tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post3643835117390764038..comments2024-03-18T06:16:18.802-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: A Case of the Shatz - Fisking Mike ShatzkinJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-81830084189710535112015-03-23T19:04:10.522-05:002015-03-23T19:04:10.522-05:00Hi Joe, Loved this post. I've linked it on my ...Hi Joe, Loved this post. I've linked it on my own blog, where we frequently debate this issue. Feel free to check it out if you'd like… cheers,<br />Kris<br />http://www.murderlab.com/2015/03/self-pub-or-traditional-revisiting.htmlKrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967379465694357930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-52546360159869139442014-02-18T20:34:38.421-06:002014-02-18T20:34:38.421-06:00I agree with everything you said, Joe.
Well, I do...I agree with everything you said, Joe.<br /><br />Well, I do think you both do this as more than just a "public service". You started a revolution with all the information you gave us, and Hugh (along with many others) are just joining in with more evidence that supports your assertions.<br /><br />And at the risk of sounding like an idiot, LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!<br /><br />Oh, I think we should just ignore the death-rattle that keeps spewing out of the mouths of those invested in the publishing industry.Jack D. Albrecht Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14484703081995582013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-89995480511192076452014-02-17T03:49:36.585-06:002014-02-17T03:49:36.585-06:00like someone said, elsewhere, Hugh's data uses...like someone said, elsewhere, Hugh's data uses amazon because it is the ONLY game in town of that size. Those who want to invalidate the parse because of that; one day; one outfit studied, seem not to be aware that study design is based on going where the data is 'fattest.' Like, you know, to study penguins, lol, one might not be able to study them in natural habitat in the streets of Chi, SF and NY. No. One would have to ah, go to the one place where there are thousands: the Arctic. Studying penguins for one day could potentially bring huge amount of useful data. So too. One day; one AMZ. For those in the field of stat and analyses, it's a known that you can study your head off from every angle a study can be designed and still see a significant view, but not a whole view. To think otherwise, to a scientist, would be considered madness. lolArchangelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358062143743621676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-44862171564230934982014-02-16T12:32:34.393-06:002014-02-16T12:32:34.393-06:00I agree I didn't provide evidence or factual d...I agree I didn't provide evidence or factual data. Just common sense. <br /><br />Even if trad pub don't act always wisely, to say the least, I think when they invest money in Amazon for promoting books and/or ebooks, they expect to sell more. Or else, they wouldn't invest year after year. <br /><br />So, the main question is: is KDP Select for indies more efficient then money invested by trad pub on said dates (around christmas, for example)? <br /><br />Common sense tells me trad pub has to sell more in those dates, and that's why in my opinion, we need more data than just a single day in the year. I may be wrong. I just want to know.Alan Spadehttp://emmanuelguillot.over-blog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-7104247642691364412014-02-16T09:22:47.306-06:002014-02-16T09:22:47.306-06:00Alan Spade:
I understand what you are saying, but...Alan Spade:<br /><br />I understand what you are saying, but you provide no evidence or explanation as to why the point in time referenced in the study is one that would inherently overstate self-publishing's market share and under-represent traditional publishing's. That's the problem, not only with your counter, but with the way this entire debate has been argued.<br /><br />You don't simply say that a given day "may" not be representative and then take the wild leap to assuming the POV you wish to promote was somehow underreported...not if you want any factual and statistical validity to what you present. <br /><br />Certainly, it is possible the day the data was drawn represents some odd confluence of events that understates traditional publishing market share, though it is equally possible the reverse is true, and that any statistical variation underrepresents the self-publishing share.<br /><br />You haven't offered any counter-factual data to support any reason to believe the actual day of the sampling is not a typical one, providing an average snapshot of the market.<br /><br />If you did a survey on favorite ice cream flavor (especially with a sampling the size of Amazon's daily sales), you would expect to get similar results each day within a band of statistical variation. The fact that a single day's sales was analyzed should have very little effect on the validity of the result, especially in the absence of any identifiable extraneous factors affecting the specific day of the sample.