1. Hamburgers are made of cow.
2. Cows produce methane.
3. Methane is a greenhouse gas, 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
4. Methane comprises 14% of the world's greenhouse gas. By 2030 that could increase by 60%.
5. Greenhouse gases lead to global warming.
6. Global warming will lead to the sea level rising.
7. The sea level rising will lead to the ecosystem collapsing.
8. The ecosystem collapsing will kill billions.
9. So stop eating burgers, or you will destroy mankind.
This is a slippery slope argument--a logical fallacy that makes sense taken in small steps, but when all the small steps are put together it leads to a silly, baseless conclusion.
But in the case of this particular slippery slope, there is some merit to it. The world's consumption of beef is leading to more cows, which is leading to more methane. While saying that eating a burger will kill billions is stretching the point to ridiculousness, at least each step taken individually seems plausible.
Right?
That hamburgers are made of cow and cows produce methane is irrefutable. So is the fact that methane is a greenhouse gas, and more potent than CO2.
Right?
That hamburgers are made of cow and cows produce methane is irrefutable. So is the fact that methane is a greenhouse gas, and more potent than CO2.
Then things get fuzzy. I pulled the 60% number of the net, and I'm sure there is some scientific justification behind it, but we truly won't know for sure until it happens.
We can guess. But we don't know. This isn't a scientific experiment with a control group. Saying the earth's methane output will rise 60% may look good on paper, it it isn't the same thing as saying 2 + 2 = 4, or mix oxygen and hydrogen and you'll get water.
Greenhouse gases do lead to global warming. Venus is a pretty decent example of this. But it can be argued that global warming is cyclical and has little to do with humans, or that it is manageable, or that a hundred other things might happen before sea levels start to rise.
The ecosystem collapsing is a pretty big leap. And if the ecosystem does collapse, how can we be sure billions will die?
That's the problem with guesses. They cause fear, but are unproven until they happen.
But you probably looked at the original statement, that eating burgers will kill billions, and realized it was bullshit from without me dissecting it. Other statements, however, aren't as obvious.
Let's look at another slippery slope argument:
The Agency Model Encourages Competition and Is Good
1. Amazon has the lion's share of the ebook market.
2. Amazon has sold ebooks for under the publisher's cover price, and below cost.
3. Other retailers can't sell this low, and will be driven out of business.
4. The only way to save retailers is if publishers set the retail price of books.
5. If Amazon becomes a monopoly, they will harm authors and readers.
6. Publishers had no choice but to stop Amazon from predatory pricing, to protect competition and for the good of everyone.
The first two points are true. Amazon does have the lion's share of the ebook market, and they have sold ebooks at below cost.
But we need a bit more information here. Amazon pretty much single-handedly created the current ebook market. Just like they created online bookselling. As Bob Mayer says, Amazon didn't exist except for in Jeff Bezos's mind back in 1994.
Amazon listened hard to what readers wanted, and it fulfilled those wants. They've kept prices low. I'd guess they do it to attract customers, because customers are drawn to low prices. But I truly don't know Amazon's motivation, other than the fact that they are a company in business to make money. Just like Big Publishing. Except Amazon seems to be doing it by giving people what they want, rather than forcing people to take what is offered.
Then we get to "retailers will be driven out of business."
That can cause an emotional, knee-jerk reaction when someone hears it. We don't want companies to go out of business. We all know companies that have. That leads to people losing their jobs, which is sad. It leads to places we once liked to go to no longer existing. That's sad. As human beings, we don't like to see unemployment, and we don't like to see bullies.
But this statement is no different than stating greenhouse gases lead to global warming. Certainly, they might. But we won't truly know until it happens. Until it does, it's fear mongering.
A lot of bookstores might blame Amazon for putting them out of business, or competing unfairly. Welcome to capitalism, kids. That's like saying, "My girlfriend left me for another guy who is more attractive and treats her better."
Don't blame the guy. Blame your girlfriend for preferring someone over you. And blame yourself for not stepping up your game to win her back.
Nobody owes anyone a living. Just because you did well in the past doesn't mean you deserve to do well in the future, especially in the face of competition. If you want to run your own business, you better pay attention to what the customers want. If you can't give them what they want, you shouldn't be in business.
Then we get to the next giant leap in logic; the only way to save retailers is to let publishers set retail price.
Huh? How can otherwise smart men and women seriously say and believe something so stupid?
If the price of a book is the same everywhere, that leads to less competition, not more competition. Customers are price conscious, and they will shop for the best deal. You can lure them to your store many different ways, but price is one of the biggies.
Taking away a store's ability to set a retail price is fixing the game.
The other side to that coin also needs to be addressed. Not only do stores get harmed by not being able to set prices, but there is nothing illegal, immoral, or unfair when companies do set prices.
Passive Guy says it very well:
In the United States, it is not against the law to sell at low prices. It is not against the law to sell products for less than they cost. It is not against the law for you to price your products so low that you put other retailers out of business. For all intents and purposes, it is virtually impossible to win an antitrust case based upon predatory pricing.
Show me a case where a retailer used predatory pricing to drive competitors out of business. And let's say you find a case or two, what's wrong with that? The customer benefits from lower prices.
But you can't say "Amazon is evil for keeping prices low" because people will think you're an idiot. Show me someone who doesn't want to pay less for something.
