# Show me the money...traditional verses self publihing



## MichaelSullivan

*Show me the money...traditional verses self publishing*

This post is in response to another thread - that I didn't want to derail. It relates to money and publishing.  For those that don't know, I had a very successful self-published career and then signed on with traditional, the decision to do so was not based on financial considerations. 

Let's lay some ground works first. I want to compare apples to apples so in this case let's assume we have a book (and author) who has the option of doing either which means:

The book is of high quality, written in a genre that has demand, and would eventually make it through the query-go-round such that it would eventually be picked up by a publisher

If self-published, it would be done so professionally which means it would have: good editing, attractive cover, good back of the book marketing copy, competitive pricing.

The money for each breaks down as follows:

 Traditional: Paperback royalties (based on list) would be 7.5% for trade, 8% for mass market, and 10% for hard cover ,and 25% (based on net) for ebook and audio downloads. 

 Indie: No advance  (probably - $1,000 per book on out of pocket fees), trade paperback - minimal sales but earning $3.50 per.  ebook will be bulk of sales and will be 70% of list (we won't price lower than $2.99).

Now given the above let's look at the authors who sell at various levels (notice I said authors not books - so it is quite possible that it may take more than one title to reach these sales levels)

Blockbuster - which will sell more than 1,000,000 copies
Successful - selling at least 100,000 copies
Solid: Selling 5,000 - 10,000 copies
Poor performer: 2,000 or less copies

Notice there are gaps between the various levels but these tend to be the big classifications that are worth looking at.

*Blockbuster:* For the most part we can ignore this as it is the world of the "outlier" by definition most people will never find themselves here - but for the few that have - your best option would be traditional. That is the venue that has the distribution to make the most money at this level, and to date there are only two self-published authors who have reached this level, and while many in writing/publishing may know their names, few people on the street can tell you who Amanda Hocking or John Locke are.

*Successful*: At the high end but very attainable. I myself have sold about 195,000 copies and I can quickly name 50 other authors who would reach this category both through traditional and self-published.  Let's look at this one more closely. If the publisher has this type of expectation they would probably offer a six-figure advance of around $100,000 - $150,000 (an it would probably be for a 3-book deal).


If initially released in hardcover let's assume 5,000 sold and then 100,000 in mass market market paperback. ebook at 30% of print. Prices are $25.00 for hardcover, $7.99 for mass market, ebook initially $12.95 for first year then $7.99 going forward. So..


FormatQuantityAuthor's Shareincomehardcover5,000$2.50$12,500mass market print100,000$0.64$64,000expensive ebook9,000$2.27$20,430cheap ebook22,500$1.40$31,500Total136,500$0.64 - $2.50$128,430


If released in trade paperback there usually won’t be a mass market run. The ratio between ebook and print would be about 60% paper and 40% ebook and all the sales would be required to get to 100,000. Trade paperback would be priced around $14.99 and ebook at $9.99.


FormatQuantityAuthor's Shareincometrade print60,000$1.12$67,200ebook40,000$1.75$70,000Total100,000$1.12 - $1.75$137,200


If released in mass market paperback then you would need 100,000 copies sold to be a success at this level and because ebooks are priced the same you would probably get an additional 50% in ebooks the ratio would be about 60% paper and 40% ebook and all the sales would be required to get to 100,000. Both the ebook and the mass market would be priced at $7.99


FormatQuantityAuthor's Shareincometrade print100,000$0.64$64,000ebook50,000$1.40$70,000Total150,000$0.64 - $1.40$134,000


If released as an indie two likely price points would be utilized $2.99 or $4.99.  There would be very few paperback sales so I'm going to take them off the table completely so these numbers will be slightly unreported. Because the ebooks are priced much less than traditional they are likely to sell more than 100,000 copies but we'll keep stay within the confines we setup 


FormatQuantityAuthor's Shareincomeebook - $4.99100,000$3.49$349,000ebook - $2.99100,000$2.09$299,000

So you can see for this category you'll always do better if you are self-published. You are getting a much higher per book income, and because you are offering the book cheaper than when traditional you’ll be able to live make good sales on ebook only and that will more than make up for the lost in print sales. 


