tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post7400206488527833532..comments2024-03-28T02:00:11.260-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Zombie Publishing Memes #3 - Without Legacy Gatekeepers, No One Will Be Able to Find Good BooksJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-86709478090969855482015-09-10T03:18:56.111-05:002015-09-10T03:18:56.111-05:00@Broken Yogi,
Ahh... I was the Anonymous who post...@Broken Yogi,<br /><br />Ahh... I was the Anonymous who posted the titles, but it was to dispute the Anonymous who claims that claims that trad pub publishes the best-sellers.<br /><br />FWIW, I agree with you that the Amazon imprints absolutely do not count as traditional publishers in the evaluation of "traditional publishers", even if they operate in a similar fashion. For the point of the discussion, I wouldn't even count Hay House as a traditional publisher, since it's more of a niche publisher.<br /><br />Just trying to clear any confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-43355883154707954422015-09-07T19:18:36.398-05:002015-09-07T19:18:36.398-05:00Okay, I looked further up the thread and saw the l...Okay, I looked further up the thread and saw the list. Lots of Amazon titles. Which brings to mind the question of what category Amazon imprints really falls under. Barry might elaborate based on his experience, but it seems to me that their inventory is mostly filled with self-published writers who Amazon essentially makes a marketing deal with: we'll take half the royalties in exchange for giving your self-pubbed book a big marketing push on Amazon. Probably a good deal all around. Hardly any of them get serious distribution outside of Amazon. I think their ebooks sales are strictly Amazon, and bookstores seem to boycott their print version. So basically it's a variant of self-publishing. Even a variant of KDP Select when it comes down to it. <br /><br />So those books should probably fairly be considered "self-pubbed" even if they have the Amazon imprint. Maybe call them "KDP Select Plus".Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-67308323709749710322015-09-07T18:57:46.651-05:002015-09-07T18:57:46.651-05:00I don't see where you did supply titles to ans...I don't see where you did supply titles to answer my question. Earlier in the thread? In a different thread?<br /><br />In any case, I'll take your word for it that trad publishers hold 50% of the top ten bestsellers. That's really a terrible percentage if the claim is that they know how to pick the books that sell. As I've said, if they were really able to do that it ought to be rather uncommon that any of their books are outsold by self-published authors, much less even many/most of their bestsellers being outsold. They should be skimming off almost all of the books that sell well, and self-pubbers shouldn't be able to move their crappy books beyond the very bottom of the trad published gate-keeper books, where you get the "sales above replacement level" borderline books. Replacement-level books shouldn't become bestsellers at all. But that's clearly not the case in reality. <br /><br />So this is strong evidence that trad publishing's "gatekeeping" skills are concentrated in their ability to control the distribution end of the business of publishing books, not the "finding books that can sell" end. They don't seem to be any better at that than non-gatekeepers. Many of their books are not superior in quality, they are only superior by dint of the business model that allows publishers to promote them and limit the competition so that they sell well. But as even your own data show, in that segment of the industry where trads don't control distribution, non-trad published books are approaching equality with them in sales, which shouldn't be the case if the books were really just the crappy bottom of the barrel leftovers. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-15268980939549252162015-09-06T23:03:59.624-05:002015-09-06T23:03:59.624-05:00As has been pointed out, that's apparently wha...<i>As has been pointed out, that's apparently what the data shows when you look at the top of the best seller list for ebooks on Amazon (a place that sells a lot of self published ebooks).</i><br /><br />And as I responded with actual book titles, the data (you know, the titles) shows that trad publishers hold 50% of the top 10, and a shrinking percentage as you go further down the list. I have no idea why you think the data (even "apparently") shows anything like what you are saying it does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-43097425819712165672015-09-04T19:15:29.783-05:002015-09-04T19:15:29.783-05:00What data are you looking at? The author's ear...What data are you looking at? The author's earnings reports, which analyzes all books on Amazon's bestseller lists, show otherwise. Even a quick glance at the top 100 in every genre will reveal lots of self-pubbed books. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-24374864174908044942015-09-04T18:02:38.923-05:002015-09-04T18:02:38.923-05:00Broken Yogi says:
"If trad publishers knew h...Broken Yogi says:<br /><br />"If trad publishers knew how to find the books that sell, all best-selling books would be published by them."<br /><br />As has been pointed out, that's apparently what the data shows when you look at the top of the best seller list for ebooks on Amazon (a place that sells a lot of self published ebooks).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-3715910835956094492015-09-04T15:24:23.824-05:002015-09-04T15:24:23.824-05:00Also, if legacy publishers knew how to pick books,...<i>Also, if legacy publishers knew how to pick books, every one they pick would be a hit. Far from it.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily all hits, but they would necessarily outsell all self-published books, which should not be able to sell in anything remotely like the numbers they do if it was the taste-gatekeeping that mattered above and beyond the distribution-gatekeeping.