeeding than if you publish crap.

I agree completely with that statement.

That statement, however, when you consider how the author defines terms, absolutely does not mean that, if you're serious about making money writing, you have a better chance going traditional - which, as I understand it, is your contention.


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

Let's compare your statement to the published analysis and data.



> No. If you want to make a living at writing by trade publishing, your odds are considerably worse than they are if you go indie.



vs



> The new lesson from this study is that the chances of having a financially viable writing career may be best for hybrid authors and traditionally published authors.



While I respect your individual experience, the data and conclusions in this and other studies tells me otherwise.




> These are medians, and if you do not plan on being a median, if you intend to make writing a career, then your question has to be, which route will benefit me more?



That is a bad way to look at statistics.  Nobody plans on being median, or very few people do, but the median tells us, on average where more of the money flows.  That is important information.



> These days indie publishing has the edge for two groups of writers. Firstly for those who have no intention of making any sort of special effort to make their book the best that they can - because they would have no chance of getting representation anyway. So indie gives them a chance to make a couple of sales and let them call themselves authors.



This is correct.  The hobby authors are better off indy publishing.  For them it is really just a cheaper version of a vanity press.  But they have never been the  people I am discussing.



> Indie also rules to an extent for those writers who are utterly committed to producing the absolute best product they can. Who will strive to master every skill out there. For them the advantage of going indie is control. The indie has total control of his or her product. They can publish as often as they want. They can publish in whatever genre suits. They can master cover design and blurbs, and carry out their own marketing campaigns. The only thing an indie can't control is if people will read and enjoy the book.



You are over focused in this statement on the issue of control.  In the area of making a living, control is not the key issue.  The income level is.  The income level for people trying to make a living at writing who are producing this good work is simply higher for people in traditional publishing, on average, than indy.  There are a lot of factors that go into that, which we can discuss at length, but if you follow the money trail it leads to the traditional conclusion.  While "control" is lovely, it does not pay the mortgage.  



> By contrast the trade publishing writer who has not been picked up, has two significant areas that he cannot control. The first is as for the indie. He cannot make readers pick up, buy and enjoy his book. But by far the more important thing out of his control is getting an agent / publisher to pick up his book.



The logic is not sound.  If the traditional guy gets picked up he is likely to make more money than the equivilent indy guy.  But if the traditional guy does not get picked up, he can still self pub, which can, and should be, his less lucrative back up plan.   It is like being a car parts manufacturer.  I can make more money if I get a contract selling to a big car company, but if I can't get that contract I can still sell directly to consumer.  But there is more money selling directly to the big company.



> I know there's this myth out there that books that agents don't pick up aren't picked up because they're inferior. In some cases that may be true. In many cases it simply isn't. Agents get far too many submissions. They can only accept a few per year out of the hundreds or thousands that they receive. And the shit arsed fact of the matter is that you can polish your book until it shines like a diamond and there is still no way you can force an agent to read let alone pick up your book. Your chances are still bad. You can make them not truly awful as they were originally when the book was a turd, but they're still bad.



I don't know why you conclude that it is a "myth".  Agents are in business, they buy books based on quality and market fit.  They are imperfect and have subjective opinions, but many of them run a really good business.  I guess I just think more highly of successful agents that you do.  But once again, the money numbers support my contention.


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Look at how the article defines a hybrid author:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement, however, when you consider how the author defines terms, absolutely does not mean that, if you're serious about making money writing, you have a better chance going traditional - which, as I understand it, is your contention.



That is not how the study defines a hybrid author.  That is some information drawn from the conclusions about hybrid authors who were defined as people who were attempting to publish through both mechanisms.  Remember you are reading an article about the study not the study itself.

The data in that study (and others) and the authors of that study concluded exactly as I did.