*Solid*: In the “solid category” there are probably only going to be trade paperback as an option. Royalties at this level will be $5,000 to $10,000 per book.  And we can use similar calculations to what we had for the “successful category:


FormatQuantityAuthor's Shareincometrade print3,000$1.12$3,360ebook2,000$1.75$3,500Total5,000$1.12 - $1.75$6,860

Selling 7,500 (which is the average for most debut books would yield $10,290 and 10,000 which would be really successful at this level is $13,720.
Once again in indie will assume all of the books are ebook and the numbers work out as follows:


FormatQuantityAuthor's Shareincomeebook - $4.995,000$3.49$17,450ebook - $2.995,000$2.09$10,450

Personally at these prices I think it is likely that you would sell 2x — 5x of what would be sold traditionally because even though they are all ebooks they cost just a fraction of the $14.99 and $9.99 price tag.

So let's summarize:



TypeTraditionalSelf - $4.99Self - $2.99Successful$128,430 - $137,250$349,000 $299,000Solid$6,850$10,450$17,450

At all the various sales levels you will do better with self-publishing.  Any loss in print sales are easy to make up for by increases in ebook sales because the books are offered at deep discounting.  As I mentioned for "similar" books (of quality, author time on market, etc) I find that self-published authors are selling much greater quantities, but even if they are just "matching" the traditional they still come out ahead.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

So I assume your decision to move from self-publishing to traditional was made for marketing purposes?


----------



## Mindfire

I don't know. Something about these numbers just seems... off to me. Aside from the obvious investment of time and effort, which I'm guessing is doubled with self-publishing since you have to do everything yourself. where's the catch? The drawbacks?


----------



## danr62

Mindfire said:


> I don't know. Something about these numbers just seems... off to me. Aside from the obvious investment of time and effort, which I'm guessing is doubled with self-publishing since you have to do everything yourself. where's the catch? The drawbacks?



Actually, the time/effort investment depends on how you look at it. If you go traditional, it will probably take a couple of years to get a book to market, and that's after acceptance, so add more time for the query process. Much time will likely be wasted while you wait for notes from your agent or editor about what revisions they think should be made. You could use this time to work on your next novel, but that novel will then be held up in the process as well.

With self publishing, you are in complete control of the timeline. You only have to wait to hear from your test readers and any freelance editors you choose to hire. So, with self publishing it's possible to get the same novel to market in half the time or less.

The major drawbacks of self publishing are the upfront costs of hiring freelancers (cover design, help with your blurb, editors, etc.) and the lack of an advancement. Also, because you aren't getting wide distribution in bookstores, you are missing out on that channel of promotion/sales. But bookstores are not the powerhouse they used to be.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

The problem is that you're not necessarily comparing apples with apples. Yes the book may be the same, everything else may be the same, but the one thing that will change is the number of sales. Going trad with an agent and a publisher grants you access to a sales / marketing machine that self pubbers don't have. So yes if you sold a thousand copies either way as a self pubber you'd be better off. But if you sold ten thousand copies through a trad route and one thousand through your own efforts, then how do the numbers stack up?

For me, I went self because I was tired of rejections, so the thousands I've sold compare with none through trad routes. But if I could go trad for some of my new books I still would.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Mindfire said:


> I don't know. Something about these numbers just seems... off to me. Aside from the obvious investment of time and effort, which I'm guessing is doubled with self-publishing since you have to do everything yourself. where's the catch? The drawbacks?



The fact that it's a huge amount of work and most people who try it are doomed to fail _is_ the catch. Self-publishing, _if you are a good writer and can successfully market your own work,_ is more lucrative than going the traditional publishing route... but nobody who isn't insane or naÃ¯ve thinks that the part in italics is easy.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

T.Allen.Smith said:


> So I assume your decision to move from self-publishing to traditional was made for marketing purposes?



Yes. As I mentioned in the other post that was the catalyst for this one, it wasn't a monetary decision but one of branding. I wanted to reach an audience that I couldn't with self-publishing (bookstores, libraries) and I was willing to take a cut in income. I had estimated that I would loose about $200K in the switch. As it turned out I think I ended up "breaking even" because I was able to get more foreign sales than I think I could have gotten when self-published. Those deals in total ended up being about double my US advance.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Mindfire said:


> I don't know. Something about these numbers just seems... off to me. Aside from the obvious investment of time and effort, which I'm guessing is doubled with self-publishing since you have to do everything yourself. where's the catch? The drawbacks?