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-85009581489165789762015-09-04T15:19:58.693-05:002015-09-04T15:19:58.693-05:00As far as "how the industry functions", ...As far as "how the industry functions", the industry has, until recently, been completely controlled by trad publishers, not because "they know how to find books that sell", but because no one could sell books without going through them. So it's a tautological argument. Ebooks and Amazon have changed that entirely. No other category of publishing allowed self-published authors anything close to an equal footing with trads on distribution and sales. So self-pubbing hardly existed. Now that actual competition with trad publishers is possible, self-pubbers are doing very well, and increasing their numbers yearly, and landing on best-seller lists too. It turns out the real gatekeeping was simply a matter of who controls the gates. And not just the "choosing which books to publish" gate, but the more important gate of the distribution channels. Now that the ebook distribution gate is wide open, we are seeing a better picture of how gatekeeping works. <br /><br />It's a distribution cartel, not a taste cartel. It turns out the gatekeepers never had a monopoly on picking the books people wanted to buy, they only controlled the distribution channels so tightly that no one could sell books without going through them. They still control distribution when it comes to print, but even that is beginning to change with the introduction of POD. So self-pubbers are still being dominated by trads in print sales, but that's changing too. Where the distribution game is opened up, they don't have that problem. And more authors are choosing that route because it pays more, even with the limitations on print distribution. Which should really tell us a lot about how the industry actually works. The myth of the curators is really an artifact of controlling distribution channels. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-86522120052789461892015-09-04T15:06:58.125-05:002015-09-04T15:06:58.125-05:00All books sell. It's just that for the moment ...<i>All books sell. It's just that for the moment the traditional publishers are prominent in the best seller lists.</i><br /><br />Books do not sell equally. That's why we have bestseller lists. If trad publishers knew how to find the books that sell, all best-selling books would be published by them. The self-pubbers would only pick up the scraps left over. That many self-pubbed books are on best-seller lists, selling far and above much of the trad-published authors tells us that the gatekeepers are not doing a very good job of finding those books. That many authors are not even bothering to try to go through trad publishing anymore tells us that the myth of the gatekeepers is falling apart. Readers are not paying attention to how a book is published, but to the quality and price of the book itself. And they seem able to find the books they like without reference to the traditional gatekeepers, but instead to word of mouth. Which, it turns out, was always the strongest marketing path. In the age of the Internet, it's become much stronger so that now it's dominant. <br /><br />It's also important to note that many non-Amazon best-seller lists don't include self-published books, because they don't count them (and because Amazon doesn't release its numbers). And Bookscan and other industry surveys doesn't track them. When it is said that ebooks have declined in sales recently, one has to take into account the fact that those numbers don't include self-published books, only trad numbers. If one included self-pubbed books, the industry is still growing. But the gatekeepers aren't seeing any of that money, so they pretend it doesn't exist, because they think they are the only ones who matter. The money says otherwise. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-84750382623922259482015-09-04T12:22:55.267-05:002015-09-04T12:22:55.267-05:00This argument defeats itself.
Also, if legacy pub...<i>This argument defeats itself.</i><br /><br />Also, if legacy publishers knew how to pick books, every one they pick would be a hit. Far from it.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-91812638193912026832015-09-04T10:24:25.082-05:002015-09-04T10:24:25.082-05:00Yogi said:
"This argument defeats itself. If...Yogi said:<br /><br />"This argument defeats itself. If true, then self-published books won't sell, and thus represent no threat to traditional publishing, or to readers, who won't buy them. "<br /><br />All books sell. It's just that for the moment the traditional publishers are prominent in the best seller lists.<br /><br />That might tell us something about the way publishing works.<br /><br />Let's try to be less tribal and more pragmatic.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-43230101139368929932015-09-03T23:43:25.204-05:002015-09-03T23:43:25.204-05:00"One thing the gatekeepers seem to be good at..."One thing the gatekeepers seem to be good at is picking books that sell.”<br /><br />This argument defeats itself. If true, then self-published books won't sell, and thus represent no threat to traditional publishing, or to readers, who won't buy them. <br /><br />If false, the evidence would show that self-published books do in fact sell, and this would disprove the notion that the gatekeepers are good at picking books that sell well. <br /><br />Either way, the conclusion is that this is an argument that there is no problem with self-publishing. Either it's irrelevant, or it taps into a whole market in books that the gatekeepers have ignored. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-45444858435994432562015-09-03T11:57:41.823-05:002015-09-03T11:57:41.823-05:00Thanks Data Guy, I'll take a look.Thanks Data Guy, I'll take a look.Alan Spadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265515535005420739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-51786419236086116122015-09-03T11:36:58.027-05:002015-09-03T11:36:58.027-05:00Thanks Data Guy.
