If you haven't read Goldberg, The Walk is a great place to start. He's been blogging about ebooks for as long as I have, and he's got a somewhat different take on what's happening.
Here's Lee...
It’s astounding to me how much, and how fast, the publishing world has changed in the last nineteen months. On June 5, 2009, I began my Kindle publishing adventure with a post on my blog.Here’s an excerpt:
My friend author Joe Konrath has done extraordinarily well selling his unpublished books on the Kindle, making $1250 in royalties this month alone. That's very impressive […] Joe is making a lot of assumptions based on the admirable success of his own Kindle titles. It's a big, big, BIG leap to think, just because his book has done well, that Robert W. Walker (or any other mid-list author) will sell 500 copies...or even 50 copies...of his out-of-print books on the Kindle each month. But just for hell of it, I decided to follow Joe's advice and put my out-of-print 2004 novel THE WALK and a short story collection, THREE WAYS TO DIE, up on Amazon for sale on the Kindle and see what happens…
A lot happened. I ended up putting my entire, out-of-print backlist – nine novels and two non-fiction books – on the Kindle. But let’s jump forward to February 2, 2010, when I wrote on my blog:
January (2010) was my best month yet in sales & royalties for my out-of-print books on the Kindle. THE WALK remained my best-selling title with 536 copies sold […] All told, I made $775 in Kindle royalties this month [...] I credit the jump in my sales to all the people who got Kindles as Christmas gifts and were eager to test drive their new toy for as little money as possible. I suspect my sales will slowly decline once the novelty of the Kindle wears off.
To say I was wrong would be a massive understatement.
I’m selling many more books than I did a year ago, but the big game-changer was Amazon upping the royalty rate in July 2010 from 35% to 70% for books priced at $2.99 and above.
This January, if sales continue at the current pace, I will sell about 3100 books this month and earn $6600 in royalties.
That’s a 166% increase in sales and a whopping 751% jump in royalties.
In just one year.
On out-of-print books that I wrote years ago that were earning me nothing before June 2009.
If those sales hold for the rest of the year, I will earn $77,615 in Kindle royalties, and that’s not counting the far less substantial royalties coming in from Amazon UK, Smashwords, Barnes & Noble and CreateSpace.
Even if my sales plummet tomorrow by fifty percent, I’ll still earn about $38,000 in royalties this year…and I’d be very, very happy with that.
My most profitable title, in terms of hours worked and pages written, is THREE WAYS TO DIE, a collection of three previously published short stories. In print, it’s a mere fifty-six pages long, but it’s selling 24 copies-a-day on the Kindle, earning me about $1500-a-month. That means I could potentially earn $18,000 this year just from those three short stories alone.
That is insane.
But what would be more insane is if I took my next, standalone, non-MONK book to a publisher instead of “publishing” it myself on the Kindle.
That’s right. I’d rather self-publish. This from a guy who for years has been an out-spoken, and much-reviled, critic of self-publishing. But that was before the Kindle came along and changed everything. I was absolutely right then…but I’d be wrong now.
The Kindle offers mid-list writers a real option to consider before they sign their next, shitty contract extension with their publisher…and it has given new opportunity to every mid-list author who has been dropped…and it has dramatically re-energized the earnings potential of every published author’s out-of-print back-list.
That’s incredibly exciting. I believe that any midlist author who isn’t self-publishing, either their back list or new work, is making a costly mistake.
If a publisher came to me today and offered me a typical, mass market paperback deal for THE WALK, I wouldn't take it...because I don't see a scenario where I'd end up making more money on the book than I am making right now (selling about 1101 copies a month, earning $2268 in royalties) . I make more in one month from Kindle sales than I did during the two years that the book was in print in hardcover.
And unless I’ve got a book I think has the potential to be a blockbuster, a novel that could break me out of the mid-list and into the upper-ranks of mystery/thriller writers, I don’t see a scenario where taking an original novel to publisher makes financial sense for me anymore.
But I’m an established, professional author…there are a million copies of my 11 MONK books in print. I have a big back list I can exploit. It’s any easy decision for me to make.
But unlike my friend Joe, who is going to accuse me of clinging desperately to old paradigms that are no longer relevant, even today I still wouldn’t recommend self-publishing for a first-time author.
If you’ve never been in print before, I believe you’d be a fool not to take a mid-list paperback or a hardcover deal…even a terrible one…over self-publishing on the Kindle. Financially, you might make less (either in failure or modest success)...but the difference will be more than made up for in editing, marketing, wider readership, wider name recognition, and professional prestige (and that prestige does mean something, whether you want to admit it or not).
You can always go back to self-publishing... and when you do, you will be bring that wider readership, name recognition, and professional prestige with you. But a book deal doesn't come along every day, and that's still going to mean something for a long time yet...and I suspect it still will even if half the bookstores in America close tomorrow.
Of course, that’s assuming you have an agent or publisher interested in your work. What if you don’t? What if you just want to get your work out there?
You better be damn sure your book is up to professional standards.
If your book is awful, amateurish slop, you can embarrass yourself, create negative word-of-mouth, and seriously harm the reputation you are seeking to build.
There’s a gold rush mentality right now when it comes to authors and ebooks (which I am probably stoking with this article) and, like gold fever, it’s making people stupid. Keep in mind that for every Joe Konrath and Amanda Hocking, there are thousands of authors who will be lucky if they can give away ten books-a-month at 99 cents each.
The majority of self-published books are unreadable crap… and that hasn’t changed just because it’s easier now to self-publish than ever before. If anything, it’s made things much worse.
Just because you can publish for free with a mouse-click doesn’t mean that you should.
But because of articles like this one, people with no discernible writing talent, or even basic writing skills, are rushing to get their atrocious, unpublishable garbage onto the Kindle as fast as they can.
The slush pile has gone digital and has unleashed a tsunami of swill onto Amazon and Smashwords. It’s going to get even harder for authors to get their books noticed by readers, who I fear are going to quickly discover that most self-published stuff is awful and, as a result, will be far less likely to take chances on writers they have never heard of… even at 99 cents.
I don’t have a solution to the problem…but I don’t intend to let the tsunami bury me and my work. I’m always looking for ways to get bring new readers to my books.
That’s one of the reasons I will continuing writing the MONK books as long as they remain success. I believe the “dead tree” editions and ebook versions of my MONKs bring thousands of new readers to my work.
It’s also one of the reasons why I’ve joined with Max Allan Collins, Bill Crider, Vicki Hendricks, Harry Shannon, Joel Goldman, Dave Zeltserman, Paul Levine, Ed Gorman, and Naomi Hirahara to launch TopSuspense.com, a site where readers can find professionally written ebooks by highly-acclaimed, award-winning novelists in a variety of genres.
This year, I intend to put at least two original novels on the Kindle, one of which will be the first in a series of books written with several well-known collaborators and a few new authors.
The publishing and bookselling businesses are in turmoil. Publishers are dropping authors, cutting advances, grabbing rights, and cutting print runs. Barnes & Nobles and Borders are struggling, closing stores and cutting back on orders. And beloved independent booksellers, like the Mystery Bookstore in Los Angeles, are folding, unable to compete any longer.
It’s very sad and troubling.
And yet, this is also an incredibly exciting time to be an author…as long as you are motivated, out-going, and entrepreneurial.
For once, I feel like I actually have some control over my publishing career and that my success or failure will be due the decisions that I make, not someone else’s poor choices or lack of enthusiasm.
I am enormously grateful to Joe for leading me down this path…but most of all, I’m thankful for the readers, bloggers and fellow authors who continue to support my work.
Joe sez: I agree with 95% of everything Lee has said here. What's refreshing is that when he and I originally began discussing ebooks, he thought I was full of shit. But he put his money where his mouth was, and tried it out for himself. Then he drew similar conclusions, and wound up changing his mind.
The most difficult thing a person can do is change their mind. Lee gets a lot of flack for his opinions, but he always backs up his opinion with facts. If the facts change, his opinion changes. That's the mark of a very smart guy.
However, I disagree with him on a few bits, because he's clinging desperately to old paradigms that are no longer relevant.
While I agree that a lot of writers are putting crappy ebooks up on Kindle, and that there is a learning curve to becoming a good writer--a learning curve that previously required gatekeepers (agents and publishers) to vet new writers and nurture them along on their path to becoming competent, I disagree that publishers are still needed.
Agents are still needed. Mine sells my subsidiary rights, and is doing a great job with that.
Vetters are still needed. It's impossible for a writer to improve unless they know what they're doing wrong. This requires a second pair of eyes.
But that second pair of eyes doesn't have to be a publisher.
The vetters can be readers.
I've already seen several examples of this. But first, let's go back in time and look at something called pulp fiction.
Years ago there was a gold rush similar to the gold rush we're no seeing with ebooks. Except this one was paper, not e-ink.
Cheap paper allowed for the printing of mass quantities of paperback books and magazines. As a result, millions of these suckers were produced, feeding the country's voracious appetite for inexpensive fiction.
Of course, with a demand this big, the editors of these magazines, and the editors for these new paperback lines, needed to find writers to meet their quota.
As a result, quite a few writers who later became big bestsellers got their start in pulps. And guess what? A lot of their early stories weren't very good.
But the more they wrote, the more they improved. Sure, they sometimes had editors to help them. But unlike today, those writers were learning on the job. They got paid to learn their craft, making a living until they were good enough to go from pulp mags to novels.
Me? I have my peers vet me. I also have fans who are beta readers who spot typos and errors.
But what about green newbies who don't have bestselling author friends or loyal fans?
I've followed a few authors on Kindle who originally published some pretty unpolished stuff. But the readers point it out, usually with a bad review, and then more often than not the mortified writer goes back and fixes it.
The reader has become the vetter.
Is it ideal? No. Ideally, writers would only self-publish flawless work. Both both Lee and I originally put ebooks on Kindle with formatting errors in them, which were pointed out to us and we fixed. We learned on the job.
Yes, it is necessary to have a second pair of eyes on your work. But those eyes don't have to be an editor at a Big 6 house.
Taking a shitty publishing deal with shitty royalties just because it offers you the opportunity to learn has some merit, but I really believe these things can be learned independently of taking a shitty deal. If the writer can even get a shitty deal these days, with the way the industry is imploding.
If I were a newbie, I wouldn't sit on a manuscript, hoping to be discovered by an agent, when there is a perfect opportunity to test-market my writing on Amazon.
Lee also said: (readers) are going to quickly discover that most self-published stuff is awful and, as a result, will be far less likely to take chances on writers they have never heard of… even at 99 cents.
Again, I disagree. I give readers more credit than that. This isn't a once-bitten/twice shy scenario. Every reader has read bad books, but it hasn't soured them on reading.
With Amazon reviews, star ratings, and preview features, bad books aren't going to sell well. The Readers (aka vetters, aka gatekeepers) will warn others against trash, and reward good books with lots of ratings and increased sales.