Marketing time is the same in both situations (or should be - even when traditionally published you need to be the one primarily responsible for building an audience).  The time differential comes from editing and cover design.

The "catch" is that without a third-party vetting your work, you don't know if it is "good" (and in this case I define "good" as a book that sells well).  Most self-published books shouldn't have been released at all because they just weren't "ready for prime time." It is very difficult writing a book that will sell well and just because you "can" push "the publish button" doesn't mean you should.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

I agree with everything that danr62 says.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> The problem is that you're not necessarily comparing apples with apples. Yes the book may be the same, everything else may be the same, but the one thing that will change is the number of sales. Going trad with an agent and a publisher grants you access to a sales / marketing machine that self pubbers don't have. So yes if you sold a thousand copies either way as a self pubber you'd be better off. But if you sold ten thousand copies through a trad route and one thousand through your own efforts, then how do the numbers stack up?



Read the text portions again.  Self-published authors (by in large) sell MORE copies than the traditional counterparts.  When I went to conventions and talked with traditional authors and told them I was selling 11,000 copies a month, they said, "You realize that most traditional books sell 7,500 over their entire lifetime?" If you look at any of the Amazon bestseller's list you'll see that a large number (for epic fantasy it is 50/50) are the self-published titles.

A $9.99 ebook sells much fewer copies than a $2.99 or a $4.99 counterpart. Yes you loose the print sales, but unless you sell VERY well in print the self-published author is always going to sell more copies.  Here is a a list of 36 self-published authors who have sold 200,000 or more and another 177 who have sold 50,000 or more.  Most traditional authors I've spoken with have sold 2,000 - 5,000 copies.



psychotick said:


> For me, I went self because I was tired of rejections, so the thousands I've sold compare with none through trad routes. But if I could go trad for some of my new books I still would.



Nothing wrong with that...it's what I did after all. Just realize that you'll most likely take a hit (if you are selling only domestically).


----------



## kennyc

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


----------



## psychotick

Hi Michael,

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

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

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

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## danr62

psychotick said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> I find that hard to accept. Most self pubbed authors sell very few books, (two hundred is the figure often bandied about though I have no stats for it), and if the average trad pubbed author / book sold only 7,500 copies authors, publishers and agents would be going to the wall at huge rates. Where it works for the self pubber in my view is at the bottom end, where they compare whatever sales they make against zero sales they would make by going the trad route because they couldn't get pubbed at all. And at the top end, where authors already have a name, so the trad pubber can't add a lot to their marketing and so the difference in royalties becomes the overriding factor.
> 
> As for the other part, yes a lot of the best selling ebooks on kindle are self pubbed, but that's largely because of contractual arguments between the big six publishers and Amazon. The trad pubbed books aren't on the kindle which drastically skews the results.
> 
> As for me, the reason I'd consider going trad is largely based on a few factors. First the professionalism,with book covers and editing etc. If I want to raise my work to the top level its the way I have to go. Second, getting some books into print - I personally find the entire createspace thing confusing at best. And third the marketing, which I admit, I simply don't do.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



The trad publishers aren't going to do a ton of marketing for you unless you manage to convince them to give you a larger than normal advance. You simply can't rely on them to sell your books for you.


----------



## kennyc

psychotick said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> I find that hard to accept. Most self pubbed authors sell very few books, (two hundred is the figure often bandied about though I have no stats for it), ...
> 
> .. The trad pubbed books aren't on the kindle which drastically skews the results.
> ....



Well, if you don't have a source for the info, then I'm not sure where you are getting it other than by rumor. 

And as far as the traditional publishers not being on kindle, that is simply wrong.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

danr62 said:
			
		

> The trad publishers aren't going to do a ton of marketing for you unless you manage to convince them to give you a larger than normal advance. You simply can't rely on them to sell your books for you.



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


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Evidence? Your wish is my command.