So instead, the pinheads use a slippery slope argument, and a damn poor one at that, to instill fear in those who aren't paying close attention.
I also have to ask, is the Agency Model really the only way to save bookstores and publishers? There really are no other ways?
You see how silly that is, right? Especially since I've shown, many times, how bad the Agency Model is for authors and customers.
Which brings us to Amazon's potential monopoly power, and how it will hurt everyone.
Huh?
People love to bash Walmart. Walmart ruins communities. Walmart destroys American Main Streets. Walmart murders malls. Walmart forces poor mom and pop shops out of business.
And then, once Walmart takes over a town and enslaves the populace, it triples all of its prices, holding customers hostage.
Except that it doesn't. The great evil empire that is Walmart keeps its prices low, even after it has killed the competition.
Hmm. Kinda sounds like Amazon, which continues to keep prices low, no matter how many businesses it allegedly destroys.
So what are we afraid of exactly?
Oh, yeah. All the unemployment. All the jobs lost. Except for the 65,000 people Amazon employs. And the tens of thousands of authors who--many for the first time--are making money.
But once Amazon reaches a critical mass and eliminates everyone, certainly it will begin a reign of terror, even though that is the exact opposite of everything Amazon has done thusfar.
It could happen. Just like cows could cause the icecaps to melt. Just wait and see it to get proof.
Except I doubt we'll ever get that proof. Companies have always competed with Amazon, and I'm sure more will come along. Amazon hasn't put Smashwords, or Kobo, or B&N out of business. They didn't put Borders out of business (nor did the raise prices on books once Borders collapsed.) And the Agency Model isn't the reason these other companies have been able to compete. Innovation, location, and customer service are how they've stayed alive. They were around before the Agency Model. Some will be around after it ends. And new companies will enter the game.
That's capitalism for you.
Capitalism is not about allowing the publishing cartel to collude so they can continue screwing readers with high prices and authors with unconscionable contracts.
Capitalism is not about putting businesses on life support when they refuse to innovate or cater to their customers.
Capitalism is not about price-fixing.
And competition doesn't exist for its own sake. The point of business isn't to encourage competition. The point of business is to beat the competition by having more customers. The more businesses in a market, the more a customer will benefit, unless the businesses collude to fix prices.
I'll say it again: No one owes you a living. And I won't weep for any company that whines, lies, or makes bullshit arguments to stay afloat. You shouldn't either.
The Agency Model Encourages Competition and Is Good
1. Amazon has the lion's share of the ebook market.
2. Amazon has sold ebooks for under the publisher's cover price, and below cost.
3. Other retailers can't sell this low, and will be driven out of business.
4. The only way to save retailers is if publishers set the retail price of books.
5. If Amazon becomes a monopoly, they will harm authors and readers.
6. Publishers had no choice but to stop Amazon from predatory pricing, to protect competition and for the good of everyone.
The first two points are true. Amazon does have the lion's share of the ebook market, and they have sold ebooks at below cost.
But we need a bit more information here. Amazon pretty much single-handedly created the current ebook market. Just like they created online bookselling. As Bob Mayer says, Amazon didn't exist except for in Jeff Bezos's mind back in 1994.
Amazon listened hard to what readers wanted, and it fulfilled those wants. They've kept prices low. I'd guess they do it to attract customers, because customers are drawn to low prices. But I truly don't know Amazon's motivation, other than the fact that they are a company in business to make money. Just like Big Publishing. Except Amazon seems to be doing it by giving people what they want, rather than forcing people to take what is offered.
Then we get to "retailers will be driven out of business."
That can cause an emotional, knee-jerk reaction when someone hears it. We don't want companies to go out of business. We all know companies that have. That leads to people losing their jobs, which is sad. It leads to places we once liked to go to no longer existing. That's sad. As human beings, we don't like to see unemployment, and we don't like to see bullies.
But this statement is no different than stating greenhouse gases lead to global warming. Certainly, they might. But we won't truly know until it happens. Until it does, it's fear mongering.
A lot of bookstores might blame Amazon for putting them out of business, or competing unfairly. Welcome to capitalism, kids. That's like saying, "My girlfriend left me for another guy who is more attractive and treats her better."
Don't blame the guy. Blame your girlfriend for preferring someone over you. And blame yourself for not stepping up your game to win her back.
Nobody owes anyone a living. Just because you did well in the past doesn't mean you deserve to do well in the future, especially in the face of competition. If you want to run your own business, you better pay attention to what the customers want. If you can't give them what they want, you shouldn't be in business.
Then we get to the next giant leap in logic; the only way to save retailers is to let publishers set retail price.
Huh? How can otherwise smart men and women seriously say and believe something so stupid?
If the price of a book is the same everywhere, that leads to less competition, not more competition. Customers are price conscious, and they will shop for the best deal. You can lure them to your store many different ways, but price is one of the biggies.
Taking away a store's ability to set a retail price is fixing the game.
The other side to that coin also needs to be addressed. Not only do stores get harmed by not being able to set prices, but there is nothing illegal, immoral, or unfair when companies do set prices.
Passive Guy says it very well:
In the United States, it is not against the law to sell at low prices. It is not against the law to sell products for less than they cost. It is not against the law for you to price your products so low that you put other retailers out of business. For all intents and purposes, it is virtually impossible to win an antitrust case based upon predatory pricing.