There is a LOT of crap on the Internet, a LOT of worthless, if not outright dangerous, websites. But that doesn't stop people from surfing.
There is a LOT of crap on Youtube. But that doesn't stop the good videos from rising to the top and going viral. The bad ones don't take away from the good ones. It isn't a zero sum game.
There can also be a lot of crap on Amazon, and it won't hurt those writing good fiction. Lee is an example. Right now, The Walk has been in the top 2000 for 18 months. It doesn't matter that there are a million other Kindle ebooks on Amazon. People are still finding him.
I've told Lee that the best thing he could do for his career is stop writing Monk books and start writing expressly for Kindle. It's a big risk in a bird-in-the-hand way, but I'm pretty sure the risk would pay off for him if he did it.
The more good books you list on Amazon, the more you'll sell.
The readers will see to it.
309 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 309 of 309Carson:
"And we avoid it like the plague."
And how is it relevant to anything? That's what I'm trying to get from you. Why does it matter one iota to you that some idiot's publishing dreck somewhere on the internet? (Perhaps you didn't notice that people have been publishing dreck on the internet for decades now....)
I'll try to make this easier: I have the feeling what you were originally trying to say is that you don't want to be associated with all that dreck. You got sidetracked saying it should be there.
Okay. But the dreck is there, and some of it is successful -- and again, I don't mean Twilight, or things written by Hollywood bimbos, I mean the real crap we all agree is dreck. It's not going away. Declaring that it should is not going to change that.
And I think you understand that it won't go away, so... what are we talking about here?
(Oops, sorry, I meant to say that Carson got sidetracked saying the dreck should NOT be there.)
if reader "r" buys book "b"
from writer "w", and both
of them end up happy, why
should anyone "a" give a
crap "c" what carson "c"
thinks about the deal?
-bowerbird
"Wow, the b-man is still doing what I'd known him to do about 10 years back. Virtually nothing. bowerbird's whole schema is to assert what an incredible visionary he is, and what deep credentials he has, and how necessary his voice is etc. This is asserted mostly by telling people who are actually doing things in some area (ebooks, poetry, programming, etc.) that he has expertise and that to not follow his great guidance is proof that the actually productive people are in fact narrow-minded losers who can’t handle the truth and are doomed to mediocrity. To easily illustrate the delusional nature of his claims you needn't go further than his claim of "starting the art form" of performance poetry in 1987. I guess the Bedouins, Yanomamis, Dadaists, Black Arts Movement, Creacionismo, Beats, and everyone else doing performance poetry prior to and without bowerbird don’t count. In the end, without doing anything noteworthy, but yet still obsessively craving attention without accomplishment, bowerbird has settled for a life of web trolling. Because through his trolling then at least people who are acknowledged in various circles and in various ways are forced to acknowledge him in some fashion. Even if that acknowledgement is simply banning him because of his insistent incivility. If this is the life he wants, that’s fine, but either through lack of ability, or choice, he produces nothing. He is the Paris Hilton of web trolls. Forget a Banksy comparison please - Banks actually produces work. Apparently it’s enough if someone, anyone, writes anything about b-bird. This is the proof that he matters. As opposed to being somehow helpful to any movement, bowerbird is the height of narcissism. He goes on the web to tell you what’s wrong with your movement, and continues to produce nothing in the real world except list-serv opinions. It’s a free world and he’s entitled to do whatever he likes, but his self-exalted insistence on being seen as credentialed and accomplished in a range of areas (seemingly without any accomplishments or credentials beyond opinion) speaks volumes about his secret desires."
He goes on the web to tell you what’s wrong with your movement, and continues to produce nothing in the real world except list-serv opinions.
At least he doesn't post anonymously.
I'm really developing zero patience for those who can't sign their name to their opinions. Man up or shut up.
This debate is very timely particarly because my husband Michael J. Sullivan (author of the Riyria Revelations) is on the cusp of deciding between staying indie or taking a publishing deal. I've been debating this in my head for several months now and change my mind as often as I change socks.
So...A few things I've come to the conclusion on.
* If the pubilsher is offering a deal that is midlist then I think you should stay indie
*If the publisher sees the potential in your current success to invest $$ and significant money in the hopes of taking you to the next level (ie breakout novelist) then that's another thing entirely
*I think a "successful indie" (we know the people currently on this list and there are more than a handful but less than 50) you can make $250,000 - $400,000 a year as an indie but I "think" you'll max out there (with a few exceptions)
*Maxing out at the above range is much more than most of us would have ever thought possible
*If you are in that $250,000 - $400,000 range you'll lose money .... substanial money... going traditional but you will gain things you can't buy no matter how much money you have
When cycling there is a trick you do called "drafting" - basically you stay behind a leader letting them break the wind resistance for you and you bike along much more easily. If you go traditional, you can basically draft them. Let them make a higher % of the sales on the book they produce. Work with them to make it the best possible and the highest sales possible. But...continue to publish your other works as you have in the past. The audience that the traditional publisher gains you will follow you to the other works even if they are harder to purchase (i.e. only available online and not in the bookstores). I'm starting to think of the "jump" as a pretty expensive marketing campaign that I don't have to spend "real dollars on" but simply defer earnings that I "probably" would have made.
Robin Sullivan <a href="www.write2publish.blogspot.com>Write2Publish</a>
At least he doesn't post anonymously
I've asked this question before, and I'll ask it now.
How is using a screen name any less anonymous?
Especially when you block your profile?
*If the publisher sees the potential in your current success to invest $$ and significant money in the hopes of taking you to the next level (ie breakout novelist) then that's another thing entirely
Robin, I love ya, but this is naive.
I can name half a dozen writers who got significant six figure deals, and the publisher still screwed the pooch when it came to promotion. And then, who got blamed? The author got blamed, even though the publisher did very little to push the book (or what they did was downright stupid, like spending $25,000 on a NYT ad.)
you can make $250,000 - $400,000 a year as an indie but I "think" you'll max out there (with a few exceptions)
In 2011 you'll max out there.
But in 2012? 2013? That number will go up, for sure.
Amazon will release a Kindle for $99, probably this year. Market saturation will hit 35%, and then accelerate rapidly. Ereaders will become as common as mp3 players.
The audience that the traditional publisher gains you will follow you to the other works
My self-pubbed work leads readers to my traditionally pubbed work, not the other way around.
Look, I once held the same ideas about traditional publishing that you now hold. But you really need to talk to some old salts who have been in the biz for a while. They'll quickly disabuse you of a lot of your misconceptions.
How is using a screen name any less anonymous?
Everything bowerbird or jtplayer says can be traced back to bowerbird or jtplayer.
Making a Google account and signing in means some accountability.
Anonymous, unsigned posts have no accountability, and therefore, less value.
Pretend for a moment that every comment in this thread was anonymous and unsigned. Not only would it be confusing, it would be practically worthless.
Sometimes, who says something is as important as what they say.
You surely see the trend where the most obnoxious, inflammatory things said in these comments are by those who post anonymously. That's because they come from cowards.
Fair enough Joe, and I agree it would be difficult to follow along if every comment was anonymous.
But as far as accountability goes, a screen name with a blocked profile provides none, IMO.
Sure, all of that person's posts can be identified, but that's as far as it goes.
"But as far as accountability goes, a screen name with a blocked profile provides none, IMO. "
You'd think so, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
If you look through this thread, virtually everyone is using a name that's either their real name or one they are easily recognizable as.
The amount of people that are posting crap under those is pretty negligible, even though clicking on Name/Url, for instance, would let you post under a fake name.
Not to say that everyone posting anonymously is posting crap, but most of the crap is posted anonymously.
People's behavior is tricky. Having them post under a name seems to make them more civil than anonymous posting, and having them post under a real name (for a given value of real) makes them more civil still.
HyperPulp 5000: Fresh Fiction Daily, Now With Added Pulp Goodness
So Joe, did you and Merz ever get a chance to talk? Did he ever email you like he said he did?
BTW, for my money, "bowerbird" is a putz.
later!
"People's behavior is tricky. Having them post under a name seems to make them more civil than anonymous posting"
Not necessarily.
The civility of a particular blog or message board is dictated by the administrator or moderator.
I participate and follow many other sites where both anonymous and identified posters regularly flame away, because the rules allow it.
This place is fairly tame. A fact I find interesting when you consider the content of some posters published works.
Why does it matter one iota to you that some idiot's publishing dreck somewhere on the internet?
Why does it matter that you're asking me why it matters?
None of this shit matters, really. We're not feeding the hungry or curing disease. It's just something to talk about between waking up and passing out.
Oh, come on. Bowerbird's a kind of sacred clown. Writers, of all people, should know we need a little conflict to make things interesting :)
Chryse Wymer
http://www.thisdarkmagic.weebly.com
[If I leave out the sarcastic bit about the flame wars--though the Google joke did tie in with my next point--will my comment post? ;-)]
The threat of the "i" phenomenon is what has made Amazon sit up and take notice. That, and that lurking monster in the background slowly building up a database of everything about every one of us. Market intelligence of a granularity unimaginable, thirty years ago, plus competition, are the major factors making it better for the consumers/readers.
Like Lizzy Ford (her comment seems to have disappeared), similarly suffering from underexposure, I'd like to know if offering free ebooks is the way to go when you DON'T have a backlist (Konrath and Goldberg) or planned series (Sullivan).
So I shall pull out my crystal ball. And I shall follow those who have self-identified as having no backlist and placing free/cheap ebooks on Amazon. Thanks to you all!
However, I think Robin Sullivan makes some good points. Once the publisher has given you what Publishers Weekly calls a "very good" deal, or better, there's a strong incentive to put "good" resources behind you. And here's where the individual makes the difference. Assuming this is a first contract, you're an unproven quantity. Some authors are capable of going out and capitalizing on that investment. Others never pan out.
Yes, there are products that will slip through the cracks. This is where the business of publishing--corporatization--has superseded the curation of great works. If you have a launch date coinciding with that of some major name, and your publisher realizes their resources are constrained, it's not hard to predict who's going to win out in the battle for resources. In that sort of situation, I can see where those who have been shafted by their publishers have reason to be bitter and angry.
As for your comment, Joe, about speaking to the old salts, I've paid some pretty good attention to some genre writers who qualify as such. Many of them do tell a different story. Howver, it might depend on your genre. Or who you talk to. Or who you hang out with. Or who has the energy to broadcast loudest in this medium which often seems still in its infancy, where the signal to noise ratio is concerned.
Traditional publishing looks a lot like research and development in the corporate world of science and technology. I could expand on that, but those who have any familiarity with the sector will understand the parallels, and those who don't, probably don't want to be bored.
[signing my name to my post so as to avoid the dreaded label of coward]
LP King
@Robin Sullivan
Hey there, please tell your hubbie I said hi; loved the books! ;)
Regarding your suggestion that...