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

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

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## kennyc

Yep, saw that a while back. Okay so half the epubbers earn very little, how does that compare to those same people in traditional publishing? 
(my answer is that they would make $0 cause they wouldn't even get in the door)

It also says the Average is $10K which is better than most advances from traditional publishers:
"the average amount earned by DIY authors last year was just $10,000"
As far as the money being concentrated in the upper 10% (or so) that is no different in self-pub than in traditional.

Again the claim about traditional publishers not being on Kindle is simply wrong. 

What is your game here?

You have a link to your books? I'd like to check them out if possible. 

Thanks

Also just ran across this article (linked from the one above): http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/06/become-an-ebook-superstar?intcmp=239


----------



## psychotick

Hi Kenny,

The second part of my first post is harder to pin down. Why are indie books polling in the higher sales ranking than trad pubbed ebooks on kindle. You are right trad publishers are there, and I mistyped, for which I apologise. Not running a game here, just working with memories from reading years of blogs and forum posts. 

However trad publishers are relatively poorly represented. In part this is I think due to the legal actions on going between the big six and Amazon, unless this has been resolved. And also that the big six are looking at other e publishers, I think Apple is their newest baby from memory.

But the big reason why trad publishers appear poorly represented in the top sales ranks of kindle, is price.

This survey shows some of the answers I think:

Genre Surveys Part 2: Science Fiction and Fantasy Ebook Bestsellers Examined

As you can see this is only a small survey, and its far from the only one. But if you want to see the difference between trads versus indies in the top one hundred sales ranks for sci fi and fantasy, look at the prices. The trad published books are in the dearer range, the indies in the cheaper. So what we're seeing here in my view is that indies are climbing the sales charts by lowering prices.

Traditional publishers have a hard time competing with this as they invest in their authors and editors and all the other stuff that goes with publishing. They also have books out in printed forms and lowering the price of an ebook version significantly, impacts on their printed sales, making it difficult to get their books out on book store shelves. So they have to remain in the higher price ranges. Indies don't have these expenses, they may or may not be printed, and even if they are, createspace means that it costs them nothing if their paperbacks don't sell.

Now as to the money. What we see in that Guardian article is an average figure by author not book. Not sure how your stats are  but averages can be skewed badly. The ten thousand dollar figure is an average, but its primarily weighted by a relatively few authors earning the top bucks. I think the author says that 75% of the money goes to the top 10%. The median author (the guy in the middle) is earning less then five hundred bucks. The other thing as I said is that this is by author not book. So if the author earns ten thousand, it may be for one book or ten. He may be getting a return on his books of ten thousand bucks each (one book) or one thousand bucks each (ten books), to make this income. The median author if say he has five books out is making one hundred bucks per book per year. I imagine he would be absolutely thrilled to get a ten grand advance from a publisher. (And an advance is generally for one book as I understand it.)

Having said that, yes, as I said at the outset, he's still ahead of the game than if he'd stayed trad and never been published at all.

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

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## kennyc

Then why are so many established writers moving to self-pub and making significantly more money?

I think your conclusion is wrong and will become more wrong as the industry continues to follow the path it is on.


----------



## danr62

If half of self publishers are making less than $500, doesn't that mean that half are making more than that?

How many of those lower half have only published one book and done very little to no marketing? How many of them are just starting out and haven't really taken off yet? How many of them have more books in them that will allow them to steadily increase their sales over time?


----------



## kennyc

Exactly.



.


----------



## Steerpike

psychotick said:


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



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


----------



## danr62

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

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


----------



## Steerpike

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


----------



## BWFoster78

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


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


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



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


----------



## MichaelSullivan

kennyc said:


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



Thanks glad you found it useful.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


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



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

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



psychotick said:


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



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



psychotick said:


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



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


----------



## MichaelSullivan

T.Allen.Smith said:


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



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


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Evidence? Your wish is my command.
> 
> Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500 | Books | guardian.co.uk
> 
> As I thought, most self pubbers earn not much at all, but a few high profilers skew the stats. And since I write sci fi and fantasy I'm boned too! I suppose I should just be grateful to have beaten the odds.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



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

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


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


> However trad publishers are relatively poorly represented. In part this is I think due to the legal actions on going between the big six and Amazon, unless this has been resolved. And also that the big six are looking at other e publishers, I think Apple is their newest baby from memory.