Now, you can disagree with them, and  you can think the data is not good enough to draw conclusions, but that is what they said, and that is what the numbers say and the sample size and analysis seems pretty sound.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 14, 2015)

> That is not how the study defines a hybrid author. That is some information drawn from the conclusions about hybrid authors who were defined as people who were attempting to publish through both mechanisms. Remember you are reading an article about the study not the study itself.



All I'm judging is the article you linked to.  The author of that article clearly defines hybrid authors in that manner.  The conclusion you highlighted is from the author of the article.

I'm saying that, given the context of the article, the statement you quoted is not drawing the conclusion that you say it is.

I have no idea what the authors of the study concluded.  I haven't read the study.  You didn't link to the study.

The only thing I have to go on is that you quoted a statement from an article.  I followed your link and read the article.  The conclusion, after reading the article, does not appear to support your assertation.

Perhaps the study does support your assertation.  In my mind, you have not yet offered anything that actually supports that conclusion, though.


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> All I'm judging is the article you linked to.  The author of that article clearly defines hybrid authors in that manner.  The conclusion you highlighted is from the author of the article.
> 
> I'm saying that, given the context of the article, the statement you quoted is not drawing the conclusion that you say it is.
> 
> ...



I can't link to the study because it is not available for free on the web.  It is $295.  I do have a copy though.

you should also know that the follow up years (there is now three years of data) show that the best way to make a living as a writer is through the Advance Traditional route, followed by royalty only route and hybrid route.  That data has been taken out from groups categorized as serious writers, with minimum copy sales numbers for indie publishers  (I don't recall the number off the top of my head).  So the data is very robust saying that traditional advance against royalty publishing is the best way to make money in writing.

If qualitative things like "control" are very important that is personal choice.  But the numbers about who makes what are pretty clear.


----------



## Devor (May 14, 2015)

Russ said:


> So the data is very robust saying that traditional advance against royalty publishing is the best way to make money in writing.



Do you know how those numbers hold up when they're broken down by genre?  As I understand it, a big portion of traditional publishing sales are the thriller and romance books that customers pick up on impulse.  If you only look at some definition of fantasy, and maybe cross off the outliers like JK and GRRM, does Traditional still hold up as strongly as the best choice?

Do the numbers show any group of genres or activities for which a subset of authors would see self-publishing as the better option?


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

Devor said:


> Do you know how those numbers hold up when they're broken down by genre?  As I understand it, a big portion of traditional publishing sales are the thriller and romance books that customers pick up on impulse.  If you only look at some definition of fantasy, and maybe cross off the outliers like JK and GRRM, does Traditional still hold up as strongly as the best choice?
> 
> Do the numbers show any group of genres or activities for which a subset of authors would see self-publishing as the better option?



The only data I have seen that is genre specific is for thrillers and that confirms the traditional publishing advantage.  I suspect I could get the romance data pretty easily but I have never read it.

However my understanding is that many of the very successful self pub people are prolific mystery and romance writers, but I have not seen their precise  numbers.

Strangely enough, I, and many people even inside the industry have found it very hard to get good reliable numbers for Spec Fic.  You would think the SF people would have the best data, but apparently not.


----------



## Philip Overby (May 14, 2015)

I would imagine romance and erotica do the best simply because they have the largest fan-base. When I was working for a publisher in the past he said 90 percent of sales in the industry were romance. The other 10 percent was everything else. That made my jaw drop, but I'm not sure if that's still accurate.

Also, I heard this but it may just be hearsay, but fantasy has some of the biggest number of self-published authors out there, but the supply doesn't necessarily match the demand. Again, don't quote me on that, just heard that tidbit floating around. That's worrying for me in some regards, but I realize that in some ways self-publishers can work in niches and hopefully carve one out for themselves to differentiate their work. Trad publishing may not offer as much flexibility in that regard. Again, I'm just talking out of my ass, so...yeah.


----------



## skip.knox (May 14, 2015)

Well, but it did turn into a discussion on trad vs self, didn't it?  *yawn*

Back to the OP, cupiscent makes a key observation talking about rejected submissions:
> I doubt their answer would have been any different if I had been referred to them by someone else

It's been said by others. Quality first. It has to be a good story. If it's not, networking means nothing.