>*If the publisher sees the >potential in your current success >to invest $$ and significant >money in the hopes of taking you >to the next >level (ie breakout >novelist) then that's another >thing entirely
I guess that's really a question of POV. I can't claim to have been around the block with major publishers the way Joe and some other contributors have, but based on my observations, the overall state of the book industry and my gut feeling, I'd be *very* weary of signing any type of "developmental deal". The agreement would have to be pretty specific and, of course, iron clad. Sure, you might be everybody's darling NOW, -- but that doesn't mean the people who are wooing you now will give you the time of day if you underperform in their eyes.
The way I see it, publishers aren't really in the business of developing talent anymore. You don't get 3, 5, 7 books to experiment, to find your voice and attract an audience. It's about instant gratification; -- you either win big or you lose everything. There are people who will happily play that game. I don't myself amongst them, though. I would rather rise or fall on my own terms. At least that way, there'll be not "what ifs?" if I should fail.
@Joe: Did I grossly misrepresent major publishing here, or would you agree?
bowerbird is my real name.
no, it's not the name
on my driver's license,
because i haven't done
a change-of-legal-name.
no, it's not the name
on my birth certificate,
but i've never said it was.
the name started out as my
performance poetry name,
back in 1987, but it has
generally come to be used
for everything that i do...
everything.
which is why you've got
a person up above who
"knows me" from the world
of performance poetry,
including listserve posts
that i made a decade ago.
on that listserve, one guy
took a "poison pen-name"
and posted ugly attacks
on me, at the same time
he was making normal
posts under his real name.
but he slipped up when he
accidently revealed himself
by posting one message
in his poison pen persona
from his normal account,
which forced him to admit
he'd been doing it all along.
on the project gutenberg
listserve, one guy got
so incensed by me that
he actually collected my
posts on a "fan" website.
> http://www.gnutenberg.de/pgtei/0.5/examples/bowerbird/poo.html
he tries to insult me by it,
but his feeble attempt at
negative spin is laughable.
he made the site years back,
but the final upshot is that
_i_was_correct_all_along_...
that guy recently decided
to use an approach that is
exactly like the one that i
had advocated all along...
he didn't come right out
and _admit_ he was wrong,
because he's not big enough,
but his actions make it clear.
so i'm proud of my record.
and i'm proud of who i am.
i'm not trying to "hide"...
i sign my posts because
i _want_ you to know that
they were written by me...
and i'm not trying to hide
in "real life", either... if
you were to meet me today,
i would introduce myself as
"bowerbird", just like i've
been doing for many years.
i've also told y'all here
my cell -- 310.980.9202 --
and issued an invitation
to buy lunch for anyone
who visits santa monica,
and told people where
i perform most tuesdays
(da poetry lounge at 9pm,
at greenway court theater,
south of melrose and fairfax,
up from famous canter's deli.)
you can save these posts
and check back in 5 years,
and you'll find i am right,
just like i was right on the
project gutenberg listserve,
where i still post regularly,
by the way...
-bowerbird
@az
>Traditional publishing looks a >lot >like research and >development in the corporate >world of science and technology.
I'd have to disagree with you there, LP. Again, I freely admit that I am not an insider with horror stories of my own to share, but I do watch and learn, and have done so for years.
Can you name a single "big name" author who was groomed,supported and developed by a publisher instead of simply being "discovered" or snatched from under a competitor's nose? I couldn't come up with a single name of the top of my head.
The TV industry seems to be having the same problem: No one has the cool (or the financial wiggle room) to just wait and see anymore. Everybody wants to have the next LOST, and they want it now. Nothing else will do. How else do you explain that brand-new, quality shows get canned after 3, 2, or as little as 1 (!) episode? That's INSANE. There's no way to accurately predict the success of any property based on a single showing. Still, that's exactly what's happening. If the premiere of that new show you liked didn't deliver blockbuster ratings, you might as well quit while you're ahead, because it's unlikely to last more than a couple of weeks. That's the reality of network televsion these days.
Sadly, the publishing industry seems to be laboring under similar standards and guidelines. At least that's the impression I'm under. If you have hard evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
- Victor
robin-
you _should_ take the deal.
because we need
a guinea pig...
or should i say
"a sacrificial goat"?
i'm glad joe said "naive",
so i didn't have to
introduce the term,
but if you really believe
you can crawl in bed
with these thieves
and come out ahead,
well, robin, you are naive
to the point of gullibility...
those guys have a _lot_
more experience stealing
than you have protecting
yourself from legal thieves.
so you're gonna be fleeced.
that's exactly what we need.
somebody who already has
a high profile and is making
lots and lots of money already,
who tries to get a leg up by
signing up with a corporation.
and then gets fleeced.
and thereby serves as warning.
and who knows?, maybe it will
work out just fine, and you will
have outsmarted the thieves
who got to where they are
because they were able to
outsmart the lesser thieves...
and best of all, you can come
back here and tell people that
i was wrong and don't know shit,
so they should never listen to me.
you and i both know you'd love it.
you'll never know if you don't try.
so give it a try, robin...
give it a try.
-bowerbird
Hi, Victor. (I suppose I should use the fashionable '@,' but I'm old.)
The reference to SR&D was in the sense of MBA 100. I don't want to bore fiction writers with that. Do you see my drift? If not, and you want to pursue it further, feel free to email me.
On another note, thinking about what Chryse discussed in an earlier comment, what about group marketing for self-pubbed e-authors? "I'll buy your ebook, you buy mine."
People set marketing budgets, and self-select into "buying clubs."
I'm only half joking.
"How else do you explain that brand-new, quality shows get canned after 3, 2, or as little as 1 (!) episode? That's INSANE."
It's not as crazy as it seems. What happens to those shows that get pulled after one or two episodes is that they are pulling in less ratings than a rerun of an existing property.
Unless the network owns the production company, pumping money into a project when they could be using an existing, and much cheaper, show doesn't make much sense.
The sad truth is that shows that start low, even if given time to grow, don't often grow into powerhouses.
Shows that are produced by a company owned by the network often do get a better chance, because the payoff on the gamble is better.
I would note that this is almost entirely a network issue - cable channels almost always let the initial run of a show air. Different business model at work.
Publishing works differently, and their inability to plan long term seems to be more of a hinderance than it is in television, but long term planning is not something that large corporate entities have been great at in the last few decades, for logical economic reasons.
HyperPulp 5000: Fresh Fiction Daily, Now With Added Pulp Goodness
@Joe Konrath said...
Robin, I love ya, but this is naive.
I can name half a dozen writers who got significant six figure deals, and the publisher still screwed the pooch when it came to promotion. And then, who got blamed? The author got blamed, even though the publisher did very little to push the book (or what they did was downright stupid, like spending $25,000 on a NYT ad.)
I'm 100% sure this is true but I'm not relying on them to "make Michael" a hit - I'm looking at them to be a distribution channel that will get the books a wider audience (You have no idea how many times I read posts about people "not being able to find/get his books) - I know it won't solve all the problems but it will help. And I plan on standing on their shoulders and be a bit higher than I am now. They are one tool in the arsnel and with the techniques I've used marketing him as an "unknown" I should be more successful with them giving him some legitmacy which we lack now.
you can make $250,000 - $400,000 a year as an indie but I "think" you'll max out there (with a few exceptions)
In 2011 you'll max out there.
But in 2012? 2013? That number will go up, for sure.
Yes, think of it as a "loss leader" We'll lose money on the books they publish but we'll contine to publish other works as we have been and let their marketing help raise the boats of the other works as well.
I'm not saying that it is ideal. I'm still not 100% sure which way I will go but...I know what I have now and unless I try the other route I can't say if it was good or bad. If it was good-fine. If it is bad, I feel confident I can put that mistake behind me and continue on no worse off (other than less $'s in my pocket).
I know you are only trying to save me what you perceive as potential pain and help me avoid mistakes but each author and publishing house is different. You might not have had the best "team" and they might have mismanaged some of your books (and others you have talked to) but what if Michael takes the deal and he becomes a "breakout". I know it won't be a recipe for others to follow but it will work out well for us. Alot has to do with how much confidence you have in the book and the fans to date. My confidence is pretty high at the moment - I would not have felt the same way if the offer came 12 months ago.
i'm glad joe said "naive",
so i didn't have to
introduce the term,
but if you really believe
you can crawl in bed
with these thieves
and come out ahead,
well, robin, you are naive
to the point of gullibility...
Have you ever worked in publishing? Have you ever actually been, you know, published?
Just wondering what makes you such an authority on everything and why anyone would possibly want to follow your advice.
@Victor Redman
Hey - I skyped him - glad you liked the series. This is not a "developmental deal". These are for a 3 book deal of completed works and their publishing schedule plans are book #1 in Sep 2011, #2 Oct 2011, #3 in Nov 2011. Releasing them in "quick succession" means that underperformance of the first really won't stop book 2 and 3 from hitting the market (something that has happened to others I know).
I've not released the name of the publisher yet, but I think they are head and shoulders above others in the genre and have produced NYT bestselling authors and have shown more "out of the box" thinking then most presses (For instance they've lowered the ebook price of one of their top sellers to $2.99 recently - for a limited time - I've not seen this from other publishers).
But let's just say that it is an epic fail and they drop Michael like a stone...The rights revert to us and we go back to doing what we have been doing but with a larger audience because we bought more eyeballs for less $'s (a tried and true emarketing strategty).
I think the issue is "publishing in general" and "this specfic project". It may be "just like all the others" but then again...it might not be. In any case, I'm looking at all the angles and am a better negotiating position then I would be if I didn't have the success that Michael's acheieved so far.
Robin, Write2 Publish Blog
@Robin
Hey, thanks for passing on my message to Michael at such a breakneck pace. :)
Regarding the issue of the print deal, I guess I can only wish you guys the best, and I do. You said yourself that you're going back in forth in your head, and I can definitely relate. The prospect of seeing Michael's books in stores and receiving that NY publishing "stamp of approval" must be alluring.
In all likelihood, you will have to give up quite a lot, too, though. For one, I assume you'd have to stop selling all self-made editions of the books in favor of the publisher's new (and, most likely, more expensive) versions. That seems like it could be a major blow on both your bank account and your current momentum. Coupled with a potentinally lengthy wait until the new editions are released, that seems like quite a risk to take.
Please do let us know how it turns. I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed for you guys; -- you deserve it. (BTW: You should definitely find a way to do a deluxe hardcover set for the 'Riyria Revelations' once the series is done. The design basically demands such a treatment, and I know I'd pay top dollar for that.)
@ Robin:
Looks like you were responding to me as I was responding to you responding to Joe. I love the internet. ;)
Just wanted to say: THAT sounds pretty interesting. I was under the assumption we were talking about Riyria here; -- I must have gotten that mixed up. The schedule definitely seems nice and brisk, and having the rights revert to you if the whole thing somehow falls apart is, of course, a MAJOR plus.
