I'm currently in Florida, having just spoken at a mystery writer convention. They flew me here to talk about ebooks. And people were excited to hear what I had to say, both newbie authors, and professionals.
It seems like a lot of people are being dropped by their publishers. In the past week, I've personally spoken to six authors this has happened to.
I've also spoken to three authors whose publishers are releasing "enriched" ebooks of their upcoming work, involving video, interviews, and extras.
I'm sensing a shift. And this shift will likely prove fatal for many of the parties involved.
If, as I suspect, publishers are going to print fewer books, that will result in a death spiral. Fewer books printed means fewer sold in bookstores, who will no longer be able to stay open. Without bookstore orders, publishers will print even fewer books. And so on.
Publishers might be looking at enriched or enhanced ebooks as their new big-ticket items to replace hardcovers. But the major ebook retailer, Amazon, isn't set up for video. Kindle isn't even able to do color yet. That leaves Apple, and according to my numbers Apple is a very small part of the ebook market. I sell 200 ebooks a day on Kindle. On iPad, I sell 100 a month.
Enriched ebooks seem expensive, and I don't see the money pouring in yet.
But if print goes the way of the dodo, publishers will have to rely on ebooks. Plain old non-enriched ebooks. And if they keep offering authors 17.5% royalty on the cover price, they soon won't have any authors to publish. After all, authors can get 70% on their own. And it doesn't take 18 months to release it. Plus the author gets to pick the price, cover, and title.
I know an author whose book debuted on the extended NYT bestseller list, who was told that more than half of her sales were Kindle sales. If this author had self-published the title and sold it at a reasonable price (other than $9.99 set by the publisher) I bet the ebook sales would have been quadruple.
My friend Henry Perez currently has the #1 ebook on Amazon, Mourn the Living. His publisher was savvy enough to give it away for free. As a result, his first thriller, Killing Red, is selling very well, and broke the top 100 Kindle downloads. The novella we wrote together, Floaters, is also selling better than it ever has in the past 18 months.Update: The freebie promotion for Mourn the Living has ended, and Henry is currently the #1 overall paid Kindle Bestseller. Take that, Stieg Larsson.
And yet, even though Henry kicking ebook ass, this success doesn't appear to translate to his paperback sales--they're both ranked in the 200,000s and 400,000s.
We might be looking at the beginning of the end of print.
Naturally, people are bemoaning this. Here are some of the things I've heard so often, they're becoming cliches:
- I love print books
- I'll never get rid of my book collection
- I enjoy seeing a book on the shelf
- I like the tactile experience of paper
- Print books don't run out of batteries
- Ebooks hurt my eyes
- Ereaders are fragile and too expensive
- I love the smell of paper books
A growing ebook market means a shrinking print market. Those who want print to stay had better start buying more books.
Writers also seem to be defending the status quo. Very few believe, or want to believe, that the old gatekeeping system is crumbling down. They insist that publishers will somehow adapt.
Maybe publishers will adapt. Maybe bookstores will survive. Maybe print will persevere.
But it's important to look at this coldly.
It doesn't matter what writers, publishers, readers, and bookstores say they want.
It matters what they're doing.
Right now, readers are voting with their wallets. They're making the ebook market grow at an incredible rate; up 6% in just 12 months. That's over a 200% sales increase in ebooks.
Publishers are publishing fewer books, dropping authors, and seem to be pushing forward with ebooks with no real business plan. They price their ebooks too high, give authors too small a royalty, and are adding movies that can only be played on devices that people aren't using to read on, like the iPad.
Bookstores are selling fewer and fewer books, and are trying to get into the ebook market to save themselves.
And writers, brainwashed through years of Stockholm Syndrome, continue to have faith in a broken system that seems ill-equipped to weather the oncoming tsunami.
Everyone may want things to stay the same.
But you can't always get what you want.