Lots of successful self publishe...Thanks Data Guy.<br /><br />Lots of successful self published mid-listers churning out lots of titles vs successful traditionally published authors with a book a year topping the best seller lists.<br /><br />Probably easier to be a successful mid list self published author than a traditionally published best seller. Just got to keep turning the books out.<br /><br />It is probably changing the book market in so far as series are more common because for the self published author it is series that sell. In the past, many authors, like Stephen King, had a genre but not a series. Fascinating.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-14584397219414811712015-09-03T10:59:14.959-05:002015-09-03T10:59:14.959-05:00If you're interestd in the breakdown of the To...If you're interestd in the breakdown of the Top-100, Alan, that data's available in the spreadsheets linked at thebottom of every quarterly AE report. You can look at just the irst 100 lines of each one.<br /><br />I tend to be more interested in the whole picture of all sales. :)Data Guyhttp://www.authorearnings.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-36023266192830797992015-09-03T10:38:27.512-05:002015-09-03T10:38:27.512-05:00Thank you for your response, Data Guy! :) It total...Thank you for your response, Data Guy! :) It totally makes sense, there is a much higher turnover on the indie side. <br /><br />It indicates that when you enter into a publishing house, if you are not a big name, the chance of making it to the bestseller list is very, very slim. <br /><br />In fact, the chance is much much lower than if you chose to go by yourself. <br /><br />Still, it would be interesting (to me at least) to track the top 100 over a few months to see if they may be an evolution between the Amazon imprint titles, the small press and the indie (even if these are not the same indies). It would also give an idea of the proportion for each group.Alan Spadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265515535005420739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-12577112768408909442015-09-03T10:21:02.184-05:002015-09-03T10:21:02.184-05:00"http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2014/di...<i><br />"http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2014/digital-text/154606011/ref=zg_bsar_nav_b_0_b/184-0552134-0318950<br /><br />This list seems so contradictory with the results in author earnings that I wish Data Guy could step in and cast some light here.<br /></i><br /><br />Hi, Alan. :)<br /><br />Contrast that list with the daily/hourly snapshot bestseller list here:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store/zgbs/digital-text/<br /><br />And you'll see what's going on. If you periodically check the above daily/hourly list over a period of several days/weeks, you'll see a lot more indies on it at any given time ... often 20%+ of the bestsellers at any given moment are indie. <br /><br />But it isn't the same indie names day in and day out, week in and week out, the way it is for the traditionally published books on those bestseller lists.<br /><br />Generally, among indies, the "bestseller wealth" gets shared between a far larger number of authors than on the traditional side. We see many different indie names -- even midlisters -- constantly churning onto and off of and back onto the daily/hourly best seller lists in a never-ending dance.<br /><br />By contrast, on the traditional publishing side, it's generally the same authors and books dominating their share of the bestseller slots for week after week -- megabestsellers starving out the traditionally published midlisters, who almost never appear on the daily/hourly list the way indie midlisters frequently do.<br /><br />So when you look at a yearly cumulative-total-based list, it's not surprising that you're seeing mostly a handful of dominant traditionally-published megabestsellers and far fewer indies.<br />Data Guyhttp://www.authorearnings.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-83638686390069179612015-09-03T09:26:35.800-05:002015-09-03T09:26:35.800-05:00There is no simple answer to who has the best book...There is no simple answer to who has the best books. Traditionally published novels or self published. What you should focus on as a reader is what stimulates you. As a writer its liberating to be able to write what I want in my name and any other name I like and just experiment. You play the field, see what works for you. That's what makes KDP and Createspace so cool.BRYAN HIGBYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01126595775432851053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-73669379399220532022015-09-03T09:21:22.680-05:002015-09-03T09:21:22.680-05:00"If the former, does it mean that traditional..."If the former, does it mean that traditional publishers have some talent for picking winners or are they able to make winners?"<br /><br />There's not much talent required when you just have to look at the bestsellers lists of the subgenres and choose an author to whom you might offer a contract. <br /><br />A contract with a nice sum of money attached to it, money that you grabbed by exploiting directly the other authors you publish, or indirectly, via ventures like Author Solutions...Alan Spadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265515535005420739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-2456546659988162512015-09-03T08:56:45.465-05:002015-09-03T08:56:45.465-05:00Re the comment about 'well written' books ...Re the comment about 'well written' books and E L James, the answer is no.