If it *is* a good story, then networking *may* help.

Given that, I'd say to the OP, take advantage of any opportunities that you find, but don't lose any sleep over this. Plenty of writers have come from Nowhere USA, and they didn't need to take out an apartment in New York to do so. At the same time, if you *do* live in New York, you've got more opportunities than I do here in Boise, Idaho. So good on ya.


----------



## Chessie (May 14, 2015)

Philip Overby said:


> I would imagine romance and erotica do the best simply because they have the largest fan-base. When I was working for a publisher in the past he said 90 percent of sales in the industry were romance. The other 10 percent was everything else. That made my jaw drop, but I'm not sure if that's still accurate.
> 
> Also, I heard this but it may just be hearsay, but fantasy has some of the biggest number of self-published authors out there, but the supply doesn't necessarily match the demand. Again, don't quote me on that, just heard that tidbit floating around. That's worrying for me in some regards, but I realize that in some ways self-publishers can work in niches and hopefully carve one out for themselves to differentiate their work. Trad publishing may not offer as much flexibility in that regard. Again, I'm just talking out of my ass, so...yeah.


You're correct with what I've seen, for the most part. I'm not sure about mystery but many of the self publishers doing well on the Kindle Boards write romance and erotica. A lot of them do write fantasy and Steampunk, too although it seems the audience for that is smaller. 

With s.p. there is flexibility so I wouldn't worry too much to start. You can always fine tune and mix genres (like Pauline, who does romance and fantasy).


----------



## psychotick (May 14, 2015)

Hi Russ,

Again you're missing the point. The study in question does not compare apples to apples. If you go through the breakdowns of who's counted in each group you'll find that the trade published group only includes those who have been picked up and published by a publisher etc. That's why their median income is higher than indies. However, if you count all those who have written and got a book to the stage where it is ready to publish and have decided to do so by either trade publishing or indie, you get a very different picture. Indies win in the income stakes. They only lose when they are compared to those who have already been picked up.

What this means is that for the aspiring author - ie the one who has written said book and is ready to publish, the chances of making money - any money - are far better as an indie. If on the other hand they have a publishing deal already, the equation swings the other way.

So lets look at this as a simple decision tree for authors. Ask the question have they got a publishing deal, or are they likely to have one due to some advantage?

1) Yes - the chances are they will make more money going trade.

2) No - the chances are they will make more money going indie because 99% (?) of those who try to get a trade publishing deal won't get one.


Next, the issues of medians. This is actually the best way to look at statistics. Yes means, medians and modes are all interesting stats, and they can guide. But what they tell you is that if you do the average amount of work, have the average amount of skill etc, then there is an average income you will likely achieve. But what they also tell you which is far more important is that if you aren't prepared to be average, if you are willing to put all your efforts into this one endeavour, you can earn far more.


Last, control. I'm not sure I believe you really could say that. Control is vital to income in any occupation - provided that you actually do have control. An indie can produce as many books as he wants. He can determine the quality of those books. Market them. Price them for sale. Write them according to saleable genres. Write series. Arrange cover design, editing, blurb doctoring etc. And all of these things will have an impact on sales and therefore income. He could do all of these things well or poorly, so make more or less money.

Someone who has a trade publishing contract has far less control over these things. And someone who is choosing to try and get a trade publishing contract but doesn't have one is in a much worse position again. He has no control over whether he can get a contract at all. He can only try to improve his odds by writing the best book he can.


You also said this: "The logic is not sound. If the traditional guy gets picked up he is likely to make more money than the equivilent indy guy. But if the traditional guy does not get picked up, he can still self pub, which can, and should be, his less lucrative back up plan."