266 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266I must say, I agree with everything you have said. I myself have just purchased my first Kindle... it should arrive in a week. And I have already read several books on the Kindle for Android app, and am in love with it. I have bought more books on that in the last month, than I have in bookstores in the last two years. I find bookstores to be incredibly expensive, and I just don't have the money for that. On Kindle, granted just like you said about the big publishers are charging way too much on there, I have found a little niche market of authors that charge less than $3 for their books. Those are what I go after.
And I'm well on my way to self-publish my own book on Kindle, and I am so excited that they make it so easy. Granted, that means there are some not-so-good authors out there releasing their stuff, but hey, that's what the comment system is for.
My question is about the enhanced ebooks. Why bother doing that when any author can at least get a free blogspot to post info and videos from youtube, or host chats online from places like gotomeeting.com? And it seems to me that most people don't even watch the extras on DVD's anymore (although I do) so they stopped putting the extras on there, so why do these publishers think that people want it on books? It's just something else to slow down the device.
The reason I love the Kindle, is that it is simple. I don't even like how they have an internet browser on it. I wouldn't mind it in color, but I just want it to remain simple. I tend to mess computers up for some reason. I won't drop them or anything, things just stop working around me. My husband calls me E.M.P. Girl, because we will drive down a road with streetlights, and the streetlights will shut off as we pass by. You might say it would be coincidental, but I can guarantee you, when it happens every single time we go down a street, even you, a thriller writer, would be shocked. So I like simple. LOL!
Anyhoo, I've followed you and look forward to reading your blogs :D
Indeed a publisher may (or may not) be better in exposing/marketing a book than I am.
Still it can take a long time before any new writer get his first book published the traditional way.
I honestly feel the technology is moving so fast that nobody can waste time by waiting to be accepted.
I also foresee that the agent/publishing system will collapse soon.
When I see a sinking ship I will not board it, I'll just look for another ship.
@Mark
I think making one's decisions with regards to publishing (or in fact any other topic), according to what has "more cachet", is a bit on the foolish side.
@Ellen, that's awesome about Vicki!
@AI.X. But But... The Titanic is unsinkable. Everybody knows that. Silly people! :P
@AI.X Had to post a link to my blog post from a few days ago. http://dun-scaith.blogspot.com/2010/08/ship-has-sunk-there-are-sharks-modern.html
the ship has sunk. lol.
Also, thanks for coming on and saying you're not good enough to self-publish yet. I wrote every day for about fifteen or sixteen years before deciding I was good enough. That was six years ago and I've improved lots since then.
This idea that writers don't know how good they are doesn't always hold true. Some of the ones that submit traditionally must know.
"But these protests and professions of love apparently aren't being followed up with ACTUALLY BUYING PRINT BOOKS."
I can't count the number of emails I received, back when I was being published regularly, in which someone would say, "You're one of my favorite writers. I always wait for your next book to become available at the library."
Or ... "I can't wait to borrow your latest book from my neighbor."
These are some of the same people who now write me and say, "Why aren't you being published anymore?"
News flash: If you won't shell out seven or eight bucks once a year for the latest paperback from one of your "favorite writers," don't be surprised when said writer stops getting published.
As Joe says, the same is probably true of many people who sing the praises of print. They like the idea of print, and maybe they enjoy shopping for $1 books at the local thrift store or library sale, but they aren't exactly keeping B&N and Borders afloat, now, are they?
JK you're a good writer, but please don't delude aspiring authors away from real publishing houses like you finally got picked up by.
The industry is failing, but not because of some Ereader bullshit trend. It's the quality of books- and they are largely crap ("Twilight" and "Eat Pray Love" are two of MANY examples). Print or digital.
Think carefully before self-publishing people, you'll lose more money than you think. And JK, PLEASE fess up to how you REALLY got your publishing contract.
I'm commenting on this from Australia so our trends would be behind the US. I wonder has anyone considered that the eBook is simply another method of delivery. Consider movies. Once upon a time we saw the only on cinema screens, now there are many ways. Perhaps book publishing will adapt to incorporate eBook publishing without completely dispensing with its old business model. Book stores might have to be smaller, more efficient and more diverse to survive but survive they will. The problem is that selling mass market fiction is to a bookstore what selling milk, bread and other staples is to a supermarket so I am not under-estimating the challenge.