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527381962058559017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-10256752794573825962014-02-16T07:22:12.540-06:002014-02-16T07:22:12.540-06:00Here's the link for the New Yorker article I m...Here's the link for the New Yorker article I mentioned: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_packer?currentPage=allAlan Spadehttp://emmanuelguillot.over-blog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-31486460346413470022014-02-16T07:13:24.296-06:002014-02-16T07:13:24.296-06:00Sorry, I should have written: "books don'...Sorry, I should have written: "books don't sell so much on august than on october".Alan Spadehttp://emmanuelguillot.over-blog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-27201834404786471422014-02-16T07:04:40.103-06:002014-02-16T07:04:40.103-06:00Jay Allan :"Certainly sampling multiple days ...Jay Allan :"Certainly sampling multiple days and comparing results would increase accuracy by increasing the number of data points, but there's no particular reason to expect much change. If the sampling had been a week, or a month, you'd only expect a fine-tuning, not dramatic differences."<br /><br />Jay, as I said, dates matter. Big Publishing works with Amazon, as awkward as this may seem. Big publishing don't have the same marketing push towards Amazon on Valentine's day, or on Christmas period, than on an average day of the year. Books don't sell so much on october than on august. <br /><br />Independent authors have repeatedly reported the ranking/sales ratio to be different between january and march, for example. So dates does matter. <br /><br />@Joe: Regarding translation, it would be a good thing to hint at Amazon that if they want to empower authors, they should give 70% when selling abroad with translated works. <br /><br />Amazon could even help authors make deals with translators, like Audible does with comedians. <br /><br />A very interesting paragraph from The New Yorker's article: <br /><br />"Book publishers’ dependence on Amazon, however unwilling, keeps growing. Amazon constitutes a third of one major house’s retail sales on a given week, with the growth chart pointing toward fifty per cent. By contrast, independents represent under ten per cent, and one New York editor said that only a third of the three thousand brick-and-mortar bookstores still in existence would remain financially healthy if publishers didn’t waive certain terms of payment. Jane Friedman, the former Random House and HarperCollins executive, who now runs a digital publisher called Open Road Integrated Media, told me, “If there wasn’t an Amazon today, there probably wouldn’t be a book business.”"<br /><br />These stats could represent a nice addition to Hugh Howey's study: Amazon constitutes a third of one major house's retail sales on a given week."<br /><br />So, when we'll get sales for paper books on Amazon on strategic periods, we will know for sure if bestsellers (depending on their contracts) would be better or not self-publishing ebooks than staying with trad publishing. <br /><br />But IMO, Amazon has to improve where trad pub is still strong (and among that, with helping authors translate). <br />Alan Spadehttp://emmanuelguillot.over-blog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-12179900470555197262014-02-15T22:51:55.143-06:002014-02-15T22:51:55.143-06:00The Examiner calls Shatzkin a liar:
"Sadly, ...The Examiner calls Shatzkin a liar:<br /><br />"Sadly, instead of looking at the numbers, all Shatzkin did was try to discount them all. He used broken arguments that publishing houses will edit books and create covers and promote them, which make it worth making less money and giving up all rights to the books to the publishing houses. This ignores the fact that self published authors can pay a professional copy editor and book jacket designer and make more money while keeping 100 percent of the rights to their books.<br /><br />Shatzkin also pointed out the fact that self published authors can't get into book stores, of which Barnes & Noble is one of the only ones left, <b><i>which is also a lie</i></b> since self published authors can get into bookstores just like traditionally published authors."<br /><br />http://www.examiner.com/article/self-publishing-author-earning-report-helps-authors-make-better-decisions<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-62535747198027324552014-02-15T22:44:22.629-06:002014-02-15T22:44:22.629-06:00I read a bunch of the posts on Shatzkin's blog...I read a bunch of the posts on Shatzkin's blog. I keep seeing an assertion in his posts about the inherent invalidity of a sampling of one day's data. <br /><br />That's a statistically invalid criticism. One day's data would quite possibly give an inherently inaccurate reading of a given author's sales, but there is no reason to assume that it wouldn't provide a fairly typical snapshot of overall market categories (e.g. self-publishing), unless there is some reason to believe that on the given day self-published works over-performed their normal market share.