Show me a case where a retailer used predatory pricing to drive competitors out of business. And let's say you find a case or two, what's wrong with that? The customer benefits from lower prices.
But you can't say "Amazon is evil for keeping prices low" because people will think you're an idiot. Show me someone who doesn't want to pay less for something.
So instead, the pinheads use a slippery slope argument, and a damn poor one at that, to instill fear in those who aren't paying close attention.
I also have to ask, is the Agency Model really the only way to save bookstores and publishers? There really are no other ways?
You see how silly that is, right? Especially since I've shown, many times, how bad the Agency Model is for authors and customers.
Which brings us to Amazon's potential monopoly power, and how it will hurt everyone.
Huh?
People love to bash Walmart. Walmart ruins communities. Walmart destroys American Main Streets. Walmart murders malls. Walmart forces poor mom and pop shops out of business.
And then, once Walmart takes over a town and enslaves the populace, it triples all of its prices, holding customers hostage.
Except that it doesn't. The great evil empire that is Walmart keeps its prices low, even after it has killed the competition.
Hmm. Kinda sounds like Amazon, which continues to keep prices low, no matter how many businesses it allegedly destroys.
So what are we afraid of exactly?
Oh, yeah. All the unemployment. All the jobs lost. Except for the 65,000 people Amazon employs. And the tens of thousands of authors who--many for the first time--are making money.
But once Amazon reaches a critical mass and eliminates everyone, certainly it will begin a reign of terror, even though that is the exact opposite of everything Amazon has done thusfar.
It could happen. Just like cows could cause the icecaps to melt. Just wait and see it to get proof.
Except I doubt we'll ever get that proof. Companies have always competed with Amazon, and I'm sure more will come along. Amazon hasn't put Smashwords, or Kobo, or B&N out of business. They didn't put Borders out of business (nor did the raise prices on books once Borders collapsed.) And the Agency Model isn't the reason these other companies have been able to compete. Innovation, location, and customer service are how they've stayed alive. They were around before the Agency Model. Some will be around after it ends. And new companies will enter the game.
That's capitalism for you.
Capitalism is not about allowing the publishing cartel to collude so they can continue screwing readers with high prices and authors with unconscionable contracts.
Capitalism is not about putting businesses on life support when they refuse to innovate or cater to their customers.
Capitalism is not about price-fixing.
And competition doesn't exist for its own sake. The point of business isn't to encourage competition. The point of business is to beat the competition by having more customers. The more businesses in a market, the more a customer will benefit, unless the businesses collude to fix prices.
I'll say it again: No one owes you a living. And I won't weep for any company that whines, lies, or makes bullshit arguments to stay afloat. You shouldn't either.
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260"If Amazon is your publisher, Dan, as they are, then you don't feel devalued by them. But if Random House is your publisher, and Amazon, as a retailer, wants to sell the novel that you worked on for three years at $9.99, then yes, you might feel devalued."
Well, no. On the wholesale model, the author is making the same amount, no matter what Amazon ends up selling the book for. Their royalty is based on the wholesale price, not on the discounted retail price. If Amazon chooses to sell the book at 9.99 rather than 12.99, both the author and the publisher still make the same amount, and thus are valued just as highly. In fact, they will undoubtedly make more money, because more people will buy the book if the price is lower.
Books are not fungible commodities sold by the pound or the word. People are price sensitive based on the same book selling at different prices. Comparing different books selling at different prices is meaningless. Of course many people will pay 14.99 or more for a Steven King novel, and very few will pay 2.99 for an unknown or bad writer.
The issue is whether either writer will make more or less selling ebooks through a trad publisher, getting 17.5% royalties (14.9% if they have an agent), or through Amazon at 70% royalties. That equation has to take into account the optimal price point to maximize royalties, which is going to be very different. And of course, the intangibles such as marketing power, which can drive up sales in either case.
Even Steven King is going to sell a lot more ebooks at 5.99 than he will at 14.99. SOme fans will pay almost anything, but others will be more inclined to buy as the price goes down. At some point he maximizes his royalties, so it makes no sense to go lower. The point being that an author wants to maximize his own income, and not merely sell his books at the highest possible price so as to feel more "valued". His sense of monetary value comes from his take home paycheck, not the price of each book sold.
Regarding Hocking's trad deal, she got $2 million up front for a three book series she'd already written. It was a no-brainer. She isn't planning on selling any new books that way, but she felt that it would be good marketing for her own ebooks to have trad books in stores also. The fact that the trad publishers aren't doing much in the way of marketing is no skin off her back. She's got the money, and if they books don't earn out, so what? It's not like she has to publish that way again, she can just keep self-pubbing the rest of her output and keep the money the trads threw her way.
And the same thing goes for other authors. If the publisher throws a lot of money at you, grab it. Just keep writing, and keep at least some books in self-publishing in perpetuity. It can be a nice mix. But only do what's good for your own financial interests. Hocking is getting the best of both worlds, but she knows where her bread and butter is, and that's in self-pub.
Broken Yogi said...And the same thing goes for other authors. If the publisher throws a lot of money at you, grab it. Just keep writing, and keep at least some books in self-publishing in perpetuity. It can be a nice mix.
Agreed, but just a red-flag here. Read your contracts with an eagle eye to details. While a contract(imho) should only tie up the named work, there can be provisions (such as non-compete) that would limit what you can do through self-publishing or otherwise. I think some people "intend" to do this but if you don't watch what you sign, you may find yourself in a position where you can't.