Sorry for the abrupt change of heart here, but... if these are the terms, what's really keeping you from signing on the dotted line? Sounds like a GREAT experiment with little to no downside! (I mean, you would probably stand to make more money by self-publishing -- unless, of course, this deal leads to Michael becoming "the next big thing" --, but as an excercise in brand extension, it sounds great!)
@bowerbird - it's funny because being a "guinea pig" is actually part of what attracts me to the deal.
I've been with a small press, I've been self-produced, I have no idea what it's like in the big-six and part of me is willing to pay the price of admission just to see how bad (or good) it is.
As to being fleeced. That has the connotation of "you'll lose lots of money" which I've already admitted that I plan to lose in my estimation somewhere between $250,000 and $400,000. I'm walking into this not with naive eyes but with eyes wide open. That's not really being fleeced its using that potential income to buy something that I couldn't walk into a store and purchase. Now granted, that's a damn high price tag. But believe it or not past a certain point more money doesn't change the way I live my life (what I buy or where I go).
The issue is, and I know this sounds strange, but money is not the big motivator for Michael and I.
For years we owned and ran an advertising agency that brought us $500,000 to $600,000 of income a year but Michael got bored and so we changed gears. Michael started writing full time. I took a job within corportate america for a significant pay decrease (six figures but much less than 1/2 of what I was making). If all we wanted was to make $$ we would have stayed in advertising. We have NEVER regretted that decision as we both are doing things we love while still living comfortably.
I'm a gambling woman by nature, and its always worked out well for me. We're doing well...really well but I do think there is a ceiling because of distribution. Even Amanda who is selling (I suspect 200,000 books this month given that she has more titles in the top 100 this month than december when she did 109,000) isn't highly known outside the kindle echo chamber. With a big-NY six, there is a chance (not a large one - but I've seen my hold cards and I like my chances).
Again, I've not fully decided alot depends on reversion clauses and the like - but at the moment - I'm leaning that way if for no other reason then to "learn something I didn't know before."
@Victor - we are talking about the Riyria Revelations - instad of six-books they are putting them out as a trilogy - with the release dates I mentioned - which is a pretty darn fast acceleration by NY publisher standards. I'll definitely keep posting but the best thing to do is watch Michael's blog as of course we will be announcing there as soon as we decide.
@Robin
Ahh, I gotcha. It's the "3-book-deal" that threw me for a loop there, but I guess combining 2 Riyria books at a time makes sense.
Wow... NOW I can understand your hesitation more than ever. The deal as you outlined it here does sounds very, very good. On the other hand, I assume the potential downside of having to stop selling your own editions must be taken into account as well. That IS quite a decision you have to make there...
Victor Redman said...
If these are the terms, what's really keeping you from signing on the dotted line? Sounds like a GREAT experiment with little to no downside!
Several things...
#1 - ebooks will overtake print and the thing that the NY big-six really help with is print - the big question is how much legs are still in the print/bookstore model?
#2 - ebook per sale goes from $3.46 to $1.22 (based on what "I think") they will price it at. Michael sells 10,000 ebooks right now so that is a loss of $22,400 a month ($268,000 a year) and I'm 100% convinced the added print sales + foreign riht sale won't make up that kind of difference. That's ALOT of money to walk away from. I've said that it is not my "primary" motivation and if the decision meant losing $50,000 it's a lot easier to make then $250,000 to $400,000 which I think is quite possible.
The 64,000 question is will they sell more or less ebooks? Joe will tell you know - when the publisher raises the price from $4.95 to $6.99 numbers will plumet. I personally think they will go up but not enough to make up the short fall.
robin said:
> I plan on standing
> on their shoulders
> and be a bit higher
> than I am now.
i don't know what publisher
made you the offer, but i do
know that none of those people
are comfortable at all being the
"shoulders" that someone else
"stands on". if you make it work,
more power to you, sister...
if not, the message will be clear
to everyone about these sharks.
but all of that is assuming you
actually go through with a deal.
from what you say, i doubt it...
for instance, you seem to think
you can continue self-publishing.
they'll want you to stop, even if
only temporarily, because they
usually do non-compete clauses.
you seem to think they would
revert any rights to you quickly,
but i'd say there's little chance.
you seem to think you'll benefit
from their marketing, when they
are likely thinking that they will
benefit from _your_ past work.
you seem willing to trade money
for the "legitimacy" gained from
being "published", and they will
take advantage of that fact, but
i'm not sure you'll willingly trade
as much money as they demand.
you're counting on your fans, but
fans who were very happy to aid
a writer-as-individual might turn
quickly on a cog-in-corporation,
especially on e-books that cost
$7.99 or $11.99. and the calls of
"sell-out" might haunt you even
if you "return" to self-publishing.
but hey, nonetheless, i still think
that you should take the deal!
either way, someone will have
their predictions proven correct.
-bowerbird
whoa.
i just walked away
from the computer
for a minute, and
it flashed on me...
first, what if this publisher
_does_ give robin all of
the things that she wants?
well, then take the deal,
i guess...
but i cannot see _any_
big6 publisher making
such a one-sided deal...
they are used to the
one-sidedness being
in _their_own_ favor...
...unless...
then it hit me.
it might be a "detour" play.
the most likely scenario
is that a movie studio is
thinking of doing a film
based on sullivan's books.
so they would then go to a
publisher that is owned by
the same parent corporation,
to have them sign the books.
then later, when the movie deal
gets made, the terms are friendly
to the studio, _and_ the publisher
walks away with 50% of the gross.
pretty sweet, considering that
they knew it was a sure thing.
behind-the-curtain cooperation
like this is very common, and
is a good way to ensure that
bribe money stays in-family...
so watch every detail in the
contract, robin, because the
one detail that's out of line
is the one that they plan to
take advantage of you with.
they'll be willing to throw you
all the bones you want, just so
they get the thing they want...
-bowerbird
@bowerbird - you seem to expect "the worst in people" they are either incompetent or evil (probably both in your mind).
I think most people in publishing LOVE books. They believe in what they are doing and are hard working. There is no doubt they are trapped in a system whereby returns and high costs of entry make their business model difficult but let's not take it out ont he wait staff for the decisions of the restaurant owner.
I'll announce the publisher at some point one way or the other but I don't want to "trump" their press release. From our meetings to date they welcome my input on marketing (but that might be because I've been in the business before). I don't spend money on marketing (mine is mainly Internet based) and they of course want me to continue what I've already done when Michael was not with them.
Yes, we can continue to self publish - not THOSE books but any other books that Michael has - we've already discussed this the contract won't prevent this. There are even some titles in genres that they don't represent that of course they have zero interest in so what we do is our own business.
The "quick reversion" was something we discussed early in the negotiations and they know our stance and were agreeable to what we put forth. Now we don't have the contract yet, but they know it will be a "deal breaker" so I'm not expecting any surprises there. If it turns out that they do pull a crazy Ivan then the deal is dead so it makes the decision rather easy.
As to benefiting from marketing - why is it an "us" verses "them". We both make money on the more books we sell. So yes the series benefits from our past success and the efforts they put forth.
Yes, I'm willing to trade money for 3 things
* the "stamp of approval (which still means a lot to MANY MANY readers)
* an extensive distribution system (there are still many who don't buy on-line (believe it or not)
* a chance at the big show. (i.e. NYT or USA today bestseller etc.
No matter how much I make self-publishing I'll never be able to buy any of those things - there is only one way to buy them - sign on the line. They will not "demand" any money there is the "belief" that I'll lose money but there is also the posibility that I'll be wrong and we'll sell so well through them the money will actually increase - This is not somthing that I expect.
The fans don't know that Michael is essentially self-published. He started with a small press and then moved to Ridan (our small press). Michael has reviews on book bloggers and fan mail that are constantly saying, "Why doesn't some big pubilsher pick this guy up" so they want him to "move up".
Based on other ebook prices for this publisher I expect the ebook will be $6.99. Michael's latest book is seling great at this price already (well $6.95) and the fans won't balk at a $2 increase from the $4.95 they are paying now. I'll conceed that it will stop some "new" fans. But I think they will be more than offset by those from the larger distribution so the fanbase will (I believe) increase with the publisher.
And of course you want me to take the deal - to laugh in my face if it fails - but even if it fails I won't regret my decision because I weighed the pros and cons and walked into it well educated and with expectations that matched my goals.
Robin Write2Publish
@bowerbird - Grat theory but again...we've already discussed
a) foreign rights
b) movie rights
c) merchandising rights
and they get... 0% of all of the above. The only thing they get are
a) print
b) ebook
c) audio
My agent is mainly in the foreign rights field and is thinking of crossing over to film so when she sent out the proposal she made it clear that they were off the table and non-negotiable.
But keep thinking...I'm entertiained by all the Conspiracy Theories you are coming up with.
robin said:
> bowerbird - you seem to
> expect "the worst in people"
that's not true. not true at all.
people have to _earn_ that!
but yes, most of the thieves
operating inside corporations
using legal (and illegal) means
to steal from creative artists
have more than earned it...
they've risen to the very top!
> they are either
> incompetent or evil
> (probably both
> in your mind).
evil people who are _also_
incompetent are humorous.
but the evil people who _are_
competent are very dangerous.
then again, if you and michael
ran an advertising agency, you
might _be_ those people! ;+)
> I think most people
> in publishing LOVE books.
the people doing the grunt work,
for grunt pay, are in publishing
because they _love_ books, yes.
corporate asses who _own_ the
publishing houses, because they
bought them back in the era of
mergers & acquisitions, are just
greedy evil entities, and the only
thing _they_ love is _money_...
guess who writes the contracts?
if you crawl in that snake-pit
and expect to be dealing with
people who "love books", then
you are gonna get snake-bit...
-bowerbird
Sounds to me like you've thought this through very well Robin and are moving forward with your eyes open.
Most importantly, you seem to understand that this is a business transaction, nothing more or less, and as such you appear to be negotiating from that standpoint. I say good for you and your husband, and I hope it all works out well.
Of course not every publisher is out to rip you off, or "steal" from you or "fleece" you. It's absurd to think so.
But then again, some folks are programmed to see conspiracies and boogeymen around every corner. All I can say is that's a pretty cynical and shitty way to go through life. IMO.
robin said:
> Conspiracy Theories
oh dear.
you really think i'm
making this all up,
don't you? oh well,
sorry, i did my best.
i _do_ believe that we
need a guinea pig, and
if you make it work, i'll
be the first one here to
say that i was wrong...
i would _like_ to be wrong.
but i know i'm not wrong...
way too many people have
trod this path before you.
and if i _am_ wrong, then
we truly have a new day...
and the best advice for
such a new day is that
if you want to sign with
the big6, you'd _better_
do what the sullivans did,
and make your reputation
online beforehand, so you
gather up enough power
that you can _negotiate_...
-bowerbird
hey, the thieves that operate
in the content corporations
don't compare to the bankers.
content corporation thieves
steal _millions_ of dollars...
hundreds of millions cumulative.
the bankers steal _billions_...
which cumulate to _trillions_.
oh, gee, is my cynicism showing?
just another "conspiracy theory"?
ok, now tell me, where did y'all
hide _my_ rose-colored glasses?