Thomas Brookside wrote:
"The current system hands out very few financial rewards to authors but provides them with a lot of prestige.
I think even if they can make more money in the new paradigm and even if they can still find good books they want to read without much effort, these authors will feel highly aggrieved if the current system continues to disintegrate. If the statement "I've got a novel out right now," becomes the equivalent of "I sell handmade jewelry at flea markets on the weekend," these guys will be quite pissed off, even if they make more money and even if the slush apocalypse does not actually come about."
That is the freshest, funniest, and perhaps most painfully accurate, observation I've read in this discussion anywhere in months... and honestly mean that. I think you have a point.
Lee
Joe wrote: "New writers tend not to know how crummy their writing is. No one learns to play piano overnight. Same thing with crafting a narrative.
I've personally met thousands of newbie writers. I've only known two of these newbies that I knew were good enough to succeed--and both did. I've met maybe a dozen others that have potential. But that's it. The rest just aren't good enough.
Maybe they'll become good enough, with practice. But putting starter novels on Kindle isn't good for anyone."
I totally agree. So tell me.. why is it whenever I say the same thing I get castigated for it...and you don't?
I've said this many, many times... just because you can self-publish with a click of a mouse doesn't mean that you should. But apparently that's something you're not supposed to say in the presence of "indie" writers.
Lee
@RubyM the traditional publishers aren't looking for good books, they are looking for commercial books, books they think will sell.
So if the fault of publishing is bad books (which I disagree with, cos how bad can a book be if it sells millions?) it is the publishers fault for publishing them.
Which means in the future original, ground breaking books will be self-published.
Lee:
I think ego does play a part. Those of us who have worked for years to finally land a book deal certainly don't want to be equated with selling "handmade jewelry at flea markets on the weekend." If that's the case, the phrase "published author" will largely become meaningless.
I have sampled quite a few self-published novels on the Kindle site, and I have yet to find one I considered to be readable (not including writers like you and Joe and Eric Christopherson, who have or have had print deals and/or agents). Looking for a $.99-$2.99 diamond in the rough is a waste of time, IMO, when I can spend a few more bucks for something from a real publisher and be guaranteed at least some sort of minimum editorial standard. I think the buying public will eventually figure this out, and legitimate publishers will stay on top.
"But these protests and professions of love apparently aren't being followed up with ACTUALLY BUYING PRINT BOOKS."
I can't count the number of emails I received, back when I was being published regularly, in which someone would say, "You're one of my favorite writers. I always wait for your next book to become available at the library."
I can corroborate this to some degree. Not because I sing the praises of print books (I like them but I like ebooks too) but because the majority of my 700+ print book TBR pile comes from the secondary market: thrift stores, yard sales, and mostly from online trading sites like paperbackswap. With very few exceptions the only time I buy print books new off the shelf is when I have gift card money to burn or there is a crazy sale price. That probably doesn't sit well with a lot of authors, but it is the reality. I just can't afford full price print books in the quantities that I want to purchase them.
However, since I got an ereader I have purchased more ebooks in the past several months than I have purchased print books in the past several years. Why? Basically, I discovered indie books that are priced at a level comparable or less to what I would pay to ship a book (for trading). It now becomes as cost effective for me to purchase the ebook as it is to trade for a print book.
I purchase from small ebook presses as well but usually only if I can get them on sale at fictionwise or some other etailer. Though lower in price than the NY Pubs, they are still higher than I want to pay in comparison to what it would cost me to get a print book secondhand.
So essentially, indie authors and small epress authors are making way more money off me than trad authors. With indie books I can get good books to read (yeah, they're out there) at prices I like and also support the author. Works for me!
Eventually novels will be written by computer programs. The publishers will input the basic plot, sub-plots, characters--and hit enter. Publishing houses will actually be houses converted to offices, and occupied by two or three people who do it all. All this ego stuff will be history.