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
Just as man made global warming has been proven to be a myth, (all the figures were fudged by so-called serious establishment scientists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html), the Amazon 'myth' in publishing will be debunked. Lemmings, lemmings, lemmings one and all for jumping on yet another fashionable bandwagon. I thought we writers were supposed to be intelligent and free thinking. Thanks for the blog post, Joe.
Broken Yogi, I'm pretty sure the $2 mil was for a new series called Watersong. I don't know how the Trylle series figures into the equation, but that money is for a NEW set of books.
@Edward M. Grant:"Meanwhile, the smarter publishers are scouring Amazon for self-published 'mommy porn' books that they can buy and have on the market under their name before the bubble bursts."
What bubble? If you mean women will move on to another form of book entertainment, that's fine. If you mean a surge has been created due to an underserved market? Maybe, there are still too many interested in such books who have yet to buy a Kindle/Nook.
And India hasn't come on line yet. If this is going to be a bubble, it will be a LONG bubble.
Neil
Sarah,
I could be wrong, but I think it's new only in being not-yet-published. I think I recall her in an interview saying that it was something she'd already written, and had not decided how to publish it yet. She decided to sell it to a trad publisher because of the up-front money, and the extra exposure it would give her. She said she would continue to sell most of her books through self-pub, including brand new writings, but that she would be open to trad publishing for the exposure.
Her approach is very interesting, in that she is using trad publishing as a marketing vehicle to promote her entire body of work. So she doesn't just make money from the trad publisher, but from the sales that market gives to her own backlist, as well as her future self-pub frontlist.
She definitely is not entering into any exclusive deals that prohibits her from writing her own self-pub books in non-compete clauses. She remains committed to self-pub.
Great blog article about this topic, I have been lately in your blog once or twice now. I just wanted to say hi and show my thanks for the information provided.
Regarding Amanda Hocking, it really doesn't matter if she'd written it already or not. $2 mil is a lot of money, and there is no reason she wouldn't crank out three books for that much money, regardless of whether she expects to ever see another dime. Although she made quite a bit, that amount of money in hand is still worthwhile for her.
Also, a publisher paying $2 mil is going to market THOSE books, which is a huge amount of exposure for anything else she does later.
Taking it was a no-brainer.
2 million dollars for 3 books.
I have a serious question: is $666,666.66 per book really a good deal for a break out author?
I think Konrath said $1.5 million per book was what he wanted as "walk away money".
The one thing I'd like to add to this money conversation is the fact that some self-pubbed authors are making $400 a month off of their work and that's around $400 a month more than they ever would have made otherwise. Good for them. The talented ones will develop their skills along the way and maybe even grow their business. The less talented ones might not. Really isn't that the way the system should work?
"But this statement is no different than stating greenhouse gases lead to global warming. Certainly, they might. But we won't truly know until it happens. Until it does, it's fear mongering."
No, it's not.
"I have a serious question: is $666,666.66 per book really a good deal for a break out author?"
I think that's a legitimae question, and why it might matter if that series was just part of her own unpublished backlist (she's written a ton of books that were never published), of if it's new material. Of course, just because she's a breakout self-publisher, it doesn't necessarily put her in #1 bookstore bestseller territory. It's not a given that she's going to just get bigger and bigger as a mainstream author. The YA market has its limits, and I'm not sure she's broken out of them in the manner of, say, the Twilight series.
So she might still have lots of good reasons to take the 666k offer for these books, even if there's a risk she's leaving something on the table. It's still a very nice meal, and she's young and has her whole writing career ahead of her. Best to put some safe money into a nest egg, and gamble later on. She's very prolific, and can easily self-pub most or even all of her future work if that's what seems best.
I have a serious question: is $666,666.66 per book really a good deal for a break out author?
I think Konrath said $1.5 million per book was what he wanted as "walk away money".
That kind of money is huge for a 20-something who has achieved success, but hardly has a lifetime guarantee of huge demand for her books. Plus, when the publisher pays that much, she is going to get great placement in bookstores, which expands her exposure.
Amanda Hocking has announced some figures on her blog : http://amandahocking.blogspot.fr/2012/04/how-am-i-doing-now.html
I've found them relatively fuzzy. What she says on the first sentence is very telling about the "freedom of speech" in trad publishing : "I was always very transparent about what was happening, and I've tried to maintain that even with going with traditional publishing."
I've looked at New York Times bestseller list, but didn't see her books, which is surprising : she sold 1 million ebooks by herself, and one of the big six doesn't do better ?
Edward M Grant said, "And one advantage that self publishers have is that we don't have a back list; we just keep our books up for sale forever."
As long as "forever" isn't how long it take to earn a dollar, that's fine.
For traditional publishers those back lists are proving useful and a quick way to cash in on genre popularity.
For example, according to Bookseller, Little Brown is republishing an old title, Haven of Obedience, as well as asking "in-house" authors to quickly turnaround more titles in the same vein.
They are piggybacking on the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey.
Penguin is finding its versions of 50 Shades of Grey in ebooks by giving Sylvia Day's Bared to You the traditional publishing treatment. Bared to You was a self published ebook in April. And a print book in May.
As was mentioned previously successful ebook authors will not always walk away from traditional publishing deals.