<br /><br />Similarly, lacking any major stimuli, one might expect various publishers' market shares to be representative of their norms on any given day, unless they have a very major release or a surplus or deficit of new titles relative to the competition.<br /><br />Lacking any particular reason to expect statistical wiggle from one day to the next, you would expect overall market share numbers to remain fairly consistent day to day.<br /><br />Also, there's no particular reason to assume that the average author's sales wouldn't be representative. Some would be having a weaker day, others a stronger day than normal, but the average should be fairly typical unless there is a reason the sampling day varies from the norm.<br /><br />Certainly sampling multiple days and comparing results would increase accuracy by increasing the number of data points, but there's no particular reason to expect much change. If the sampling had been a week, or a month, you'd only expect a fine-tuning, not dramatic differences.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527381962058559017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-75218504165087211342014-02-15T21:16:16.900-06:002014-02-15T21:16:16.900-06:00Devil's Advocate:
I think there's a point...Devil's Advocate:<br /><br />I think there's a point Mike made, which is really important, that is being constantly overlooked.<br /><br />Mike contends that Howey's revenue model is flawed because he is assuming Author revenue (for e-books) is the standard 25% royalty we see in contracts. However, a significant portion of author revenue for a traditionally published writer is in large advances that will never earn out, and therefore, the author revenue is significantly higher than the royalty terms of the contract. I've seen lots of speculation that this is even used/abused as a way of paying star authors large sums of money without triggering legacy favoured royalty clauses that would increase the royalty for all authors. Taking this in consideration, nobody but the publishers know how much more money is being paid to authors than what is assumed in Howey's math.<br /><br />All that being said, this should be *very* cold comfort to author's being offered peanuts on an advance. Even if, against all odds, your book is a great success, most of the money you earned is being used to subsidize those large advances that are not even expected to earn out. Hollywood accounting at it's finest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-22539029202120161672014-02-15T16:02:02.369-06:002014-02-15T16:02:02.369-06:00Did I read this right??!!! Really??? F-n A, B and ...Did I read this right??!!! Really??? F-n A, B and C, really??? <br /><br />Commenter said to Mike S., that commenter wouldn’t take a BIG advance from trad publisher… <br /><br />Mike S said, 'ok, if you want to stick to "your principles"' [!!!] <br /><br />What? Mike, Mike, Mike, you mean IF an author takes BIG advance from trad pub, the AUTHOR is being UNPRINCIPLED??>?? <br /><br />Just as we thought, unprincipled offering by trad pubs. you said it without meaning to say it Mike. <br /><br /> I’m glad I’m NOT in business with YOU. <br /><br />Man, what a way of looking at life you have. <br /><br />And incidentally, re "pin money" I could buy the entire pin manufacturing companies of the world with the hard-earned income from my books, trad and indie. [not that there are probably many pin companies left, lol] . We're doin' just fine out here in the Indie Islands. Nice company too. <br /><br />Stick that in your pin cushion MS. lol <br /><br />Thanks Joe. I think we all know your heart. More black and blue sometimes, than black. Keep on.<br /><br />>>>>>>>>>>Frankly, I have no interest in any "stinking advance." Of any size. What I'm interested in is NET profit to author (me) for my book. If that's big enough, I'm willing to forego any advance at all. At the end of the day, show me the money. Not some loan. Mike Shatzkin • 26 minutes ago But what if a publisher offered you an advance that you figured was *larger *than whatever you would earn by any calculation of sales and net revenue? You wouldn't take it and be content to have some of it "unearned"? If so, I admire your principles but I'm glad I'm not your business partner. Mike>>>>>>>>>Archangelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358062143743621676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-53086428961793413292014-02-15T15:53:36.749-06:002014-02-15T15:53:36.749-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Archangelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358062143743621676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-17968849225005159152014-02-15T15:47:34.162-06:002014-02-15T15:47:34.162-06:00Oups. Translation market, I meant.Oups. Translation market, I meant.Alan Spadehttp://emmanuelguillot.over-blog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-39987904935824388252014-02-15T15:42:59.255-06:002014-02-15T15:42:59.255-06:00"Will the needle move enough to change the in..."Will the needle move enough to change the industry?"