The legal actions aren't having any effect on the number of traditional books on the list. The ratios have been similar even before the lawsuit, and 3 of the 5 have already settled.



psychotick said:


> But the big reason why trad publishers appear poorly represented in the top sales ranks of kindle, is price.



Yes the indies are, by in large, getting on the list because of their pricing. Most traditional books on the list sell for $7.99 - $14.99 while the indies are selling for $0.99 - $4.99.  But keep in mind that even at those reduced rates they are getting more per book than the traditional authors.



psychotick said:


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



If all they have is US sales, no they will earn less. If they have SUBSTANTIAL overseas contracts then that subsidiary income will make up for the difference.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Steerpike said:


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



Then how to you explain people like myself that started self-publishing, moved to traditional, but made more when self-publishing?


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Steerpike said:


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



You can't compare the "whole universe" of self-published authors against "the small percentage" that are published via traditional.  But consider this:  If you look at the "whole universe" of self-published against the "whole universe" of those submitting queries THEN you'll see some similarities.  The % of those that make a living will be essentially the same.  The % that make "some" money but not enough to live on will also be the same.  The % that make little to no money...also will be about the same.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


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



Thank you...People seem to be ignoring the cavet that we are discussing a book that has the freedom of being able to do either.


----------



## Chilari

It would be interesting to know the comparative numbers of fiction books published via each method in, say, 2011. That information, if it can be collected, might provide insights into this discussion.


----------



## BWFoster78

MichaelSullivan said:


> Thank you...People seem to be ignoring the cavet that we are discussing a book that has the freedom of being able to do either.



I think that a lot of people who go on forums like to argue.  In fact, I raise my hand as being guilty of it. 

You are someone who has been there, done that, and are gracious enough to share your experience with those of us who are just starting out.  I'm not saying that no one should ever question you, but it seems like some of the comments have been a bit off base - as you said, ignoring your caveat.  

Thanks for sharing this information.


----------



## JCFarnham

MichaelSullivan said:


> As to marketing -- If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times...both self-publishers and traditionally published authors need to approach marketing the same way.  I didn't "market" any differently, or any less, between my self-published and traditional published releases.



It's good to meet another person whose "sick" of saying this. All the pros and cons of either side aside, to sell books you must _do your marketing_. In the age of eMarketing the professional vs. amateur conflict doesn't count nearly as much. So the big six have more money to put into it, good for them, but not having that money to throw around isn't the same as not reaching people. You can do it. You'll have to be crafty with the tools to deal with the monetary difference, but it's not impossible. 

As for whose better off financially? While self-published authors have the potential for higher returns (eg, doing better in royalities, etc.) that advance you get from the traditional route... that to me is security. 10k upfront (if that's the right number), while not something you'd like to be paid for a normal job in a year, is better for paying bills than waiting for each sale to trickle through to you as profit. Though that'll be why most people have regular jobs along side writing.

The thing is that for me it doesn't come down to money. Increasingly I'm hearing about the rigors of the traditional publishing time table. Considering the time it takes to get something to the stores in the traditional route I'm seriously wondering whether it would be "better for business" so to speak to be able to control your own schedual. 

Of the blogs I've read, I've read a few from traditionally published authors who are starting to self-publish. As far as I can see most do it to over come the waiting game you have to play with publishers. They want more control, or a little something between traditional releases, or simply the opportunity to do something different, something unexpected but equally worth it. The same battle happens in the music industry. A lot of artists won't to produce a work that reflects where they are in life, how they've progressed, but a lot of industry type would rather enter into a contract with them under the caveat that they produce three or four albums worth of similar material.

All in all, trad vs self. They both have they're pros and cons but I personally think it should come down to what you need to get out of the experience. What can you afford?


----------



## Steerpike

MichaelSullivan said:


> Then how to you explain people like myself that started self-publishing, moved to traditional, but made more when self-publishing?



I think your case is exceptional. These stories are very well done and you have produced a bona fide "hit." I see what you mean regarding framing the two samples properly and not looking at the whole universe of people in either group. I think the biggest hurdle for those self-publishing is standing out in the sea of self-published works, many of which are poorly done. Going the traditional route at least accomplishes that for you, assuming you find a publisher. 