A big check now vs having your book online "forever." Which one would you take?
Both these examples of copycat marketing show that traditional publishers are trying to get their act together.
It could be very good for writers. Savvy publishers who can spell, edit, recognize a good manuscript when they see one and get it to market quickly are what we all want. That and higher royalties of course.
Royalty issues will change more slowly since people are always loathe to give away money.
But I expect that traditional royalties will rise as Amazon lowers its royalties, something that is almost inevitable since Amazon's strategy of high royalties is about gaining market share. They will readjust as some point since they are in the business of making money not losing it.
The difference then for authors is that with a traditional publisher you have a contract that states the amount of royalties to be paid.
Amazon can drop their royalty rates tomorrow and there's not a thing you can do about it.
So make hay while the sun shines!
Alan Spade drew attention to Amanda Hocking's comments re her deals with a traditional publisher.
http://amandahocking.blogspot.fr/2012/04/how-am-i-doing-now.html
They are very interesting.
She comments that she thought she might have "tapped out the Amazon audience" but while not having a book in the top 100 she is still selling there.
Her printed books seem to be doing very well. An initial print run of 200,000 selling out and with one book in its fifth printing.
The idea of tapping out the Amazon audience is an interesting one.
The Internet is faddish. Trends come and go quickly. Your book might be there forever but that doesn't mean anyone is interested in it. Today's best selling Internet author moves aside for upcoming authors whose books or story have capture the public imagination in a marketplace where trends matter more than tradition.
We haven't had any figures from Joe for a while. No one can write them faster or promote them better. Do older books maintain their sales? Do new books grow new audiences or draw from the same pool of faithful readers?
And was the Beer Diet conducive to good writing?
Anonymous said: Both these examples of copycat marketing show that traditional publishers are trying to get their act together.
It shows that they are scrambling to find more of "what's hot." They aren't discovering anything. They aren't bringing anything new to the market. The only difference is that they're scrambling to get the copycat books out ASAP rather than a year from now when "Mommy porn" is no longer in vogue.
Anonymous wrote: The idea of tapping out the Amazon audience is an interesting one.
Except when does one tap out the Amazon audience? If Hocking is tapped out at millions of sales on Amazon, that isn't a bad place to be.
Eventually, all of our books tap out, but because they're still on sale and not dumped after a month, a funny thing happens: they rise in popularity again. I know of authors whose books disappear from the charts one month only to return again a couple months later. So that longevity pays off.
Also, even if you're not in the Top 100, or the Top 300 or the Top 1,000, you're still earning a few thousand a month on each of your books, and if you have several in your backlist, it adds up to a nice amount of earnings every month. Certainly much better than an indecipherable six month royalty statement that tells you you earned a couple bucks on your backlist.
The Internet is faddish, but books aren't. In fact, the advent of the Kindle has created MORE readers who are hungry for content.
I get really tired of people downplaying the significance of what's happening here. The bottom line is that authors are more in control of their work than they've ever been before—and that's nothing but a GOOD thing.
With the recent announcement that publishers are making more money now from ebooks than from hardcover books, it seems even weirder that they have spent so much time and effort to slow down the adoption of ebooks. If they had stuck with the wholesale pricing model and promoted the heck out of ebooks, it seems they would have done even better the last few years.
Rob said: The Internet is faddish, but books aren't. In fact, the advent of the Kindle has created MORE readers who are hungry for content.
I get really tired of people downplaying the significance of what's happening here. The bottom line is that authors are more in control of their work than they've ever been before—and that's nothing but a GOOD thing.
Very good points, Rob. The sale of millions of kindles and other ereaders has actually created a huge demand for ebooks. That coupled with the ability to publish independently makes for good times for authors, indeed.
Food for thought. And more burgers.
Rob Gregory Browne said:
"Also, even if you're not in the Top 100, or the Top 300 or the Top 1,000, you're still earning a few thousand a month on each of your books"
Well Joe is! But as someone said earlier the earnings of the majority of Kindle authors is a few hundred dollars a year at most.
While books have a long tail in terms of sales - well, the good ones anyway - they are no different from products like movies and music. You're likely to sell more immediately following their release or promotion.
One "Slippery Slope" that might be created is if Amazon come to dominate the online market. They might make the decision that they are not interested in hosting books that don't sell. Charging for listings might help clear the clutter from an overcrowded and hard to navigate marketplace.
It's possible to argue that someone else might step into Amazon's shoes. Hurray for the free market and all that. But maybe they don't want to sell non-sellers either. Or maybe by then Amazon's technological achievement will be beyond equal and entry into the ebook hosting market almost impossible.
However, traditional publishers would like this model because they'd pay to have their books given pride of place in the online store. They already do this for promotional shelf space in brick and mortar stores.
The Internet is a fast moving market. That realization alone should be a great incentive to write and publish your book now rather than dream about doing it because the marketplace of tomorrow might not offer as good as deal as it does today.
Joe got in early and he's probably written another two books by the time we've read this comment thread. That's why he's successful.
over the weekend, amazon made a front page bid to anyone who came to the Amazon site, for authors to self publish ... and join their kdp program. They highlighted a female author who had done so, successfully.
What gates?
Also, several publishers have opened their own ebook sales, download stores, geared to any device
trying gates again.