I agree with this. The problem is that while this should be true, it usually doesn't pan out that way. People who have determined to go trade, are often unable to consider the alternative. They get the rejections and / or silences and immediately assume that it's because their work is not good enough. Then it's back to the rewriting and critiquing and all the other strategies that usually don't work. It never seems to occur to people that the reason their book wasn't picked up was simply that the agent had five hundred others to look at.

This is why I strongly advocate to all those who decide to go through this ordeal (and yes it is that for most) that they set a limit. So many submissions without success. So many months spent submitting. And then if there is no joy - indie.

There is for me nothing more excruciatingly painful than reading the stories of people who have spent years and done hundred's of submissions to agents etc, with no joy, who will then continue on down this path - tearing their books to pieces and blaming their poor writing for their failure. And always in the back of their minds there is this single thought process driving them - if only my book is good enough it'll be picked up. That is a myth, it's soul destroying and it has probably ruined more promising writing careers than anything else.

For me it's like watching people beat their heads against a concrete block wall in an effort to break through it. I want desperately to stop them, to tell them to go around it or what have you. But they simply won't stop, beleiving with a faith that defies understanding that if only they keep trying, sooner or later it will fall down and they'll be able to walk through into the promised land.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (May 14, 2015)

> Again you're missing the point. The study in question does not compare apples to apples. If you go through the breakdowns of who's counted in each group you'll find that the trade published group only includes those who have been picked up and published by a publisher etc. That's why their median income is higher than indies. However, if you count all those who have written and got a book to the stage where it is ready to publish and have decided to do so by either trade publishing or indie, you get a very different picture. Indies win in the income stakes. They only lose when they are compared to those who have already been picked up.



This is factually incorrect.  I have the study sitting here on my desk.  The trade group includes those who aspire to be published in traditional but have not yet landed a contract.  Your assumption is wrong.  



> What this means is that for the aspiring author - ie the one who has written said book and is ready to publish, the chances of making money - any money - are far better as an indie. If on the other hand they have a publishing deal already, the equation swings the other way.



I have never disputed this. But making a buck or two, or a few bucks is not making a living at writing.  Which is what I have been talking about from the beginning.  Earning your living at writing.





> Next, the issues of medians. This is actually the best way to look at statistics. Yes means, medians and modes are all interesting stats, and they can guide. But what they tell you is that if you do the average amount of work, have the average amount of skill etc, then there is an average income you will likely achieve. But what they also tell you which is far more important is that if you aren't prepared to be average, if you are willing to put all your efforts into this one endeavour, you can earn far more.



Right.  But if someone asks you the "odds" of something happening statistics is the only way to deal with it.  The odds of being able to make a living in writing is better in the traditional route.

IF you want to look at exceptional cases traditional publishing looks even better.  But I think that can be misleading.



> Last, control. I'm not sure I believe you really could say that. Control is vital to income in any occupation - provided that you actually do have control. An indie can produce as many books as he wants. He can determine the quality of those books. Market them. Price them for sale. Write them according to saleable genres. Write series. Arrange cover design, editing, blurb doctoring etc. And all of these things will have an impact on sales and therefore income. He could do all of these things well or poorly, so make more or less money.



Control is not vital to income in any profession, that is just inaccurate. For instance in Ontario the average guy who is a sole practitioner in law makes less and a mid level guy at a big firm. Who has more control?  Control also assumes skill and the indy looses the advantages of size leveraging and specialists.  He has to master all trades, marketing, art appreciation, finding and evaluating and paying editors.  He has to spread his time and talent more thinly.  In a world where specialization is becoming more important the indy, unless very well funded has to be a generalist.  IT is also almost impossible for the indy guy to get into any reasonable number of bookstores, which even Joe Konrath admits is a great way to multiply e-sales.  






> Then it's back to the rewriting and critiquing and all the other strategies that usually don't work.



Every professional writer I know would disagree with that statement.  Perhaps we should stop critiquing each other here if that is your stance.



> That is a myth, it's soul destroying and it has probably ruined more promising writing careers than anything else.