@Mark - I'm all for good writing and I understand about the panning for gold theory - no one wants to read crap. But did you miss Christy's link? (Birth Control is a Sin - it's worth posting again! *grin*) Awful self-pubbed works have always existed. Awful traditionally published works have also always existed. We've already, as readers, had to pan for gold. And as some here have noted, the crap the traditional pubs push from celebrity authors (or "lucky" ones like Stephanie Meyers perhaps) is... well... not exactly gold. Even when it sells.
Maybe it really does depend on your definition of "gold!"
@JudeHardin fully half of the 52 full priced traditionally published books I bought last year were crap. And of a much lower standard than I have come to expect from indie authors, who take a lot of time with their book because they have a lot of pride in their book because they love their book.
Dragon's Keeper by Robin Hobb had three mistakes on the first page, and considering the first page started halfway down, it was only around 3 paragraphs or so.
With the amount of obviously badly edited (unedited?) dross traditional publishers put out, I don't think the general public will react the way you expect them too.
Oh yeah, the public never goes the cheaper route. Never. They always shell out more money for a better product.
And the big companies never turn out crappy products. Never.
That's why Walmart and McDonald's are king.
Newsweek just reported about Joe in their new article "Who Needs a Publisher?"
It's really good.
Lee: "I've said this many, many times... just because you can self-publish with a click of a mouse doesn't mean that you should. But apparently that's something you're not supposed to say in the presence of "indie" writers."
This is true, but it's true of a lot of things in life. The trouble is that the "traditional" publishing route is predicated not on finding quality but on meeting sales goals to meet overhead and turn in a good quarterly profit report.
It's also predicated on control over the distribution of books, which was inevitable so long as the only way to get books from authors to readers was to print them up and physically distribute them to booksellers. This meant that publishers and booksellers had power over authors and readers, and they exploited this power for profit.
This model reached its apex in the 1990's when the superstores like B&N and Borders pushed most of the independent bookstores out of the picture, even as the number of publishers decreased with corporate acquisitions, etc. What this meant was an effective monopoly on publishing by a few large companies, and it meant they began to push a few big-selling authors at the expense of everybody else, because that was the best way to make a big profit in that model.
This meant that publishers felt free to abuse smaller authors, and they did this with abandon through the 1980's and 1990's. Contracts were not honored, letters not answered, phone messages not returned. In any business not operating as a monopoly, this sort of behavior would have put them out of business, but they survived and thrived with it.
This brings us back to Lee's point. One of the ways the large publishers justified their behavior was to say that they were "gatekeepers" that read the slush so you didn't have to. Being published became an ego thing like never before, because it meant that you had beaten the odds and so you must be a good writer. Conversely, those who didn't beat the odds must be bad, even though the reason to buy a book was never quality but perceived profitablity. This doesn't mean that they didn't publish good work (they often did) but rather that being good had little if anything to do with being published. But the myth that it did was and still is essential to the survival of the major publishing houses, and so they tend to poo-poo independents and small presses.
Then along came Amazon, and ebooks, and suddenly the entire old business model went from author-agent-publisher-distributor-bookseller-reader to author-bookseller-reader. And capitalism is doing what it is supposed to do: give people the opportunity to build a better mousetrap. This also means that there will be a lot of really, really bad ebooks published, because publishing is a whole lot harder to do than most would-be famous authors think. But like it or not, the rules of capitalism don't care what publishers or authors or agents or booksellers think. They just work the way they do, and some people compete and others don't.
Finally, Lee, in answer to your point about getting the indies mad: keep in mind that many of the indies are people who have been writing for a very long time and many of them have been mistreated by the publishing world. It's not merely being rejected, it's having their contracts violated, their calls not returned, and being told they suck by people who haven't even glanced at their work. So I think we can and should be a little bit forgiving when they get sensitive.
Tuppshar wrote: This is true, but it's true of a lot of things in life. The trouble is that the "traditional" publishing route is predicated not on finding quality but on meeting sales goals to meet overhead and turn in a good quarterly profit report.