In the spring, authors guild voted to bring ebook authors in as members. One selling point, free legal services, contract reviews by experienced IP lawyers.
dr.cpe
Here's why you don't ignore traditional publishing deals:
http://news.sky.com/home/showbiz-news/article/16249029
Fifty Shades of Grey becomes fastest selling paperback since records began beating Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code.
Author Erika Mitchell now estimated to be worth $6 million!
A good example of indie publishing leading to a traditional publishing deal where an established business base is used to distribute rights internationally and maximize revenues. As Amanda Hocking has said, you can't do these kind of deals by yourself.
A good example of indie publishing leading to a traditional publishing deal where an established business base is used to distribute rights internationally and maximize revenues. As Amanda Hocking has said, you can't do these kind of deals by yourself.
Anon, this is more an example of an author taking a pre-existing hugely successful series, stealing the characters, changing the names, and becoming a phenomenon. And by the way, the books were already a phenomenon before Vintage swooped in and bought the rights. I would never reference a cultural phenomenon as evidence that trad publishing is worth pursuing.
I completely agree with Rob Gregory Browne's statements especially:
"Also, even if you're not in the Top 100, or the Top 300 or the Top 1,000, you're still earning a few thousand a month on each of your books, and if you have several in your backlist, it adds up to a nice amount of earnings every month. Certainly much better than an indecipherable six month royalty statement that tells you you earned a couple bucks on your backlist."
I get really tired of people downplaying the significance of what's happening here. The bottom line is that authors are more in control of their work than they've ever been before—and that's nothing but a GOOD thing.
Emphasis mine. So much opportunities these days!
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
Anonymous said..."Well Joe is! But as someone said earlier the earnings of the majority of Kindle authors is a few hundred dollars a year at most.
I hear this all the time, and I think what people have to remember is there are a wide range of kindle authors, some just dabblers, others that are professionals (doing it to earn a living). Of those that are in the "professional" category I would stack their income up against income from traditional publishing and I venture to say they are doing better.
To try and determine if that is the case, I've been doing a survey of authors at all levels (have 600+ responses so far) would like to get this over 1,000 so if you write...please weigh in.
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
comisia de organizare
http://especialistasgoterastejadosmadrid.blogspot.com.es/
cabane la cosoteni
Anonymous said, Well Joe is! But as someone said earlier the earnings of the majority of Kindle authors is a few hundred dollars a year at most.
And the majority of TRADITIONALLY published authors don't even come close to making a living wage and have to work day jobs to survive. So what, exactly, is your point?
There are MANY self-published authors who are making several hundred or more a DAY, including myself and several people I know personally. One of the main reasons I decided to take this leap was because of how much money my friends were making—more money than they ever earned through traditional book deals.
Will everyone make that kind of money? Of course not. But I'd argue that any statistical study would show that the earnings potential of traditional vs. self pubbing is dead even for all but the top ten percent of authors.
Rob Gregory Browne wisely points out:
"But I'd argue that any statistical study would show that the earnings potential of traditional vs. self pubbing is dead even for all but the top ten percent of authors."
I'm inclined to agree but that also means ebook authors don't benefit from the traditional means of distribution that Fifty Shades of Grey has just benefited from, 500,000 paperbacks in the UK alone according to reports.
Joe sells online and is happy with it. He works hard turning out god knows how many books a year. He is the epitome of the ebook author.
The bestselling authors with traditional publishers probably turn out a book a year at the most.
Stephen King went through a prolific phase where he had to hold titles back so as not to flood the market. In the days of yore books took time to promote and sell. Now you can write one in a month, upload it to Amazon and have it on someone's Kindle a minute later.
Rob also noted correctly:
"And the majority of TRADITIONALLY published authors don't even come close to making a living wage and have to work day jobs to survive."
Adding:
"So what, exactly, is your point?"
I suppose the point is the title of this thread, "The Slippery Slope" and Amazon's potential domination of the marketplace.
And the idea perpetuated by many ebook authors that traditional publishers are your enemy and one should turn down a traditional publishing deal if one was ever offered.
But for every author who is traditionally published and not making a living wage there are even more authors uploading ebooks who don't come close to making a living wage. It would be difficult to argue that the quality of ebooks is higher than traditionally published books. There are just more of them which makes competition even fiercer.
I believe quality will always rise to the top and be noticed and attract the attention of the traditional publishers. There is no logical reason to turn down a traditional publishing deal. That deal will depend on the attractiveness of the book on offer whether this is judged by the quality of the writing or the marketability of the author or genre.
It is good that such deals exist and that the traditional publishing industry has something to offer the author that Amazon doesn't i.e. the handling of massive international deals. And yes, if you get to be in that 10%, you will need someone to handle them on your behalf because that's one thing Amazon doesn't do.
Well, not yet.
If you don't want to sell half a million paperbacks or earn $6 million, stick with Amazon.
The top ten percent is where you want to be as a professional. Not to be there makes writing a hard living, one fitted in between the day job and the rest of life's activities.
I think it's good that anyone can publish a book and make a few hundred dollars from it. But as Rob indicates, only 10 percent are going to be anywhere near the bestseller lists.
That's still better odds than winning the lottery. And if each book is a ticket then Joe's approach of getting on and writing as many as possible is surely the way to go.
What are your thoughts on the new Kindle Direct Publishing Prime program that requires e-books to be sold through amazon exclusively to participate?