It is a tough business.  But since more people make their living in the traditional model, if that is their goal, their odds remain better in the traditional side.  The process is imperfect, but the fact is traditional publishing has launched and continues to launch way more "careers" than indy publishing.  I note you use the word *career*.  

Of course you only look at one side of the argument.  You "feel" (subjective and self referential) that this has destroyed more promising careers than anything else.  I can state with certainty that traditional publishing has made more successful writing careers than anything else.  

Working hard to achieve something worth achieving is not soul destroying.  Especially when more people are successful at making a living at it than the alternative.

By the by, the study we are talking about has been extended over three years, the data has been narrowed to include only authors who have sold a certain number of books, and it shows that authors who get an advance and royalties do the best, the traditional model.  Hybrid and royalty only are close, and straight indy lags behind.  Those numbers have been confirmed and in some cases shown to be even broader gaps by several major writing groups here and the UK.

The other interesting thing in the WD study is that for all three categories when asked where they would like their next book published, the very strong majority said traditionally.  Is your theory that you have figured it all out better than they have and they are just foolish?

If *the promised land* is making a living at writing, more people are arriving there through traditional publishing than indy.  It may be a small number but more people are making more money through the traditional route than the alternative.  You can dance around it but the numbers don't lie.

Indy publishing is far easier, no doubt, but financially less rewarding.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (May 15, 2015)

Russ said:


> This is factually incorrect.  I have the study sitting here on my desk.  The trade group includes those who aspire to be published in traditional but have not yet landed a contract.  Your assumption is wrong.



I'm hampered by not having the full study, so I can only go by the blog report you linked to originally. That says:



> Respondents were divided into four categories: “aspiring, self-published only, traditionally-published only, and hybrid” (meaning both self and traditionally published).



The obvious interpretation of that is that those aspiring to be published were put in their own group, and not included with trade-published authors. That would mean that the trade-published group includes only those who already have (or have had) a contract. But since you have the full study, perhaps you can clarify this.

The other point worth mentioning about the categories is the hybrid situation. Authors become hybrid-published for a variety of reasons, but many are self-pubbers who became so successful they were offered a trade contract, and also trade-pubbed authors who self-published out-of-print works. In other words, some of the most successful self-pubbers are actually included in a different category. 

All these surveys are problematic. The one you reference is based on a self-selecting sample. Hugh Howey's 'Author Earnings' reports are based on objective, but limited, data. And so on. There's no study which accurately reflects the entire industry because the full data just isn't available. So, to be honest, I think it's a mistake to rely too heavily on any one snapshot of the industry.

Given your original premise of an unpublished author who's serious about making a career (ie a living) from writing, I have to agree with Greg: if they have a contract in hand, then sure, trade is likely to be more profitable. If not, self-pubbing is likely to be a better bet in the long run, given the vanishingly small chance of getting a contract at all.


----------



## psychotick (May 15, 2015)

Hi Russ,

Please look at the graph given right at the top of the link you provided. How Much Do Writers Earn? Less Than You Think - Publishing Perspectives  Annual Writer Income by Author Type. Percentages of writers in each income bracket listed in columns against the types of writers.  Note how there are four groups of authors listed - Aspiring, SP, Trade and Hybrid. This clearly shows that aspiring writers are considered in the survey - in fact they represent the vast bulk (65%) of respondants - but they are not considered as part of the trade published writer's group in determining incomes. If they were there would be only one column for the two groups.

Now go one step further and look at the aspiring writers column and note how almost all of them earn nothing - as you would expect. In fact I am still trying to figure out how any earn anything at all from their writing considering they have not published. Now a little simple math would tell you that if 65% of all survey respondants reported earning nothing more or less, and 8% reported as earning various amounts as trade published, and those two groups were put together, the aspiring authors salary ranges of basically nothing, would completely swamp the trade published in terms of frequency. In fact the income spread for trade published would look very very similar to that of the aspiring authors.