<br /><br />Good question, Joe. <br /><br />Irwin P. seems to have a clue with his strong analysis at 10:47 AM. <br /><br />Quoting him : <br /><br />"The other groups that will always pursue legacy deals are:<br /><br />- Celebrities like actors and musicians writing biographies and even fiction (I think James Franco's poorly received Amazon-published novel will only reinforce this). Part of this is because celebrities already have agents and are just used to having someone handle things for them. There may be a few exceptions, but they will be just that: exceptions.<br /><br />- Current legacy authors who are doing well enough to be the beneficiaries of large advances and will probably be the first to see a bump in their royalty rates over the next few years. These are folks who probably understand that instead of making $1 million a year in trad. pub they could make $5 million a year as indies, but they just don't want to take the risk because they are already rich and happy enough. Not necessarily a bad choice.<br /><br />- Successful indie authors who believe that while they can sell 2 million books a year on their own, if they want to get to 20 million books a year they will need to sign deals. These folks will point to Howey signing over ebook and print rights to Random House UK as some kind of proof of this belief. (I'm not saying it is or it isn't.)<br /><br />- Other newbie and indie authors who will not be able to resist that perceived stamp of prestige that Random House or HarperCollins or whatever can give you. Dismiss this all you want, but the need "to be chosen" is very strong in even the most independent and self-assured of us. Many indies will be able to satisfy that need for prestige through book sales and positive fan reviews and big money, but for some that will not be enough.<br /><br />Will all this add up to 90% of the market? I don't know. I don't see it being less than 50% though."<br /><br />We may not be able to discredit big publishing enough. But what we are doing, is to make more and more people aware of the Ponzi scheme of the industry: Big 5 make huge advances in order to garner more attention in the medias, in order to boost the fallacious hope among authors to obtain such kind of contract. <br /><br />For the future, there will more and more two categories: authors who are informed, and others who are not informed, and the latter will be more likely to fall in the vanity of trad publishing.<br /><br />And yes, as Daniel Kenney says (and Joe said about traduction market), there are some domains where trad pub is still strong. Yet.Alan Spadehttp://emmanuelguillot.over-blog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-41719678259183839022014-02-15T15:31:15.495-06:002014-02-15T15:31:15.495-06:00For me, when it comes to thrillers, romance, scien...For me, when it comes to thrillers, romance, science fiction and fantasy...the evidence is clear. Go indie. Do it as well as you possibly can but go fast and do not look back.<br /><br />For me and others who might also write in a genre that currently is less well served by going indie (like literary or children's and I write middle grade)the decision isn't currently that simple.<br /><br />Since I am going indie with thrillers, I want with all my heart to go indie in my middle grade books as well. Owning your rights. Controlling things. Making better royalties. Releasing whenever I want. All of that makes HUGE sense to me.<br /><br />Problem is, as much as I don't want to sign a traditional publishing contract, I'm not in this deal for any other reason than to write stories I love and maximize my profit from those stories. Unfortunately, right now, in the world of children's fiction, not many self publish authors have shared the kind of data that would make you believe you can make real money from indie publishing children's books. <br /><br />I think that's going to change. I really do. I never thought I would like e-books. I was a paper snob. Now I prefer reading e-books and not by a little. My kids read e-books, as Joe has mentioned before, kids are now learning to read via e-books. The decision is between going indie now and hope the world of middle grade readers catches up? Or go traditional in these categories now and wait for the children's e-book market to catch up later to self publish.<br /><br />My point is, this is the calculus that authors are going through. I don't care about the stigma of indie or the pride of traditional. I care about writing and money. Most writers do. More information helps us, not less.Daniel Kenneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11607594747105799701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-28668159927726321842014-02-15T14:14:01.462-06:002014-02-15T14:14:01.462-06:00Another interesting thing that Steve had to say wa...<i>Another interesting thing that Steve had to say was that they have no end of submissions still.</i><br /><br />I actually had to stop reading Shatzkin's comment thread. Between all of the ridiculous things Mike and Steve are saying, I'd be busy for hours fisking it.<br /><br /><i>Good luck on selling those old titles in a year against the other 10,000 new titles that came out at $.99 cents and having any discoverability of your titles at all.