@Anonymous, I'm certainly not at war with traditional publishers. I've worked with a lot of them and enjoy working with them, from editors to marketing. I know they work hard and I wish them no ill will.
And, truth be told, if I was offered a seven figure deal, I think I'd be crazy to turn it down.
My only gripe, really, with traditional publishers is that they have yet to find a better royalty structure that's fair to both themselves AND the author and don't seem much interested finding one.
Right now I think Amazon is offering the right balance (70/30), although traditional publishers obviously can't afford to do that. But there has to be some willingness to budge on what is now a ridiculously slanted royalty structure.
Also, pointing to Fifty Shades of Gray or Stephen King or whoever is kind of pointless. These are outliers that don't really affect the average author, the average publishing deal OR the average publicity push.
But I'd argue that any statistical study would show that the earnings potential of traditional vs. self pubbing is dead even for all but the top ten percent of authors.
Speaking of surveys...I'm doing one right now to try and determine such things - have you taken it Rob? - We need data like yours!
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
Rob Gregory Browne said...
My only gripe, really, with traditional publishers is that they have yet to find a better royalty structure that's fair to both themselves AND the author and don't seem much interested finding one.
Right now I think Amazon is offering the right balance (70/30), although traditional publishers obviously can't afford to do that. But there has to be some willingness to budge on what is now a ridiculously slanted royalty structure.
Also, pointing to Fifty Shades of Gray or Stephen King or whoever is kind of pointless. These are outliers that don't really affect the average author, the average publishing deal OR the average publicity push.
We are very much on the same wavelength. I took a traditional deal, a very good one, and one that in general I've been pleased with. But the royalty share on ebooks is ridiculously slanted toward the publisher.
And yes, we have to remove the Kings, Pattersons, 50-shades, and Hockings from the equation and talk more about what is "reasonable" and with the current marketplace...all things being equal (i.e. a book that COULD be traditionally or self-published) then if you consider income only - I believe the self will win out for all but the outliers.
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
I too the survey, Michael. And I even told the truth... ;)
All this and yet I know so many former self-pubbed authors who jumped....very high and enthusiastically, when a big publisher came knocking.
Hmmmm.....
RD Meyer said:
"I tried to follow this comment string, but it's hard to keep track of how many anonymouses there are out there. Is it one or 100?"
There is (obviously) one anonymous. One clear, cogent anonymous with much insight; speaking well thought-out statements that I feel most people on this blog do not want to hear.
T. Ludlow wrote: "But now not sounding such a great advantage is it? They get lucky sometimes...like the rest of us."
Right. The difference being when they get lucky we're talking about a whole other level of income.
I'd like to thank Anon for his/her contribution to this comment stream. It took me ninety minutes to read/ponder it all, but it really helped clear my head on all this.
Would love to hear your comments on this rant ... err ... FB post:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=411945222178174&id=152722461433786
Patty G. Henderson said...
All this and yet I know so many former self-pubbed authors who jumped....very high and enthusiastically, when a big publisher came knocking.Hmmmm.....
I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions on why people choose what they do without knowing their goals and particulars. For me, signing with the big-six was absolutely the right choice. That doesn't mean that I don't know and recognize the positive attributes of self-publishing. Each route has its good sides and its bad sides. There is no "absolute right" a "one size that fits all." Each case is unique.
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions on why people choose what they do without knowing their goals and particulars. For me, signing with the big-six was absolutely the right choice. That doesn't mean that I don't know and recognize the positive attributes of self-publishing. Each route has its good sides and its bad sides. There is no "absolute right" a "one size that fits all." Each case is unique.
Very well said, Michael.
Patty G. Henderson said, All this and yet I know so many former self-pubbed authors who jumped....very high and enthusiastically, when a big publisher came knocking.
Well, of course. There's a simple explanation for this: advance money and, possibly, better terms. As Joe has said many times, if one of the Big 6 offers big money, you should probably take it and run.
But if you're in that position, be very careful. I have friends who have been promised the moon, yet in the end, the publisher failed to deliver on any of those promises and it became a case of same old dance.
If publishers are going to make you promises, make sure they're written into your contract. Then they have no choice but follow through.
Rob Gregory Browne said...
Well, of course. There's a simple explanation for this: advance money and, possibly, better terms.
But if you're in that position, be very careful. I have friends who have been promised the moon, yet in the end, the publisher failed to deliver on any of those promises and it became a case of same old dance.
If publishers are going to make you promises, make sure they're written into your contract. Then they have no choice but follow through.
You'll never get better terms than self-publishing, and to be honest, money WAS not a determining factor in my decision and for all but the seven figure deals the chances are pretty high that you'll make "less" not "more" when you go traditional - as Joe has pointed out many times.
No one is going to "write into" a contract what they'll do as far as promotion, so yes you will have to take a leap of faith. For me they did all I was hoping for and more. So it turned out well (I just got an email they are doing a sixth printing on the first book and the other books are also into multiple printings both here and UK).
For me I was willing to grow readership at the price of reduced income - and preferred doing that through traditional distribution rather than rock bottom pricing (I'm not a fan of $0.99 or $2.99 ebook prices).
Is my situation the exception or the rule? I can't say but I can say that for me it was the right move.
Michael Sullivan, Author of The Riyria Revelations
Need writers for 2012 Writing/Publishing Survey
There is (obviously) one anonymous. One clear, cogent anonymous with much insight; speaking well thought-out statements that I feel most people on this blog do not want to hear.