To put this in a more simple perspective, if I were to do a survey of the speed seventy three cars were moving at, and sixty five of those cars were parked, the average speed of the cars would be far closer to zero than the speed limit.

As I say this is an apples versus apples or oranges problem. The income spreads you want to compare are between those who are trade published (Ie they have got a contract out and been paid for it) versus those who are indie and have published themselves. And again as I say the evidence is clear. 

Among PUBLISHED Authors, the trade published earn more than the indie published authors. Among ALL writers including aspiring who are persuing trade publishing deals - which is practically all of them since indie authors don't have to aspire - the reverse is true. 

However, I would add several more points at this stage. First, there is an inherent bias in using self selected survey respondants as this survey does. Unfortunately it is the only way this survey could have been done.

And second, the overall incomes for all four groups are utter crap.

As to your lawyers in Ontario - I have no familiarity with the group. However if the situation is anything like the situation with lawyers in New Zealand, then again you have an apples and oranges problem. Yes the average income of those in the big law firms is higher than those out in sole practice. But the median income is actually not. My sister's a lawyer. The reality is that only a very few of the lawyers in those companies make big money. Most of those just leaving uni and getting a job in a firm, only work for those companies for a couple of years - and they get paid peanuts. Very few of them then get taken on to become long term employees and eventually partners. The rest are replaced by new uni graduates.

The standard joke for those uni grads joining the big firms used to be that they were McChicken's. They got taken on for a couple of years, worked like dogs on an assembly line almost, and then got disposed of. The deal for those lawyers was that they got experience - including the important one for criminal barristers, the acknowledgement that having worked on so many cases they could represent clients in court on various charges.

After that, once out in the private, sole charge and small partnership world, their ability to make money became almost completely a matter of personal control. If they wante to make more money, they took more cases. They sharpened their skills too, and by gaining experience were able to charge more.

Last, I'd just like to address your final comment that indie publishing is far easier. No it's not. It's probably much harder if you want to do it right. Anything's easy if you don't put any effort into it. But if you want to succeed as an indie that is not an option. You will have a massively steep learning curve. You will work harder than you could ever have imagined. And the hours of your writing will seem endless.

In fact for me that was always one of the things I used to envy about the trade published. That they could ignore all the publishing side of being an author, and simply concentrate on writing. Maybe that was a myth - the thought of doing nothing but writing then handing your book over to someone else and going to sit on a beach with a nice cold beer as you plan your next book. Of course in the wake of the rise of indie publishing that scenario has changed somewhat, and now trade published authors are asked to do far more for their advances. That makes trade publishing a less attractive option again to some of us.

Look, we are clearly not going to agree on this. If you want to imagine that persuing a trade publishing deal is your best route to financial success as a writer, that's your right. All I say is do not allow yourself to be blinded to the pitfalls, no matter which road you choose. And they all have pitfalls.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (May 15, 2015)

> I'm hampered by not having the full study, so I can only go by the blog report you linked to originally.



It's pretty dear at $295, but I didn't have to pay for it.





> The obvious interpretation of that is that those aspiring to be published were put in their own group, and not included with trade-published authors. That would mean that the trade-published group includes only those who already have (or have had) a contract. But since you have the full study, perhaps you can clarify this.



I am working from home this am and my copy is at the office.  I will check and get back to you when I go into the office this weekend.



> The other point worth mentioning about the categories is the hybrid situation. Authors become hybrid-published for a variety of reasons, but many are self-pubbers who became so successful they were offered a trade contract, and also trade-pubbed authors who self-published out-of-print works. In other words, some of the most successful self-pubbers are actually included in a different category.



The data is this study suggests that the large majority of the hybrid category are traditional people who are enhancing their income through self-pub in various ways.  The study in fact makes a whole list of suggestions on how traditional publishers can enhance value and experience for their authors (only a small fraction of its findings really get discussed publicly) and that includes offering authors more opporunties for electronic publishing of "odd balls" in house.  A lot of the money for hybrids is work from successful trad authors publishing in formats and lengths or within the exceptions found in their traditional contracts. 