</i><br /><br />Steve... Steve... Steve... really? Aren't Kensington titles fighting for the same discoverability against those same 10,000 new titles at $0.99 each? Why is that just an indie issue?<br /><br /><i>John Ingram's decision to push his family and his company into doing Lightning Print (now Lightning Source) in the mid-1990s was one of the most visionary business decisions in the history of the industry.</i><br /><br />POD was revolutionary in its time, and still is useful, because it cuts waste with both storage and return shipping.<br /><br />You know what cuts even more waste? Ebooks.<br /><br />Now that authors can use POD and ebooks, why sign with publishers?<br /><br /><i>Most authors are thrilled to get an advance and be with a NYC publisher.</i><br /><br />And puppies are no doubt thrilled to be adopted from a shelter, until they realize they've been taken to a vivisection lab.<br /><br />Gaughran's latest post on AuthorHouse, and how many millions of dollars they earn of the naivete and gullibility of authors, is an eye-opener.<br /><br />Perhaps legacy publishers will, indeed, have an unlimited supply of uneducated authors submitting to them, forever.<br /><br />But maybe, if we all keep talking about it, that number will shrink.<br /><br />There's a sucker born every minute, and the line between AuthorHouse and the Big 5 is getting blurrier and blurrier. They both take advantage of authors. <br /><br />Some things, like piracy and drug prohibition, don't benefit from education or information campaigns, because downloading files and taking drugs are things people like to do.<br /><br />Is that analogous with submitting to agents and publishers? If so, I'm spinning my wheels with this blog. Hugh's data and my efforts will fall on deaf ears.<br /><br />But Hugh's data verifies the growing self-pub market, so some authors are obviously getting it. Unlike the War on Drugs or the War on Piracy, which show no benefits, the War on Unconscionable Publishing Practices is moving the needle.<br /><br />Will the needle move enough to change the industry? JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-69009444094721566322014-02-15T13:01:50.987-06:002014-02-15T13:01:50.987-06:00PS Power:
Read this article.
- Irwin P.PS Power:<br /><br />Read <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all" rel="nofollow">this article</a>.<br /><br />- Irwin P.Irwin P.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-33473442971725952922014-02-15T12:53:50.597-06:002014-02-15T12:53:50.597-06:00I have a question for people with a bit more "...I have a question for people with a bit more "insider" knowledge than I may be privy to.<br /><br />What kind of special deals or perks do the Big Five get with Amazon (and other e-retailers) that the average independent doesn't have access too?<br /><br />I've "felt" that there is something going on that way for a while, but have no proof, so haven't brought it up a lot. Is this just me looking for a conspiracy?<br /><br />I've heard that there are some special sales perks, but also noticed things that seem off. For instance, my books are rarely shown with Big Five titles int eh also boughts, even though my sales are as good or better, and my readership base has clearly gotten a specific book too.<br /><br />*By rarely I mean never...<br /><br />This might not make a huge difference, but it seems to have clearly been put into play by Amazon, and I have to imagine that the Big Five insisted on it.<br /><br />Does anyone have that kind of information?<br /><br />Also, being allowed to purchase sales slots on Amazon.com? Shouldn't anyone with the cash in hand be allowed the same access?<br /><br />Any information that people have would be interesting to me.<br /><br />ThanksP. S. Powerhttp://pspowerbooks.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-61339049752562330462014-02-15T12:50:42.749-06:002014-02-15T12:50:42.749-06:00Joe Konrath can be rude, sarcastic, snide and, occ...Joe Konrath can be rude, sarcastic, snide and, occasionally, boorish.<br /><br />And I love him for it.<br /><br />Joe serves a valuable function in these debates by making himself a lightning rod.<br /><br />I don't know where the other Anonymous is coming from, but many people come here because, like Joe, they've been burned by traditional publishing. At the same time, they often do not talk/complain publicly because of existing and continuing relationships in the industry. Joe says things they wish they could say.<br /><br />Publishing is more a collection of niche groups that work in the same building. Some genre imprints of the Big 6 can consist of just three people. Everyone knows everyone. It's very easy to get a reputation for being a troublemaker simply for asking too many questions or objecting to misdeeds. So we keep silent so that we don't get on the top of the list when slash-and-burn time comes at a publishing house (which happens with nauseating regularity).