Is it fair to say that someone who doesn't have the time/energy/skill for marketing is better off going the traditional route? Not because they're going to do a ton of marketing for you, but because you'll be on the shelf next to a relatively small number of other traditionally-published works rather than one of thousands on Amazon.


----------



## danr62

Steerpike, here is my view on the subject. I'd say that if you have a hard time with marketing you are actually better off with self publishing. There are a few reasons I feel this way. First, you can set a lower price for your book than the publishers, which by itself might be enough to give the boost it needs to take off. It's not likely, but I think it's better than hoping it will sell in bookstores, where it will probably only be on the shelves for a few weeks.

Second, you can set your books to free. This can help you get exposure to a larger audience and can boost your book in the algos. This is something the trad publishers definitely won't do for you.

Third, you can get books to market quicker without suffering a loss in quality. It's been said that the best marketing is to release the next book. This is especially powerful when you have a series. You can combine this with making the first book in the series free, which can really help boost sales for the rest of the series or your other books if you don't have a series.

Sometimes, these three things are enough. In fact, quite often you will hear authors who say not to do any marketing at all other than these things and releasing more books (with good covers and blurbs).


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that a lot of people who go on forums like to argue.  In fact, I raise my hand as being guilty of it.
> 
> You are someone who has been there, done that, and are gracious enough to share your experience with those of us who are just starting out.  I'm not saying that no one should ever question you, but it seems like some of the comments have been a bit off base - as you said, ignoring your caveat.
> 
> Thanks for sharing this information.



You are welcome.

I don't mind people questioning or challenging the points put forth...or even veering off topic...such ask talking about "average incomes." I just want to remind people that there were very narrowly focused requirements, and those are essential to the conclusions, and you can't discard them.


----------



## TWErvin2

MichaelSullivan said:


> You are welcome.
> 
> I don't mind people questioning or challenging the points put forth...or even veering off topic...such ask talking about "average incomes." I just want to remind people that there were very narrowly focused requirements, and those are essential to the conclusions, and you can't discard them.



Michael, your time in posting and then addressing questions and comments is much appreciated. It gives writers early in their careers useful and well-thoughtout information to base decisions upon. And some authors in varying stages of their career something to consider (or re-consider).


----------



## Mindfire

I know this thread is mainly about money, but aside from the dollars and cents of the issue, which publishing route will likely get you more of an audience, self/e-publishing or traditional? Given the choice between making a ton of money and having my books be widely known and liked, I'd go for the second.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Mindfire said:


> I know this thread is mainly about money, but aside from the dollars and cents of the issue, which publishing route will likely get you more of an audience, self/e-publishing or traditional? Given the choice between making a ton of money and having my books be widely known and liked, I'd go for the second.



There are many "non monetary" benefits to traditional over self-publishing. There is an entire population of readers that I couldn't reach without them.  For me...because I won't avail myself of the low price points $0.99 and $2.99.  There is no question I reach a larger audience with traditional.  For those that do price in the $0.99 to $2.99...they sell more copies than the average traditionally published authors, but there is no way of knowing if those purchases are read or merely collected on impulse.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Michael,

On a slightly unrelated note, I just read an article titled "25 Self-published Authors to Watch".

Your name came in at #6 and in a list of some esteemed/high selling company (Hocking, Locke, Konrath rated just above you).

Link:
http://www.expertmessagegroup.com/self-published-authors/

Good stuff!


----------



## Zero Angel

The mathematician part of me is screaming to say "WELL DONE!" with the original post. Excellent points to consider, and written like a lawyer in clearly stating what you are and are not saying. Writing a winning argument with little to no faults is mathematics enough, but then you used NUMBERS too! *gasp*!!

Sorry, but as someone that has to apologize for my day job when I am introduced to people (math instructor), it is nice to see mathematics put to use in a writer's forum!


----------



## kennyc

It's the Little Things.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Michael,
> 
> On a slightly unrelated note, I just read an article titled "25 Self-published Authors to Watch".
> 
> Your name came in at #6 and in a list of some esteemed/high selling company (Hocking, Locke, Konrath rated just above you).
> 
> Link:
> 25 Self Published Authors To Watch | Expert Message Group
> 
> Good stuff!