> All these surveys are problematic. The one you reference is based on a self-selecting sample. Hugh Howey's 'Author Earnings' reports are based on objective, but limited, data. And so on. There's no study which accurately reflects the entire industry because the full data just isn't available. So, to be honest, I think it's a mistake to rely too heavily on any one snapshot of the industry.



All surveys have flaw, and no study has complete data.  All we can do, on any issue, is do the best we can with with we have.  I do however point out that some data is a better basis for decision making than no data or anecdotal opinion.  I could drown people with anecdotal opinion from authors and agents, but I don't see the real value in that.  But I also cannot accept Greg's approach to suggesting successful authors are mostly lucky, and that the information we get from successful authors is mostly BS.  There is something irrational about both those conclusions.



> Given your original premise of an unpublished author who's serious about making a career (ie a living) from writing, I have to agree with Greg: if they have a contract in hand, then sure, trade is likely to be more profitable. If not, self-pubbing is likely to be a better bet in the long run, given the vanishingly small chance of getting a contract at all.



Some people have a funny way of looking at it.  The odds of making a living at self pub, based on all the data we have is vanishingly smaller than for traditional.  In neither case are the odds good, but they are better at traditional on the numbers.  And with the increase of free self pubbed books (I think they went up 30% least year) and the proliferation of self pubbed titles those odds don't appear to be getting better.

There is a reason that the strong majority of published writers want their next book to be published traditionally.  Must we conclude they have all been fooled?


----------



## Russ (May 15, 2015)

> Now go one step further and look at the aspiring writers column and note how almost all of them earn nothing - as you would expect. In fact I am still trying to figure out how any earn anything at all from their writing considering they have not published. Now a little simple math would tell you that if 65% of all survey respondants reported earning nothing more or less, and 8% reported as earning various amounts as trade published, and those two groups were put together, the aspiring authors salary ranges of basically nothing, would completely swamp the trade published in terms of frequency. In fact the income spread for trade published would look very very similar to that of the aspiring authors.



There are two problems with this statement.  Firstly the better analysis is medians which is why they are used.  The second is that King and Child can drag numbers pretty far in the other direction.  For instance Child sold more e books in a three week period than Konrath had in is entire life.  Think how that deforms the curve!



> To put this in a more simple perspective, if I were to do a survey of the speed seventy three cars were moving at, and sixty five of those cars were parked, the average speed of the cars would be far closer to zero than the speed limit.



Now add in the space shuttle and a whole bunch of super sonic aircraft (very successful authors) and you have a more accurate picture.




> Among PUBLISHED Authors, the trade published earn more than the indie published authors. Among ALL writers including aspiring who are persuing trade publishing deals - which is practically all of them since indie authors don't have to aspire - the reverse is true.



But when the study is extended for multiple years and the self-published group is cut down to those who have sold substantial units the numbers still favour the traditionally published author.



> However, I would add several more points at this stage. First, there is an inherent bias in using self selected survey respondants as this survey does. Unfortunately it is the only way this survey could have been done.



SO then the analysis is this:  Some imperfect data tells us that trad pub authors have a better chance to make a living.  No data tells us the opposite.  Which is more rational to believe?




> Last, I'd just like to address your final comment that indie publishing is far easier. No it's not. It's probably much harder if you want to do it right. Anything's easy if you don't put any effort into it. But if you want to succeed as an indie that is not an option. You will have a massively steep learning curve. You will work harder than you could ever have imagined. And the hours of your writing will seem endless.



Industry publishing is, by definition, and your analysis easier.  There is no bottom standard.  No gatekeeper.  IF I want to get into a school, and there are two schools, one has minimum entrance standards and standards to meet to stay is and the other has no entrance standards and no standards to allow you to continue other than paying, which is easier?

Self pub is as easy or as hard as you make it.  IT is just less lucrative.