-bowerbird
@bowerbird - with due respect I don't think you will admit you were wrong - you didn't with the $0.99 price point that Moses raised with you regarding Michael's books.
I put my money where my mouth is and did a test taking Michael's The Crown Conspiracy from $4.95 to $0.99 and I'm losing $9,670 a month so it's going back to $4.95 as soon as the Amazon correction kicks in.
But you still contend that ebooks need to move to $0.99 - or did I misunderstand your point on this?
Terrific.
Another blog post thoroughly hijacked and turned into someone's personal soap box.
Sorry JT - I was just responding to bowerbird. I'll refrain from further comments it wasn't my intention to hijack.
No apology necessary Robin.
I wasn't talking about you.
I enjoy reading your posts, and again, I wish you and your husband good luck. You strike me as savvy enough to avoid being "fleeced", whatever the hell that means.
Besides, when it gets too tedious wading through the bullshit posts here, I can always go over to the Kindle boards and read what you have to say without all the distractions.
Have a good night.
I'm looking at them to be a distribution channel that will get the books a wider audience
If by "wider" you mean "more", than you'll sell more books by self-pubbing.
Comparing my trad pubbed sales to my ebook sales, per title, I'm on track to reach more people, at a faster rather, self-pubbing. And I've got several hundred thousand books in print in 13 coutnries. But my self-pubbed ebooks are selling at a faster rather than my hardcover, paperback, ebook, and audiobook versions combined.
I know you are only trying to save me what you perceive as potential pain and help me avoid mistakes but each author and publishing house is different. You might not have had the best "team" and they might have mismanaged some of your books (and others you have talked to) but what if Michael takes the deal and he becomes a "breakout".
I've worked with four different, major publishers, and have had nine different publicity teams.
They're all the same, Robin. Overworked, underpaid, flawed, with no real idea of how to sell books.
If they had a clue, every book would be a bestseller.
It's saying something that the smartest folks I've ever worked with work for Amazon.
Signing a contract, hoping for a breakout book, is like betting on a horserace. Even if the odds are good, it's still a BIG gamble.
I wouldn't bet ten grand on a horse, let alone a few hundred thousand dollars.
That's what you're gambling with. A two or three book deal could mean several hundred thousand dollars lost.
I DO NOT want to talk you out of any deal. But I do think you should be informed. Reading your posts, you don't seem to be informed. You seem like a new author signing your first big deal.
Don't you have any traditionally published peers to discuss this with?
they've lowered the ebook price of one of their top sellers to $2.99 recently - for a limited time - I've not seen this from other publishers
My publisher, Hachette, did that with one of my titles. it sold like crazy for a limited time, at $1.99.
A damn shame I earned 34 cents a copy on those...
The rights revert to us and we go back to doing what we have been doing
No, Robin. If they invested a nice amount of money in you, the rights WON'T revert back. They'll keep them in print just to exploit the erights and try to earn the advance back. But Michael will likely never earn out his advance.
Have you crunched the numbers and figured out how many books he has to sell to earn out his advance?
With the creative accounting and reserves against returns that the Big 6 are known for, it is unlikely he'll earn it out, even if he hits the NYT List.
Please find someone in the biz to discuss this with.
If they had a clue, every book would be a bestseller.
Please explain.
But believe it or not past a certain point more money doesn't change the way I live my life (what I buy or where I go).
This is soooo true.
At first, when you start to make good money, it seems like a dream. But once all your bills are paid, you have health insurance, and you can afford a nice car and a home, there's not much else you really need. Everything else is just crap. And I'm not a hoarder, so I don't need to collect more shit for my house.
There are some nice things about having money. Like being able to afford lawyers for bullshit tickets, or not having to worry about paying for your kid's speech therapy.
But other than that, it's just like any other 40-hour-a-week job. It takes work to make money, but you have a lot more flexibility in the way you can live your life.
I've worked with four different, major publishers, and have had nine different publicity teams.
They're all the same, Robin. Overworked, underpaid, flawed, with no real idea of how to sell books.
If they had a clue, every book would be a bestseller.
I read an article on publishing a month or so ago, and this statement reminded me of something I saw there:
One key advantage of corporate publishing was supposed to be its marketing muscle: You may not publish exactly the books you’d like to, but the ones you publish will get the attention they deserve. Yet in recent years, more accurate internal sales numbers have confirmed what publishers long suspected: Traditional marketing is useless.
“Media doesn’t matter, reviews don’t matter, blurbs don’t matter,” says one powerful agent. Nobody knows where the readers are, or how to connect with them. Fifteen years ago, Philip Roth guessed there were at most 120,000 serious American readers—those who read every night—and that the number was dropping by half every decade. Others vehemently disagree. But who really knows? Focused consumer research is almost nonexistent in publishing. What readers want—and whether it’s better to cater to their desires or try harder to shape them—remains a hotly contested issue.
If this is true, it does not bode well for publishers, since if success cannot be created by a marketing department, the reason d'etre for big publishers shrinks even more.
The whole article is here, if you're interested.
Last I heard, only 1 out of 5 books makes a profit. 2 break even, 2 lose money.
That means, with all the vetting and gatekeeping and experience and money, publishing is still producing a lot of failure.
If publishers truly knew what they were doing, there would be a greater number of profitable books. They'd be able to be better judges of print runs to minimize returns. Yet 50% returns are considered normal.
Publishers spend a lot of time and money acquiring titles, and then spend a lot of time and money publishing them and marketing them, and they still have a terrible batting average. Even worse, the huge hits are few and far between, and they must rely on their backlists and their bestselling perennial authors to keep them afloat.
How many books have to flop before an editor begins to realize they aren't doing a good job picking hits? How many editors passed on Harry Potter or Dan Brown?
Part of the problem is the industry. Publishing is an unreproduceable phenomenon.
But a good portion of it is wasteful spending, poor planning, mismanagement, apathy, and inexperience.
I don't remember who said it, but the line goes "Don't mistake twenty years of experience with one year of experience repeated twenty times."
Right now, I'm running my own publishing company. I publish Joe Konrath.
Guess what? EVERY book is profitable. And the times I've intended to create a bestseller, I created a bestseller.
It's not rocket science.
Joe et al.,
Since we're discussing reversion of rights...
Please forgive this anonymous posting. Hesitant to discuss my contract in public with my name attached.
Do you know of anyone getting contracts worded in such a way that in order to be considered "in print," a book must earn a certain amount per year?
My contract with one of the Big 6 specifies a threshold for ebook sales. I requested that it be changed from the original wording where simply being available in ebook format was considered "in print." What?! But... silly me, to revert, it still also has to be out of print in the paperback format (with a fairly big window for them to print more or revert, their choice). If they want to hang on, they can theoretically just do something like POD to print a few more without much effort.
It would seem more fair if it were based on actual sales of the paperback (plus ebook, I guess) so that some lingering promotional effort and/or reasonable pricing on the publisher's part is required to hang onto the rights.
I won't rule out the possibility that they will simply be reasonable about it--they have been very nice about everything else so far, even paying advances earlier than technically required in some cases.
But, if someone offers me so much for my next advance that I decide to stay with traditional publishing, do you know of a good way to address reversion? Maybe propose that they get the rights for only N years no matter what? Do (mortal) people do that?
I feel a bit silly asking because the first response of most people here might be "Run, fool!" It is just something I have thought about in retrospect, wondering how I ought to have handled the wording concerning reversion. I can't complain. The advance was actually so good that it would have made sense to sign even if I could never get the rights back. But arrrg! I am positive I could earn more using those rights than they are earning using them. Plus get the words in front of more readers. They paid well, but it is painful to watch them squander what they bought.
And the times I've intended to create a bestseller, I created a bestseller.
A couple of years ago Tess Gerritsen blogged about how many books you have to sell to hit the NYT bestseller list. If I remember correctly, it was something like 7000 in the first week of release.
There's no way to just make that happen on a regular basis. There has to be some sort of spark that resonates with the buying public in the first place.
NYT bestselling list vs. Kindle bestselling lists...a whole different ballgame.
NYT bestselling list vs. Kindle bestselling lists...a whole different ballgame.
I agree with Jude.
Selling 10,000 copies of a book that earns $3.00 per copy is a real living wage, but it would be a failure for a traditional press.
The traditional publishers have enormous overhead. Their version of "success" is different from ours.
I think a book is a sucess if I sell 30 copies a month. That's because the book will pay for it's editing and production costs within 6 months. Then it's pure profit from that point on.
Think of it this way-- there aren't any passive investments that can generate $300 in guaranteed, recurring revenue for years, for only an initial investment of $500-$800 bucks.
This is how I'm funding my retirement.
@Jude
"There's no way to just make that happen on a regular basis."
That's not actually true. The NYT is based on sales at several, theoretically secret, bookstores. It's absolutely possibly to game that system routinely.
The problem, of course, is that it takes a lot of money to do so, making it an unreasonable thing for publishers to try to do.
And, of course, it would break the system.
A real life example is, alledgedly, the presence of Dianetics on the bestseller lists, where Scientologists bought the books at certain places and times in order to get the book where they wanted it.
That's not including co ops and other things that publishers can do if they want to put their muscle behind it.
You can't buy long term sales, but you can push your way onto bestseller lists.
HyperPulp 5000: Fresh Fiction Daily, Now With Added Pulp Goodness
This is how I'm funding my retirement.
Very smart.
It's absolutely possibly to game that system routinely.
Nope. If it were possible, then publishers would be doing it routinely. There's no marketing substitute for getting a book on the NYT bestselling list. If publishers could game it, that's where all their marketing dollars would go.
JT,
I enjoy reading your comments partially as you have a different point of view. To paraphrase, what is the difference posting anonymously? I've stopped reading them. Not one word. You've built a reputation here based on your posts. Others have too. Anonymous have no reputation and thus are more likely to take the conversation in a negative tangent.
To everyone:
I've charted the AAP sales on my blog. Very interesting conclusions this month. But it is mostly just charts, so you can make up your own mind.
Neil
Anonymous asked...
Maybe propose that they get the rights for only N years no matter what? Do (mortal) people do that?
For those "in the industry" what is the average shelf life of a book?
There's no marketing substitute for getting a book on the NYT bestselling list. If publishers could game it, that's where all their marketing dollars would go.
Not at all. While the NYT List is a nice coup, it doesn't mean much in terms of marketing. A book will sell some extra copies due to appearing on the list, but those copies might not be worth what it takes to game the system.
And the system is a joke. Look elsewhere on this blog to understand the truth about how a book makes the NYT list. Lots of fudging, lots of wink-wink.
The USA Today list is powered by Bookscan. That's a more reliable indicator of sales. And when you see how different those two are, you can quickly spot the flaws in the NYT.
For those "in the industry" what is the average shelf life of a book?
Shelf life can mean two different things.