Thanks so much for the post - I had not seen that before - pretty cool.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Zero Angel said:


> The mathematician part of me is screaming to say "WELL DONE!" with the original post. Excellent points to consider, and written like a lawyer in clearly stating what you are and are not saying. Writing a winning argument with little to no faults is mathematics enough, but then you used NUMBERS too! *gasp*!!
> 
> Sorry, but as someone that has to apologize for my day job when I am introduced to people (math instructor), it is nice to see mathematics put to use in a writer's forum!



The math calculations were actually provided by my wife (who is an ex-Engineer) I'll pas along your complements.  Me and math unfortunately don't get along well together - but that's just one of the many reasons why Robin is so good to have around.


----------



## Zero Angel

MichaelSullivan said:


> The math calculations were actually provided by my wife (who is an ex-Engineer) I'll pas along your complements.  Me and math unfortunately don't get along well together - but that's just one of the many reasons why Robin is so good to have around.



Still, you did not denigrate or trivialize the mathematics, so I will count that as a win. Thanks again for the great original post and discussion since then.


----------



## Addison

Here are the pros and cons I've found by researching traditional versus self publishing. 
Traditional pro's:
Advertising is done by professional agents.
The publisher generally already has contract or agreement with certain book stores to get your book on shelves. 
Professional artists design cover art and any other illustrations. 

Slef-publishing pro's:
All money from sales goes directly to you.
You have a firm, constant hand in marketing and advertising. 
You can design the illustrations yourself.

Traditional Cons:
You only get a percent of roytalies, percent varies by publisher. 
Parts you like in your book might be edited out to fit publisher's standards. 

Self-publishing Cons:
Marketing, Advertising falls hard on your lap. 
You must talk to managers/owners of book stores to put your book on shelves if you don't go by e-book. 

I'm sure there's more but right now I'm quadruple tasking.


----------



## kennyc

As has been mentioned many times, most of the Traditional marketing must be done by the author as well. It's only the big-ticket writers that get full publicity/advertising/promotional efforts.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Addison said:


> Here are the pros and cons I've found by researching traditional versus self publishing.
> Traditional pro's:
> Advertising is done by professional agents.
> The publisher generally already has contract or agreement with certain book stores to get your book on shelves.
> Professional artists design cover art and any other illustrations.




Usually there is not in the way of "advertising" most activities are concentrated not on readers but on corporate book buyers.
Yes, sales to bookstores, and even co-op $'s (to get better shelf placement) is one of the advantages
Yes, cover design is done by professionals
I would add...two aspects on the editing side of things.  a) There is a "validation" aspect that indicates the story and writing are strong enough to invest in.  b) They provide story editing, copy editing, and proof reading.



Addison said:


> Slef-publishing pro's:
> All money from sales goes directly to you.
> You have a firm, constant hand in marketing and advertising.
> You can design the illustrations yourself.



Yes, higher revenue (as long as you DIY and don't use a 'self-publishing service (they still give you just a small %
As to marketing, your responsibility in that regards is the same in either path - ultimately the author needs to be responsible for building an audience.
Illustrations - some will consider that a positive others a negative
I would add: Income is more consistent.  Traditional pays 2 times a year, self get monthly checks.

Traditional Cons:


Addison said:


> You only get a percent of roytalies, percent varies by publisher.
> Parts you like in your book might be edited out to fit publisher's standards.




 It doesn't vary all that much, most big-six are pretty standardized. If you go with a a small press they might vary on the ebook royalty more wildly.
 Editing in traditional is generally considered a pro, in that they have professionals that know how to improve the book.  Usually they won't want to sign you if they need/want wides scale changes. Rarely will they "insist" on a change, most of the time it is a "suggestion" at least that has been my experience - YMMV.



Addison said:


> Self-publishing Cons:
> Marketing, Advertising falls hard on your lap.
> You must talk to managers/owners of book stores to put your book on shelves if you don't go by e-book.



 As I said - Marketing is pretty much the same in both.
 Stores usually won't carry self-published books, period.  If they do the quantities will be too low to make any serious traction.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

kennyc said:


> As has been mentioned many times, most of the Traditional marketing must be done by the author as well. It's only the big-ticket writers that get full publicity/advertising/promotional efforts.



Yes, Precisely.


----------