That simply isn't true. That's the cliche that indie writers want to believe...but it's a myth. It's quality first. An editor has to believe not only it's quality, of course, but also it's marketability. But to say quality isn't a major determining factor -- in fact, the initial factor -- is inaccurate.
Being published became an ego thing like never before, because it meant that you had beaten the odds and so you must be a good writer. Conversely, those who didn't beat the odds must be bad, even though the reason to buy a book was never quality but perceived profitablity.
Again, you are operating from a ridiculously false premise based more on, I suspect, your own bitterness and resentment over past wrongs than on anything approaching fact. I won't deny that profitability plays a significant role -- it does in any business or the manufacture of any product. But quality has been, and always will be, the determining factor behind whether an editor gets passionately behind a book and champions it through publication...or whether anyone buys it.
Then along came Amazon, and ebooks, and suddenly the entire old business model went from author-agent-publisher-distributor-bookseller-reader to author-bookseller-reader.
Let's get real. That hasn't happened yet. And it may not happen. While the ebook segment has grown remarkably, it's still just a small percentage of all books sold. What you are stating as fact is wishful thinking. It may become true... or it could turn out that publishers end up dominating the e-book world as well. It's too soon to tell.
Lee: "That simply isn't true. That's the cliche that indie writers want to believe...but it's a myth. It's quality first. An editor has to believe not only it's quality, of course, but also it's marketability. But to say quality isn't a major determining factor -- in fact, the initial factor -- is inaccurate."
We have clearly had different experiences. Note that I said, quite clearly, that the current system does not in and of itself preclude quality. There are plenty of very fine writers producing very fine work, and there are certainly editors who both recognize quality and want to publish it (I've met them and talked with them). But those same editors know that their job is on the line if that work doesn't sell, because publishing is a business first, and art second. And any honest editor will tell you that they have to turn away a great deal of quality work simply because they can't fit it in and still make money.
"Again, you are operating from a ridiculously false premise based more on, I suspect, your own bitterness and resentment over past wrongs than on anything approaching fact."
Here you are presupposing that you know more about the experiences of other people than they themselves do (including, for some reason, me; have we met?). You are assuming that only your experiences are factual. Clearly this is not true. And you haven't addressed my central point, which is that in the current system, the supply of books exceeds what the publishers can put out and put on bookshelves, meaning that being unpublished does not necessarily mean that a work is of poor quality.
Keep in mind that publishing with the model you enjoy is a risky business; it costs thousands of dollars to prepare and produce a traditional print run, and with an unknown author you have no assurance that you'll recoup your investment. Quality is great when you can get it, but profit determines whether or not you will still be publishing books next year. Being something of a snob for quality myself, I wish it was different, just as a lot of people do, but business is business.
"Let's get real. That hasn't happened yet."
Actually, it has. This whole blog is run by a guy who is using this system to make money. Our small press makes more money off of Kindle sales than we ever did on print books. The question you are actually asking is whether or not this business model will supplant the older one, and there you are right; it's too soon to tell. It’s very possible that the two will exist side-by-side, just as people still go to concerts even though you ca listen to recorded music in your own home.
I think we agree more than we disagree, Lee. We both like quality (I've enjoyed enough of your work to know that), and we both are watching this whole thing play out with interest. We both understand that this is a business. A lot depends on Amazon, because they do two things. First, they offer excellent terms to small publishers and independents, and second they have structured their site to direct customers to books they might find of interest, making even niche books like the ones we sell marketable. If they hadn't, then it would be very difficult for both independents and small presses to be having the success they are.
It's going to be quite a ride, whatever happens. Hope you enjoy it as much as I am.
And any honest editor will tell you that they have to turn away a great deal of quality work simply because they can't fit it in and still make money.
This is true.
But, I'm just not sure where all that rejected quality work ends up. I think maybe those authors simply keep writing and querying and submitting (I personally know some authors this is true of). They do not, for the most part, self-publish. If they did, we would see more quality work in that arena.