A book on a physical shelf in a bookstore is usually returned if it hasn't sold within six months. Current average rate of return is 50%, though I've heard from some insiders that it is actually higher.
Because books are returnable, publishers have zero incentive to sell them.
In order for a book to get noticed, it has to have coop money. Search my blog for "coop" to learn about that.
Most books don't get coop. And though coop is needed for a book to succeed, not all books with coop succeed.
Once your book is off the shelf, it is still considered in print as long as warehouses have copies and it is available for order. Some publishers will have clauses int heir contracts saying the rights revert if a minimum number of print copies aren't sold.
But, like everything else in a royalty statement, we have to take our publisher's word on how many are actually selling.
In the past, it was in a publisher's best interest to get rid of print copies that aren't selling, because warehousing books costs money.
But once ebooks become the dominant format, a publisher can artificially keep a book in print, even paying royalties on print copies not sold, in order to retain erights. After all, how do you know how many copies sold?
I haven't heard of this happening, and it might not happen. But it easily could.
But, if someone offers me so much for my next advance that I decide to stay with traditional publishing, do you know of a good way to address reversion? Maybe propose that they get the rights for only N years no matter what? Do (mortal) people do that?
You can ask for an N years clause, but you won't get it.
If I were to sign a traditional contract, I'd want it to be wholly dependent on print sales. You need a publisher for print. You don't need them for ebooks. So even with a minimum ebook sales clause, you'll never get those rights back. All a publisher has to do is lower your ebook price to 99 cents for a month, and they'll make that minimum.
Make sure the contract has a clause that states rights revert when print sales fall below a certain number of copies per period.
While the NYT List is a nice coup, it doesn't mean much in terms of marketing.
That's surprising. Seems like it would. When an author makes the list, even once, they can forever and ever have New York times bestselling author printed on their book covers. Whether the system is fair or not, it seems to me those words carry quite a bit of marketing weight.
"it seems to me those words carry quite a bit of marketing weight"
Yes, it carries weight with one specific market segment.
There are markets that are grossly underrepresented (or not represented at all) on the list.
Amanda Hocking never made the NYT list. Neither did Karen McQuestion, Michael Sullivan or Joe Konrath or Selena Kitt for that matter. As far as I can ascertain, at this point in time these people are selling more and making more money than many NYT bestselling authors.
The NYT list no longer reflects market reality.
It is no longer an inaccurate snapshot of what the public is actually reading.
"It is no longer an inaccurate snapshot of what the public is actually reading."
Oops, my editor is on coffee break.
That should be, It is no longer an accurate snapshot of what the public is actually reading.
The NYT list will become even more obsolete as the ebook market grows.
Blessedly, for those of us who've been OP'd for decades, Amazon never forgets: our old Amazon reader reviews live forever and can be associated with our "new" Kindle versions. (It's best if those reviews were good reviews. :))
I've four reverted novels; one I've published for free at Smashwords and one for almost so as a Kindle. Also published a new novel. The rest are in progress, progress, progress...
Am taking the time to revisit my old books, tidying up here there, mostly the occasional infelicitous phrase. And the ebook formatting! It's cottage industry, with each publishing platform having its own quirks that must be unearthed and accommodated. They're few and technically trivial but if ignored the result is horrific--very easy to produce a book that's one 90,000 word scroll without a single indentation or paragraph break. Jeez.
Bloodied but unbowed, I've mastered them. Back to writing. And publishing. In the few months I've been at this, I've already earned enough to buy two bottles of a decent domestic Cabernet and stand myself to one round at the pub.
Oh. You know those one page synopses we slaved over for proposals to Agents of Renown? They make for fine amplified book descriptions.
So what's with Barnes and Noble? If I want to publish directly with them, they require my credit number in case of returns. Amazon doesn't need my credit card number. Smashwords doesn't need my credit card number. Has anyone had any experience with this policy at B&N? Surely they determine whether or not to honor returns? They'll probably be freer with my money than with their own. (Tell me I'm wrong, please.)
Thanks.
Cheers,
Steve
Manning up here, Joe:
http://www.stephenamesberry.com/
The NYT list will become even more obsolete as the ebook market grows.
Actually, they're going to start listing bestselling ebooks as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/books/11list.html
Yes, pubishers have jerked authors around for years on reversion and royalty statements, etc. Authors bitch about it endlessly, and it's well-known....
Of course up until now authors have had no choice in the matter.
So what happens to a publisher who jerks around a vocal author in this New World Order? Do you think other authors are going to be eager to sign?
They're going to have to clean up their act, and they're going to have to PROVE they've cleaned up their act.
(That isn't to say that people aren't going to have to be cheated before this scenario plays out.)
Jamie - I did email Joe and we had a time set aside to talk, but then Joe had something come up and had to cancel, so I asked him for a new time that worked best for him. I haven't heard anything back yet.
I want to respond to Joe Konrath's comment:
2. The publishers didn't give a shit [about copy editing].
It's not so much that they don't care; it's more that they realize spending $1,000 to $3,000 for the copy edit will not produce any more sales. This expense will only keep costs higher.
It seems to me that the embarrassment of errata now falls to the author whereas it used to fall to the publisher. So no consequences, no expenditure.
@Robin - I blogged back in October here about my rights reversion escapades with my first two novels, Desert Places and Locked Doors....it might offer you a glimpse of the difficulties of getting them back. Search on Blake Crouch and rights reversion and you should find it.
Congrats to you and your husband on the offer and I wouldn't dream of telling you one way or the other, but would only say I hope you have a great literary agent who is fully in touch with your rights reversion and non-compete clause needs. I fully understand (and share) in your dream scenario of having a major publisher break you out. But with Borders closing and others possibly following that path, I would be wary.
Finally, the complete creative freedom allowed by the current state of ebooks is something that I couldn't put a price on.
Good luck with a tough decision.
"The Hangman's Daughter," published by Amazoncrossing, is now #1 on Kindle. Wow!
I've pointed out before, the 14 AAP publishers will be in trouble if more than 30% of the top 100 are not published by them.
I see Amanda Hocking is at #6 & #8. (I believe #2 through #5 are from the 14 AAP publishers.)
I blogged AAP sales and it is now obvious that ebook sales are cutting into pbook sales (that wasn't the case even 60 days ago).
It will be interesting to see how many ereaders are sold in 2011. Some are predicting the tipping point will be hit in 2011, I still think it will be in 2012.
Interesting times,
Neil
Joe Konrath said...
I'm looking at them to be a distribution channel that will get the books a wider audience
If by "wider" you mean "more", than you'll sell more books by self-pubbing.
No I don't mean "more sales" I mean "wider audience" - To be in front of more people. Ebooks are still only 9% of the overall market. Many people shop exclusively in bookstores - they will NEVER hear of Michael as long as he is just online.
I've been in marketing for years and know that people don't buy the first time they are exposed to a brand, but if exposed many times (7 - 10) they will start to take notice.
The series we are thinking of selling is not Michael's only works so to have him exposed to a bigger population will be a tide that rises all boats.
Signing a contract, hoping for a breakout book, is like betting on a horserace. Even if the odds are good, it's still a BIG gamble.
Without question - and I fully realize this. I don't play the lottery but I do play Texas Hold-Em. If you don't play you have 0% chance of winning - if you are in the game your skill can outmatch others at the table even if you don't have the best cards. If you do have good cards then your chances are MUCH better. I like the cards I'm holding (i.e. I think Michael's series (when taken in it's entirety can really be something.) What I'm betting with is "income potential" not going to the bank and withdrawing funds to put on the table. That's a much different thing. If we were "poor" (which we have been many times in our lives) it would be a different matter - as the money we get from self-publishing would keep food on the table, but we are really talking about "discrentionary funds" that could be used to buy things we really don't need in the first place.
Don't you have any traditionally published peers to discuss this with?
Yes, and they all are scratching their heads trying to figure out why I'm not jumping at the deal. They compare the terms, advance, and prestigue of the publisher to what they have and they think I'm crazy for hesitating.
sorry for not responding sooner,
but it _was_ saturday night...
i was starting to wonder maybe
i'm the only one living in a world
where it's not so uncommon for
publishers to take advantage of
authors. maybe just joe and me.
***
first, robin, i do _not_ hope that
you will "fall flat on your face"...
as i said, i hope that i'm wrong,
and i hope you succeed, wildly...
authors can love their publisher.
i hope your husband is like that.
indeed, i hope the whole thing
is something that works for you.
it's good for everyone when
someone will be a guinea pig.
we get to see what stuff works,
without paying a price ourself.
and if it does work for you,
it'll be a great success-story
for the self-publishing arena.
so it's all-win for my purposes.
***
robin said:
> @bowerbird -
> with due respect
> I don't think you will
> admit you were wrong
oh, don't be silly, robin...
don't you think i fully realize
my biggest flaw is that i am
a pompous smug smart-ass
know-it-all? the _best_ thing
i can do to make myself more
likeable is to admit i'm wrong.
it makes me seem _human_...
so i always _jump_ at chances
to do just that. the problem is
that i am wrong so very rarely,
and i'm too stupid and stubborn
to just _pretend_ i was wrong...
> you didn't with the
> $0.99 price point that
> Moses raised with you
> regarding Michael's books.
link to the specific comment.
> But you still contend that
> ebooks need to move
> to $0.99 - or did I
> misunderstand your point
> on this?
you completely misunderstand.
first, i don't think any prices
_need_to_move_ to anything.
i have no such agenda; indeed
no reason to care about prices.
and i don't believe they'd care
even if i _did_ have an agenda.
or if you did, or anybody else.
prices "move" because of the
dynamics of the marketplace.
this particular marketplace
will be characterized by an
emerging "surplus" of supply,
because thousands of writers
will turn up, all with zero costs
(except for the _sunk_ cost
of having written the book),
and pricing as their only tool
to get the attention they want.
so yes, i think it's _inevitable_
that the prices will go down...
i think it would be _stupid_ to
think anything else will happen.
i mean, seriously, if you can
give me a counterargument,
_any_ one at all, please do...
because i say it is _inevitable._
but i, myself, _me,_ personally,
don't give a rat's ass either way.
what _i_ want, most of all, is
for writers to _make_money_.
and as far as i can see, so far,
low prices mean bigger profit.
and more fans. a bigger pie...
but again, i don't really care.
if a writer wants to price stuff
at a higher level, and give up
some sales, fine! go ahead!
it's probably also important to
point out that i do _not_ think
profit is the only consideration.
for instance, here's a comment
where i told amanda hocking
she should _raise_her_prices_
from $.99 to $2.99, because
she could get a higher royalty:
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/12/bestseller-shift.html?showComment=1292048061314#c8968083385092778490
i also advised joe similarly:
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-aaron-patterson.html?showComment=1295334325369#c3289033903940970361
i gave this advice because i
firmly believe that it is unfair
when amazon takes a 65% cut
on a $.99 e-book transaction.
if a writer is well-established,
the writer gives up too much.