<br /><br />And Fifty Shades was originally self-published and later picked up by a traditional publisher. Good on them for spotting its potential.<br /><br />A best selling book by nature is one that sells the best. Whether you like the writing or not is irrelevant.<br /><br />I'm wondering if the books that sell the best are the ones published by traditional publishers or by self published authors.<br /><br />If the former, does it mean that traditional publishers have some talent for picking winners or are they able to make winners?<br /><br />The answer might add something to the debate about traditional vs self publishing.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-67257847952182702042015-09-03T08:19:02.437-05:002015-09-03T08:19:02.437-05:00I've looked at the 2015 bestseller list, and t...I've looked at the 2015 bestseller list, and this trend seems to continue: the first ebook priced at $0.99 is ranked #14, but it's not even an indie ebook! It's published by a small press, Bookouture. <br /><br />There are just a few more indies than in 2014 on the whole list.<br /><br />Of course, I realize that the revolution in indie publishing is all about making a living with writing, and not necessarily making the top 100, but for the deluded writers who think it's easy to get on the top 100, this is a good reminder of the reality. Alan Spadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265515535005420739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-69898474595650000762015-09-03T08:09:16.131-05:002015-09-03T08:09:16.131-05:00http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2014/digital-...http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2014/digital-text/154606011/ref=zg_bsar_nav_b_0_b/184-0552134-0318950<br /><br />Amazing! I scrolled down that list and it appears the first book priced at $0.99 is ranked #41! And it's an ebook with 4,674 reviews!<br /><br />You can scroll down the list to the hundreth rank, and there is very few low priced and indie books. <br /><br />This list seems so contradictory with the results in author earnings that I wish Data Guy could step in and cast some light here. Alan Spadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265515535005420739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-17796150935659064402015-09-03T07:55:27.164-05:002015-09-03T07:55:27.164-05:00You mean decent well-written books like 50 SHADES ...<br /><br />You mean decent well-written books like 50 SHADES OF GREY? Legacy publishers don't actually care about well-written, they care about saleable. Like, give me a f**king break!<br /><br />Yes, I'm with a legacy publisher -- or at least I was. Just turned in the last book on the contract. My next books are going to be self-published. Then if they tank, it's at least my own fault and not because my publisher let them die like a lost turtle at the side of the road.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-52351036271403407512015-09-03T07:04:48.923-05:002015-09-03T07:04:48.923-05:00We might get an idea of who published what by look...We might get an idea of who published what by looking at Amazon's list of best sellers for 2014.<br /><br />This is the ebook list<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2014/digital-text/154606011/ref=zg_bsar_nav_b_0_b/184-0552134-0318950<br /><br />Naturally it skews to Amazon sales but might be worth analysing to see how many were self-published ebooks. First page seems to indicate not many fall into that category.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-20346173463995559172015-09-03T06:55:00.076-05:002015-09-03T06:55:00.076-05:00I think there is some confusion over book sales an...I think there is some confusion over book sales and good books.<br /><br />If we accept that the best selling books are good (by whatever definition you care to apply) then most of the best selling books come via the traditional publishing route.<br /><br />As Rob points out there is a lot of crap (ie books that don't earn out) from traditional publishers. But it's the same for indies. Although it'd be a bad day if a traditionally published book didn't sell a single copy which is what happens with indie books.<br /><br />As Joe points out Indies outsell traditional publishing, according to the author earnins site, which is even stranger than they are not making the best seller lists. That might mean they are turning out even more bad books. And few of them ever meet the sales targets of the best of the traditionally published books.<br /><br />I think indies are good for mid list. Self publishing enables people to make a living a writing that otherwise wouldn't have. Once successful, the traditional publishers or Amazon will make their approaches. The best seller list beckons.<br /><br />Kindle Scout gives readers the chance to join in the publishing process. It'll be interesting to see what kind of books readers demand. And whether those books will make the best seller lists.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com