I agree with your assessment of anonymous. This particular anonymous is, for once, making a clear argument where others have simply sniped. And that's much appreciated.
That said, I have to wonder why "anonymous" feels the need to be anonymous. If you feel you have a cogent argument, why not own up to it? The argument would carry even more weight with a name attached.
As I've said before, I see a future in which authors have the best of both worlds. But the key will be, can traditional publishering offer the same benefits that self-publishing does. Does it really offer more than the financial "security" of an advance?
Despite Anonymous's argument, I'm not yet convinced.
And while the potential to make millions certainly exists in traditional publishing, that particular carrot will only be snatched by a select few.
But let's not forget that the ebook evolution is in its infancy. Ebooks are now outselling hardbacks, and paperbacks are in even worse shape.
So the potential to make millions may certainly come along in the future for indie authors.
All any of us can offer at this point is speculation.
Michael's absolutely right that you'll never get promotional terms written into a contract, but it's worth a try.
And who knows, if things continue to go well for indie authors, publishers may reconsider such things.
Again, it's all speculation at this point.
My bottom line? I love writing books and I love that people are reading them. Whoever can help me achieve that and give me the biggest bang for the buck, is the person I want to do business with.
Anon: "While books have a long tail in terms of sales - well, the good ones anyway - they are no different from products like movies and music. You're likely to sell more immediately following their release or promotion."
Books, perhaps. Ebooks not so much right now. The market hasn't been penetrated more than, what, 20%? I have the figures somewhere, can't be arsed to chase them down. But that number just applies in North America. Long story short, the vast majority of folks have a dvd player/mp3/smartphone/laptop and are used to watching movies and listening to their music in a digital format. This is not yet true of digital books. Your long tail, for those ebooks worth discovering, tends to have a lot of knots in it.
Anecdotal evidence: I've got a title free in the iBookstore as a lead in to the full novel. That free title hit #1 in its category in November in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia (and Romania, but I only mention it because I like to say I'm #1 in Romania. Sue me.) In all those countries it bounces in and out of the #1 spot, but at the time of this comment it's back at #1 in the US (can't be arsed to check the other countries). It cycles through, wash, rinse, repeat. New people get ipads. New people get iphones. New people get ipod touches. And they download free titles.
Takeaway: The bloom is not anywhere near off the rose yet. Ebooks do not follow paper book sales patterns for indie authors.
Congratulations to Jude Hardin for hitting #6 on the Amazon charts. Well done!
Rob, I was just coming over to post the same thing. They say great minds think alike...what's our excuse?
Thanks! Pocket-47 was released over a year ago, which kind of proves that ebooks can have second (and third, and fourth...) lives.
That said, I have to wonder why "anonymous" feels the need to be anonymous.
Not that this point really matters to me (I figure it's the content of the posts over their "name" and to take this argument to try and devalue their comments seems petty) but it could be someone in the pub industry who knows many people, and disseminating this type of info would probably be looked down upon. Something a bit treacherous.
And anyone who knows anything about corporate America knows your network/friends/contacts/bridges are the most important thing to maintaining success.
As much as I agree with you on all that you have said, I don't agree that the wholesale model is best for Indie authors, for exactly the same reasons you have mentioned: it enables competitive pricing. Those publishers with fewer overheads (IE those that are doing it for themselves, and don't have huge bonuses to pay and shareholders to enrichen) can use their advantage and undercut the big players to help sales. I still don't see how the wholesale model assists the indie author in any way shape or form, and while I do see the logic in how it helps the reader, I'd still prefer to see the agency model for my books.
Jude said: Thanks! Pocket-47 was released over a year ago, which kind of proves that ebooks can have second (and third, and fourth...) lives.
No doubt the release of Crosscut spurred some interest in Pocket-47. I'm guessing you also got some good cross-promotion from Amazon. Just goes to show the power of Amazon's marketing...in addition to it being an entertaining book, of course. ;-)
Just goes to show the power of Amazon's marketing...
Indeed. Pocket-47 was the Kindle Daily Deal yesterday. It's selling big more than a year after the release date, and it's helping the sequel Crosscut get noticed.
I've been enjoying your site for several years now and just wanted to say thank you! However, I would love your site even more (if that's possible!) if you would consider adding a "subscribe by email feature" that would allow me to receive all your great posts straight to my inbox.
Rob, I see Trial Junkies is still in the Kindle Top 100 (#77) but I don't see it listed at all on Barnes and Noble. Is it not available for the Nook?
Rob, never mind. I see it's available through Kindle Prime.
Merrill, I'll be expanding to the Nook at a later date. Right now, I'm loving the Select program.
But the book isn't copy protected, so anyone can convert it to epub for the Nook.
"If the price of a book is the same everywhere, that leads to less competition, not more competition"
I am French and here the prices are fixed by the governement... Which leads to books like Inferno by Dan Brown costing 23 euros in paper and 14 in ebooks...
Here, the situation is pretty much the same for every book, 20 euros when it comes out. Which is the reason I prefer reading in English since the same book usually cost less on Amazon.com
And a word for you Mister Konrath : you are one of the people that made me believe the eBook revolution is also coming to our country... and after writing 10 books in personal development I can say... You were right ! Thanks for everything.
Merci Monsieur Konrath :)
Post a Comment