(i think writers who are _not_
well-established also give up
too much on that $.99 e-book,
but i understand that for them,
gaining audience counts more.)
so yes, you do misunderstand
my position. but you are likely
not the only one, so i appreciate
the chance to explain it to you.
-bowerbird
Make sure the contract has a clause that states rights revert when print sales fall below a certain number of copies per period.
Thank you, Joe. That makes sense.
Joe Konrath said...
My publisher, Hachette, did that with one of my titles. it sold like crazy for a limited time, at $1.99.
A damn shame I earned 34 cents a copy on those...
Yep agree...but that's what you signed up for and what we would sign up for if we take it. It's not like they promised you 50% then gave you 17.5% you knew going in that this was the deal - they did exactly what you BOTH agreed to. Now granted, at the time they were probably the only game in town - and why "for you" there is path that better meets your goals
The rights revert to us and we go back to doing what we have been doing
No, Robin. If they invested a nice amount of money in you, the rights WON'T revert back. They'll keep them in print just to exploit the erights and try to earn the advance back. But Michael will likely never earn out his advance.
I fully understand that only 20% earn out their advance. But based off of what Michael is making now on his own - yes, I think he'll earn out. Reversion rights, foreign rights, movie rights, and merchandising rights are not boilerplate in this contract. That is the bargining chip we have to play with because we are bringing something to the table (an established audience and good sales). A fully "newbie author" who has nothing has to accept the standard language - we are negotiating terms in our favor - and if they don't agree, then the decision becomes real easy doesn't it? But if we can get a contract with good reversion terms...then I think we are in good shape.
Have you crunched the numbers and figured out how many books he has to sell to earn out his advance?
Of course I have, I'm a marketer and engineer - if you've known me for a short while you know that I work numbers ALL THE TIME. I calculate he'll earn out in 6 months. His last publisher (a small press) told him he would never sell out his first print run and he did in 14 months (and that was starting with nothing) I now have 5 books released, hundreds of Amazon reviews, dozens of book reviews, and an audience anxiously awaiting the final chapter in a series that builds momentum (It already is on the "anticipated release" lists of several prominent fantasy sites. I think the chance of NOT earning out are less than 5%.
@Joe Konrath said...
Yet 50% returns are considered normal.
I've seen you throw this number before and I must say I find it really suspect. I've been the President of 3 companies and while I fully understand how screwed up the book busines is, and that they are struggling, a model with 50% returns really doesn't fly. I think there are SOME authors that have 50% returns - I suspect there are more like 10% or 20%. In any case the contract will have a set limit on reserves against returns so they can't get too creative in the accounting.
@Joe Konrath said...
Yet 50% returns are considered normal.
@Robin said: I've seen you throw this number before and I must say I find it really suspect.
What Joe is saying about returns is true, especially on the paperback side. But don't take our word for it. Ask around.
Lee
Robin wrote: I fully understand that only 20% earn out their advance. But based off of what Michael is making now on his own - yes, I think he'll earn out. Reversion rights, foreign rights, movie rights, and merchandising rights are not boilerplate in this contract. That is the bargining chip we have to play with because we are bringing something to the table (an established audience and good sales). A fully "newbie author" who has nothing has to accept the standard language - we are negotiating terms in our favor - and if they don't agree, then the decision becomes real easy doesn't it? But if we can get a contract with good reversion terms...then I think we are in good shape.
You're being very smart about this. I understand all of Joe's arguments against a publishing deal now*...and agree with many of them... but I also agree with many of your points.
All-in-all, I think you are wise to take a publishing deal in this case, especially given the savvy way you are approaching the nuts-and-bolts of the deal.
Lee
*FWIW, my wife agrees with Joe 110% so I am getting slammed on all sides!
robin said:
> I put my money
> where my mouth is and
> did a test taking Michael's
> The Crown Conspiracy
> from $4.95 to $0.99 and
> I'm losing $9,670 a month
> so it's going back to $4.95
last thing first...
i'm positive you didn't _lose_
money, let alone "$9,670"...
maybe you didn't make money
you had predicted, _but_ that's
not "losing" money, unless you
count chickens before hatching.
a certainty about entitlement is
lurking there that is troubling...
but putting that aside...
***
remember when i discussed
doing wonky experiments?
specifically, how this was
a mistake y'all are making?
dropping a price from $5 to $1
is a tremendously unwise act,
one that i'd _never_ advise...
let's start with a simple quote:
"every book has its audience."
(derived from ranganathan.)
that audience is willing to pay
a certain price for that book...
it has a demand-curve which
shows its desire for the book.
to assess the curve, explore it
in a smooth manner; do _not_
jump wildly from place to place.
dropping a price _five-fold_,
from up high to rock-bottom,
is a very wild jump.
the most you should increase
a price is to _double_ it, and
the most you should decrease
a price is to cut it in _half_...
and that's if you wanna see
the most _dramatic_ effect.
also be aware you're trying to
plot a _curve_, not a _line_.
you need _multiple_ points.
so smaller changes are good,
and you have to do a few...
moreover, as i said earlier,
the _long-term_ effects of a
change are more meaningful
than the short-term ones...
if you jerk around a price,
all you are going to do is to
piss off and confuse buyers.
now, if you feel you _must_
make a short-term change,
make it absolutely clear to
your audience what it is...
call it a "sale", and "for a
limited time only". that is
language they understand;
you won't undermine yourself
looking like you price wildly.
but again, it's best just not to
do short-term price-changes.
see the darn thing through...
i have other concerns too.
robin's book is in a series --
it's the _intro_ for the series.
but the other ones are $4.95,
so having this one at just $.99
makes it seem an anomaly...
there's no justification of it as
"a special introductory price".
so it seems out-of-place, like
bad stock they wanna dump.
also, we've already heard
one person say they resist a
low-priced intro to a series
when the subsequent books
cost a bunch more, so that
might be happening here.
so no, i'm not so sure that
_one_ $.99 book amongst
a _catalog_ of $4.95 books
will sell well. especially if
-- as robin says she did --
you have engineered its
success on _positioning_...
robin said her books link
to others priced similarly,
so they have an _audience_
used to paying more, and
perhaps leery of low price.
with such an audience, you
might not get a sales jump
by dropping your price at all.
you might get a _drop_ if
you price it out of its range,
i.e., sever it from its audience.
(robin did get such a drop,
but that was short-term;
i'm talking long-term, so it
doesn't count as evidence.)
***
i want to ensure that
nobody thinks i'd advise
such a drastic action as
dropping a $4.95 price
that customers are paying
down to a bargain $.99.
that's suicide...
this is not a change from
what i said before. look:
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/09/ebook-pricing.html
you'll see i advised that
you drop a price in _half_,
and see what happens...
if the sales don't _triple_
you should raise it back,
as you found the "true price",
the one that resonates with
the _audience_ for the book.
-bowerbird
robin, i'd really like to
see you take this deal.
the paper-book arena
is crumbling fast, but
when borders goes down,
it will give barnes&noble
breathing room, as the
only game in town, so i'd
expect them to last for
another 2 years at least,
which means you'll have
plenty of time to milk it,
given that accelerated
timetable you mentioned.
plus you _seem_ to have
protected your interests
adequately well (we'll see),
and i'd be curious to learn
how this all turns out... :+)
some stories _do_ have
happy endings, they do.
and face it, if you play
texas hold-em, then
i _know_ you want to
at least see the flop... ;+)
-bowerbird
I agree that Robin is doing all her due diligence and considering all the angles of the deal. I'd want Robin on my team. She's one sharp blade.
But I'm also wondering why reversion rights have to be based only on a book being "in print" or selling X number of copies in the last quarter. Can't other performance measures be included? Couldn't the publisher also be held to a level of marketing spending or marketing exposure for the book? How about measurable exposure in retail outlets (must be on shelves in 500 stores)?
@lee & joe - can either of you point me to a single link on all of the interwebs that supports 50% returns? I looked and could find only some really old data that supporte 11% - 23%.
@bowerbird - I did an accurate test - changed one variable saw sales incraese from 90 per day to 110 per day. With revenue on that one book going down to $31.18/day from $381.15 sales in both cases the numbers were consistent. So yes I can say I did a qualified test that proved "for my situation" the $0.99 price is not the way to go. You want "proof" but then when presented with "real hard fast numbers" you say it is not valid. There is no "test" that will satsify you because you'll find it flawed in some way. I've done my "due dilligence" to determien the price point I'm at is good for now (may not be months later but I'm confident that I'm maximizing my profit since I've tried a) my original, b)$2.99 and c) $0.99. The only thing I've not tried is raising beyond the $6.95 but I don't think that is a "fair" price so I wouldn't - for me, and obviously Michael's fans. The $4.95-$6.95 price point seems to be working for both sides just fine.
Robin,
I can't refer you to a link. I just know it to be true from what I have consistently heard from my agents, my editors, numerous booksellers and other authors over the years.
Lee
I can't refer you to a link. I just know it to be true from what I have consistently heard from my agents, my editors, numerous booksellers and other authors over the years.
That figure will probably never be made public, until after the demise of publishing. It isn't in anyone's best interest to talk about how much waste is going on.
As for Michael earning out...
He's going to sell fewer books, at a lower royalty. Don't compare the sales he has now with the sales he'll get with a publisher. I outsell my traditionally published books 10 to 1, and earn four times the amount on each sale.
That means I make 40 times more on my own than I do through publishing with the Big 6.
Use that number in your calculation, and see how long it will take Michael to earn out his advance.
As for authors saying take the deal... yeah, I suppose they would. That Stockholm Syndrome thing again. The writers who are getting screwed seize upon my words like it's a life raft in a tsunami. But those who are doing okay see now reason to buck the status quo. In fact, they fear bucking the status quo.
It sounds like you've talked yourself into signing the contract. If so, congratulations to you, and I truly do hope Michael hits the bestseller list and does fantastically well.
Getting a book deal was one of the most exciting things that ever happened in my career, and I derived a lot of happiness from every deal I've ever had. You'll learn a lot, and grow a lot.
Much success to you.
People get taken advantage of in business all the time, day in and day out. Publishing is no different.
Obviously.
The fact remains, if you go into a business transaction with your eyes open, armed with the knowledge necessary to make good, sound business decisions, and if you read and understand what you sign, then there should be no reason for you to get taken advantage of, or "fleeced" or "ripped off" or whatever.
If later on you decide you don't like the terms of your deal, or your circumstances change to the point you feel like the contract is unfair, well I guess it's tough shit until the agreement expires. Make better choices next time and don't try to blame someone else for your situation.
Likewise, if the person you contracted with reneges on the agreed terms, well then you've got legal recourse at your disposal, and you should take advantage of that.
If you don't play you have 0% chance of winning - if you are in the game your skill can outmatch others at the table even if you don't have the best cards.
If you're making a fortune at the blackjack table, it's silly to pick up your chips and try poker. Stick with blackjack.