> Look, we are clearly not going to agree on this. If you want to imagine that persuing a trade publishing deal is your best route to financial success as a writer, that's your right. All I say is do not allow yourself to be blinded to the pitfalls, no matter which road you choose. And they all have pitfalls.



No imagining required on my end.  The numbers tell us the best paid writers are those who get an advance from traditional publishers.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 15, 2015)

Going back, for a moment, to the OP:

Seems to me like publishing really is pretty easy.

Write a book that people want to read, and, regardless of how you publish, you're likely to become successful.

My reasoning:

If you're going the traditional route, publishers are looking for books that are going to make them money.  A book that reader's want to read is an easy sale.  That's what the publishers comb through their slush piles looking for.

If you're self publishing, readers are actively searching for books they want to read.  When they find those books, they tell their friends.

The fly in the ointment:

1. Determining what readers want to read
2. Delivering what readers want to read once you've made the determination


----------



## Philip Overby (May 15, 2015)

I do think that publishing can be relatively easy and still be good. I know a lot of people say in order to be successful at self-publishing you have to spend a lot of money and it's long slog. That's why I've done a "soft launch" of my work without spending any money so far. I got lucky a good artist friend did my cover for free and I had a lot of help with edits as well. I think because I'm working with "quirk" my cover doesn't have to be classically fantasy. So I like that flexibility. Plus, my style is relatively straight-forward (despite being weird). I know oftentimes when people submit short stories to magazines, they're not paying editors and stuff like that, so I figured I'd save that for bigger work. For now, I'm going to stick with short stories and maybe novellas even though they're harder to market. But I do think they're easier to publish. Maybe we'll have some kind of golden age of short stories and that'll be the next big thing.

So I don't think it necessarily has to be super hard to self-publish. I think if you're writing in an overcrowded market, you may have more difficultly. Or you may get impulse buys if you're in similar company. But if you focus on a niche and hope it has a fan base, then you can target a specific crowd. I guess my target audience is people that grew up in the internet age and not necessarily people that grew up reading the classics.

And I do think it's difficult to go the traditional route simply because there are more factors to consider that may block you: an editor, your style, marketability, etc. 

But I personally want to try both. The wonders of modern publishing!


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 15, 2015)

I vote for a short story renaissance.  I think that sounds awesome.  Now how do we get readers on board?


----------



## psychotick (May 15, 2015)

Hi Russ,

Just a couple of points. First you said: *"Now add in the space shuttle and a whole bunch of super sonic aircraft (very successful authors) and you have a more accurate picture."*

Yes that would be an issue if this study used averages. It used medians as you pointed out specifically to avoid the undue influence of the outliers. If an author earns a billion dollars he still only counts as one position in the ranks.

You said: *"SO then the analysis is this: Some imperfect data tells us that trad pub authors have a better chance to make a living. No data tells us the opposite. Which is more rational to believe?"*

No the analysis based on imperfect data is that trade published authors who have contracts in their hands have a better chance to make a living. Aspiring authors who have no such contract, have a far worse chance.

You said: *"But when the study is extended for multiple years and the self-published group is cut down to those who have sold substantial units the numbers still favour the traditionally published author."*

Haven't seen this study, or if it's the one that we're discussing this information has not been published. In any case this would be a ludicrous statistic. What are they going to do - survey incomes of only indies who've sold 5k books? 10k books? And who are they going to compare them to? All trade published? Those who've sold this many books? The results would depend completely on the selection parameters for those they chose to count. It would be meaningless.

Lastly you said: *"No imagining required on my end. The numbers tell us the best paid writers are those who get an advance from traditional publishers."* 

Finally - agreement! Yes. The best paid authors are those who go the trade route and get advances. Ie those who have been picked up. The worst paid and the vast majority of authors, are those who aspire to be authors, who have not got a contract but are determined for whatever reason to keep chasing one. They will earn on average - nothing - until they finally go indie.

Cheers, Greg.


----------

