Thoughts on Self Publishing?

[Digital_Fey]

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

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

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

 

[Ophiucha]

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

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

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

 

[Ravana]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kelise]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ophiucha]

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

 

[Ravana]

I know I'd buy Ravana's book

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

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

 

[srg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kelise]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Telcontar]

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

 

[Ravana]

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

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

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

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

eBooks are the future of publishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[srg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[srg]

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

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

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

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

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

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

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

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

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

 

[Ophiucha]

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

 

[Philip Overby]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ravana]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, this is the sort of thing you'd look for in order to find quality. You would not look at a list of self-published books on the topic… because you have no idea whether there is the slightest reason to consider the information therein to be accurate. And if you decided anyway to cite such a book in whatever you're writing, you would receive derision from whoever you're writing it for, simply because of the nature of the source.

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

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

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

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

I looked at those links, by the way. Joe Konrath, aka J. A. Konrath aka Jack Kilborn (aka Joe Kimball, forthcoming) had, by my count, at least five books in print–not self-published–as well as numerous stories in professional magazines, prior to his becoming one of the major advocates of self-publishing. (The two forthcoming books under the Kimball name are being published by Ace… apparently he felt that his foray into the field of SF would be better served by going with a major rather than relying on his already-established reputation. Which really ought to tell you everything you need to know right there.)

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

Smashwords turned modestly profitable six months ago, and we've been running profitable ever since.… For 2011, we'll run it at just above break-even. I don't earn a salary yet. Maybe next year.…

Google: I'm perplexed by them. I'd love to support them and distribute to them, but to date they've refused to treat indie authors with the same respect as does Apple, B&N, Sony and Kobo. Unlike their competitors, Google is reluctant to give Smashwords authors and publishers agency or agency-like terms. That's a deal-breaker for us. We've got over 30,000 books ready to ship to Google the moment they give us a green light. Same thing with Amazon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The odds are, if this is your first book, that you aren't going to be picked up by a traditional publisher, and won't make many sales if you self publish. Trying anyway is that act of standing up and saying "I believe in myself enough to ignore the odds and do this.”

It takes courage to say that. It takes even more courage to try again if your first attempt doesn't succeed. People who want careers as writers need the courage to do both.

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

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

Don't.

 

[Ravana]

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

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

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

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

-

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

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

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

OK, I have read over the thread. =)

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

Oh, and this will be a long post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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