And in the poker=publishing comparison, you can't outplay your publisher. They make all the calls on everything. Once you sign the deal, you're a leaf blowing in the wind. Nothing you say or do with change your path.
If you know anything about my career, you know I worked harder than any author who has ever lived. I was still denied success. That is, until I left the industry and began to play my own game. Then I became successful rather quickly.
You can't play poker with a blindfold, a gag, and your hands tied behind your back.
"I was still denied success"
There's many, many people who would call your traditional publishing career a success. You achieved something many millions of others never do. There's something to be said for that.
Personally, I don't see where you were "denied" anything.
On top of that, if Kindle and DTP and a 70% royalty had never happened, all this talk would be moot.
Yes, it did happen, and your results and incredible success at epublishing are undeniable. But that being said, none of it cancels out or erases your previous "career". IMO.
then there should be no reason for you to get taken advantage of, or "fleeced" or "ripped off" or whatever.
Nowhere in any publishing contract will they state how many books they print, or how many stores they'll appear in, or how much they'll spend on marketing or coop.
You take them at their word on all of it. And yet, those are the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS that determine the success or failure of a book.
There is nothing in a contract that states when the book will be released, or how much it will be priced at.
There is nothing in a contract that says when the rights will revert back to the author. Oh sure, there are clauses that speak to this, but they can be easily manipulated, and there is nothing the author can do about it. If a publisher wants to keep the rights, they WILL find a way to keep the rights.
Publishing contracts are horribly one-sided, favoring the publisher. And why wouldn't they be? For decades, the only way for a writer to make a decent living writing fiction was to sign with a publisher. We were at their mercy.
But now, writers have a choice. Publishers, however, can't change their contracts, lest the entire industry collapse.
But it's going to collapse anyway. The only thing publishers can do is get print books into stores.
Soon there won't be enough stores left to support the infrastructure.
And what's the point of getting into stores if you can reach more people outside of stores? Those who shop in stores will eventually move to the ebook market because they'll have no choice, and you'll be able to sell to them a few years from now.
Personally, I don't see where you were "denied" anything.
Look closer.
I never got coop. Never got big print runs. Never got major reviews. Never got big publicity. Never got discounting. Never got into the big box non-bookstore outlets.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to become a bestseller without all of those things being done.
How ironic it is that my books NY rejected outsell the ones they bought 10 to 1. How bittersweet it is that when I don't have a publisher in my way, I can be a bestseller. And how amusing it is to make $1200 a day without needing the approval or assistance of anyone.
I spent seven years, working my ass off, struggling from check to check (which came every six months), beating my head against the wall and wondering why I couldn't sell in greater numbers.
I don't wonder any more.
But you know Joe, maybe if you had gotten all those things you still wouldn't have achieved the success you've had on Kindle.
You seem to assume you would have. In reality, you just don't know. Different time, different place, different circumstances...it all amounts to one big unknown.
As far as being a bestseller, aren't you more specifically a Kindle bestseller? Or maybe an ebook bestseller? Aren't we comparing apples to oranges?
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not minimizing what you done. God knows I'm not a bestseller of anything. I haven't even published my book yet.
But you seem to equate your ebook success with traditional success, and draw the conclusion that because of the one, the other would have been the same, had only "smarter" people been managing your career.
@Joe
Nope, haven't decide yet. Still examining all angles. As for calculations, of course I'm not doing those on our 100% profit model but on the royalty levels stated in the deal memo. And of course that will take longer
@bowerbird - Thanks for your most recent post.
Joe and I are in 100% agreement that the contract will not spell out the things that matter most. (Print run, price, coop fees, placmeent etc.) That is one of the really frustrating thing about this business and a big reason why the decision is so difficult.
Part of the problem is Michael's contract is coming "ahead of the curve". Soon publishers will be turned down by authors (and Michael might be one of them) time and timeagain and after enough of them walk away they'll have to adapt them.
The problem is that for now I don't think that happens (or not very often) so the publisher probably has no idea that it could be a possibility.
Regarding Joe's comment about moving money from BlackJack to the Poker table - that is 100% correct if HE were in this position as his career goal is maximizing income.
As I've said before I've made huge sums of money and lived like a pauper and I can adapt to either. The money IS NOT THE FACTOR for our goal and telling me how much I'll lose is just an exercise in futility because I already know that and - don't care. The rights issue...is a far biggger deal and why we are concentrating on those aspects.
About returns-- Albert N. Greco, et. al., The Culture and Commerce of Publishing in the Twenty-First Century. Table 3.4 lays it out from 1995 to 2004 where there is info. MMPB in 2004 had 47.1% average annual returns. Hard Cover 33.6% the same year which was actually a drop from a high of 36.3 in 1997. He probably has an updated version with figures since 2004 available.
What Joe is saying about returns is true, especially on the paperback side. But don't take our word for it. Ask around.
I can tell you what I saw on the employee's side of things. I worked for more than one bookstore when I was in college-- for years, in fact.
Every time they did monthly inventory, if the store didn't hit sales targets, the managers called us in for a "stripping party" and we would strip the covers off 1/2 of the paperbacks in the store. The romance section always got hit the hardest. We'd strip the covers on almost every single one, but left the Danielle Steele alone. Comics, too.
As an image--we'd fill up the dumpster to overflowing with stripped paperbacks. The covers went back for credit.
That's how it was done, otherwise, the managers wouldn't bonus that quarter.
Yep...totally understand the concept of stripping books etc. And well aware that it is done - particarly when bookstores get the bill for books that were bought-in but not sold-through. I just didn't realize it was that high of a %.
The money IS NOT THE FACTOR for our goal
But it is the main factor for your publisher.
They aren't your partner or your friend. They are investors, out to make a profit.
The funny thing is, they aren't very good at it.
tony, thanks so much for your
kind and thoughtful support... :+)
-bowerbird
@Tony. Be civil or don't come back.
I had a book completely written and edited that I took to a major writer's conference. No one would read one word. Why? I didn't have a thousand followers on an opt-in list.
I went home, published Children of Dreams POD, and have continued to expand my base. Now with ebooks, I have no desire to go with a mainline publisher. I love what I am doing too much -- the control, the choices, the options, the hope that I can do it myself. And a spirit never to give up.
While I haven't sold more than a few hundred copies of my book Children of Dreams, I know the best is yet to come. I belive in the favorable direction of the industry for unknown authors and the power of networking with others. I know it is possible to achieve everything I want to and more.
I won't give up. In the meantime, I am having a blast. The journey of discovery is addictive.
I am working on my Masters in Creative Writing, and I have faith because I have given my hopes and dreams to God. I know if I work hard at the process, He controls the outcome, and usually, the result is better than anything I could come up with. And for that, I am thankful.
Thanks Joe and Lee, and everyone else here. I am wrestling with which way to go with my career and this is really helpful.
> Most importantly, you seem
> to understand that this is
> a business transaction,
> nothing more or less
...
> The fact remains, if you
> go into a business transaction
> with your eyes open, armed
> with the knowledge necessary
> to make good, sound
> business decisions
um... wrong...
the one thing that this deal is
_not_ is "a business transaction".
in a "business transaction",
both sides expect to profit.
robin has said, flat out, that
she doesn't care about cash.
she expects to make _less_
from this deal than she could
by pursuing the other path.
she's willing to do it because
there might be other payoffs,
some of them non-monetary,
others with a very uncertain
-- but perhaps lucrative --
monetary value. it's a risk.
a risk of near-certain cash for
uncertain payoffs that might
(or might not) be of value...
so this is a _gamble_...
not a "business transaction".
robin is going for three things.
the first is the "legitimacy" of
being "a published author"...
michael will get this benefit
just as soon as they sign, so
this is the _certain_ payoff.
it's mostly an _ego-stroke_,
but robin-as-marketeer will
be able to leverage the label,
so it has _some_ cash value.
but how much is fairly unclear.
the absence of the label hasn't
seemed to hurt michael so far.
like i said, this is an ego-stroke.
there's nothin' wrong with that.
egos need stroking occasionally,
and if cash has lost its zest...
robin's second target is having
michael's books in bookstores.
this is also an ego-stroke, but
it's one that could potentially
have a good cash payoff too.
there are obviously still people
who buy books who do _not_
have e-readers, lots of them,
and it'll be interesting to see
how many books michael can
sell to this market-segment.
seth godin has wondered if
all heavy book buyers have
turned to e-readers, so that
the only paper-book buyers
that are left are the people
who only buy a book or two
a year, in which case michael
won't receive a big bump...
but there is also the flip side,
where people who already
bought the e-book will have
loved it so much that they
want a hard-print copy too.
it works for cory doctorow...
so, it's an empirical question.
robin's third target is a hope of
hitting the new york times list,
or, more generally, world fame.
that's the marketeer in her...
the thought of slapping the slug
"n.y. times bestselling author"
on all of michael's books from
now until the end of time will
make any p.r. person salivate.
(the _real_ value of that slug
might not be all that high, but
try telling that to a p.r. hack.)
yes, it's a long-shot, and robin
knows that, but she's willing to
pay the money for the chance.
if they come in, these payoffs
can make this "a good gamble".
and as robin is willing to put up
the cash for the bet, good luck!
but the uncertainties involved
mean it's downright silly to call
this "a business transaction"...
-bowerbird
By definition of someone who pays a royalty, isn't amazon your publisher though? Kindle is great. I do it myself. But they Are still a Very Big publisher.
Hi Joe and Lee,
Thanks for sharing your insights, Lee. The possibility of you earning $18k in a year for three reprint short stories is staggering - and something I referenced in a guest blog post today. I've just published seven ebooks myself (some of which are short story collections), so I'm fascinated to see how the public accepts the shorter form given how it struggles in brick-and-mortar bookstores.
I see so many writers with what I call "legacy books," novels or memoirs they've been writing for years or decades--and it's unlikely in this lifetime that they'd get published. I've been advocating DIY--POD for the friends, family, back-of-room, and ebooks.
Every writer deserves to complete the circle from idea to creation to audience, independent of the quality of their work.
At the same time, my cringe factor with self-pubbed books of any kind strikes on page 1, maybe 2: errors. So many copyediting mistakes Maybe readers don't care.
Professional editing is costly for many, $5 to $7/page for copyediting, and far more for substantive editing followed by copyediting. I have yet to see any book that was revised per critique group input that is close to ready for sale. The same holds, unfortunately, for most books that were edited by other editors. Uh-oh, twenty years of doing this work and I'm a snob.
There are always surrounding businesses who benefit, and in this "tsunami," we independent editors also win.
This article is so encouraging! I'm a new author with great reviews who didn't want to deal with the stress of agents and publishers. I have questioned my decision to go with self-publishing, but so far it's going exactly like you are detailing here, Joe. I've learned as I have gone, but reader response tells me I've got something worth pursuing. Thank you for the encouragement.
Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful information particularly the last part I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
http://www.onlinecheck.com/business_cash_advance.html
Post a Comment