<br /><br />Joe doesn't have worry about that so he, frankly, doesn't have to kiss ass. He gets reaction. You don't see Robert Gottlieb popping up on just anyone's blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-64154633647170033712014-02-15T12:39:25.356-06:002014-02-15T12:39:25.356-06:00So I got into a fairly non-productive conversation...So I got into a fairly non-productive conversation with Mike and Steve Zacharius in the comments yesterday and I can't help but feel that they missed the point again.<br /><br />When I ask what is the benefit of signing with a traditional publisher in light of Hugh's report, no real answer is forthcoming. Essentially we're meant to ask an agent.<br /><br />Point in fact, I never even bothered to approach an agent in the first place precisely because the establishment is so bad at explaining why anyone should bother with them at this point. I'm not the only one of my writing circle who has just outright ignored the establishment and I see more of them making that decision with passing time. It's obvious that they don't understand the paradigm shift from authors being supplicants to actual customers and partners, and that alone is off putting.<br /><br />Another interesting thing that Steve had to say was that they have no end of submissions still. Sure, and that situation will never change given the information exchange that is now going on? It's disheartening to hear that they see no immediate reason to adjust when they have record profits coming in. Record profits that presumably arise from digital... the same thing that is enabling authors to work for themselves. How long do they think it's a sustainable business practice to give such poor terms for such a lucrative part of their business?<br /><br />What I got out of the whole thing is that they don't care to discuss their future relevance, it's simply assumed. To give Steve some credit at least he's trying to talk to us peons, I guess.Alexandra Lynwoodhttp://alexandralynwood.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-14515525801750503732014-02-15T12:28:16.267-06:002014-02-15T12:28:16.267-06:00I look at the music industry too
How many awards ...<i>I look at the music industry too</i><br /><br />How many awards did Macklemore win? Isn't he an indie?JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-25920669990968080482014-02-15T12:25:04.674-06:002014-02-15T12:25:04.674-06:00It's especially rich when one admits to callin...<i>It's especially rich when one admits to calling the other an asshole and then complains about the "tone" of the asshole designee... I mean, really?</i><br /><br />I actually respect anon's honesty for saying that.<br /><br />I'm okay with being called names, as long as it is backed up with facts and well-presented arguments.<br /><br />But I agree. I get called on tone constantly. And then, when I call out legacy pundits for their derisive attitude toward authors--I get called on tone again.<br /><br />Being being a sarcastic prick doesn't invalidate the fact that I'm right a whole lot. Attacking me on tone is a way to fight back without dealing with all of those pesky facts, arguments, and data.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-82843666531017499162014-02-15T12:20:07.937-06:002014-02-15T12:20:07.937-06:00@Anon 6:14am to William Ockham
I agreed with your...@Anon 6:14am to William Ockham<br /><br />I agreed with your post, except for two points.<br /><br /><i>Four or five years from now, the Big 5 may well be the Big 3 or 4, but they'll still be at the top of the food chain.</i><br /><br />Why do you believe this? I've reached more ebook readers by self-pubbing than my publishers could, and I make 70% royalties. Publishers are going to have to start offering more to authors, and their margins are so slim I don't see this happening.<br /><br /><i>a constant thread of spite runs through these parts, a lot of gleeful hand-rubbing at the idea of the evil publishers toppling from their perches. </i><br /><br />I spent ten years trying to break into legacy publishing, and then ten years being abused and exploited once I broke into legacy publishing.<br /><br />But I don't want them to fail. I want them to treat authors fairly.<br /><br />Is there an element of glee when some legacy pundit says something amazingly stupid? Possibly. A group that excluded and oppressed me is showing how ridiculous they are--something I suspected all along--and now I have the opportunity to prove it. <br /><br />Revolutions don't happen if the revolting party is happy. And it's human nature to derive satisfaction from facing and beating a bully.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-84796546305392852182014-02-15T12:07:40.783-06:002014-02-15T12:07:40.783-06:00Based on the data Hugh provided and the details Jo...<i>Based on the data Hugh provided and the details Joe has been blogging about for years, the system was set up to benefit the curators rather than the artists who produced what the reader wanted -- good books. It's shocking to me how poorly most legacy authors do in their contracts and in sales compared with the curators. It seems wrong. </i><br /><br />This is why I blog. So all writers learn this.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.com