Also, true, Jude. A lot of quality work is probably languishing on hard drives and in drawers. And it's very possible that a lot more work that could be of high quality with some editorial help is also languishing.
The question that fascinates me, though, is this: if authors find that they can make good money self-publishing, will that lead to some of those languishing works finding their way onto Kindles?
Maybe. And I also think we'll see a lot of work that is good but that could be better finding its way into ebook form. Remember: publishing isn't the same as writing. Editing, proofreading and cover design, not to mention promotional material, require very different talents than producing a story. As Lee said, just because you can publish something doesn't always mean you should. But also, just because agents and publishers don't feel they can make a profit off your work doesn't mean you shouldn't.
@Jude
More talented writers are self-publishing by the day.
But the goal posts will always move.
For example, even though a lot of better writers are starting to self-publish (whether or not they started out with another type of publisher), there will still always be a LOT more self-published drek out there.
So no matter how many good indies there are, it won't matter to people like yourself. Because you can always pose the same argument.
But just like you can't judge every mom and pop restaurant based on one bad one you ate at, you can't judge all indie work that way.
I think people find what they are looking to find. Those very against self-publishing seem to be drawn like a magnet to the huge array of junk. But plenty of other readers seem to be finding the good indie work just fine. Those people have no stake in how this all turns out.
Human beings will go to great lengths to protect their own sense of validation in life. If that means ignoring good indie authors in favor of pointing at the steaming piles of poop, they will do it.
But none of us can control the crap that gets put out. Just like we can't control bad music or bad movies or bad youtube videos, blogs, and websites.
It just doesn't matter how much "bad stuff" is out there. Just ignore it. Everyone else is. In a digital world, it just disappears.
And Thomas, I'm with you on this one. I don't see where the fire is. If someone is "good enough" for a trad publisher,I can see where someone really invested in the trad path might try to sway them from self-pubbing. But I don't get this argument from crap.
It doesn't make any sense.
The crap isn't a threat. Those writers will either figure out they wrote crap when it doesn't sell, and try again just like everyone who gets rejected the traditional way, or they won't and will sink to the bottom.
The crap isn't hurting anyone.
Most people are not going to get published the traditional way. Whether they can write or not. NY only has so many slots open and small presses can't do a thing for a savvy indie that they can't do for themselves, except for take a good chunk of their profit.
I've had several readers who (despite all my rah rah indie online) had never heard of me and didn't know I was self-pubbed when they read me. It wasn't until later when they went looking for more of my work that they figured out I was an indie.
I have ZERO competitive advantage with a small press. And NY would ignore anything I wanted in favor of their own bottom line. It continues to surprise me how it's so hard for people to get why someone would WANT to go indie.
We aren't talking validation and "good enough" here. We're talking about the best realistic business decision. Too many people are so stuck on needing to be loved and validated that they'd rather throw money or creative control away just to be patted on the head like a good puppy.
"I have ZERO competitive advantage with a small press."
This is true if you have all the other talents needed to publish successfully, or are willing to learn them. I do wonder how many authors wouldn't mind splitting the take with a fair publisher if that publisher provided them or even just helped them with things like editing, proofreading, and cover design and promotion.
"And NY would ignore anything I wanted in favor of their own bottom line."
I was in New York last month and happened upon the corporate headquarters of Random House. Thinking it was a bookstore at first, I wandered in and took a look at their lobby.
And all I could think of was what the rent for that place must be...
Re: "Too many people are so stuck on needing to be loved and validated that they'd rather throw money or creative control away just to be patted on the head like a good puppy."
------------------------
What's with the condescending assumption of other people's motives?
And why do you presume to know they are seeking some sort of emotional validation in their efforts?
Could it be that some folks just want to know their work was good enough to reach the top?
And for better or worse, traditional publishing is still the top of the heap.
The defiant attitude expressed by so many indie authors is amazing to me. They deride traditional publishers for their arrogance and elitism, yet at the same time exhibit much of the same "know it all" attitude they condemn.
You guys can sing the praises of indies all you want, tell me how kindles and ebooks are the wave of the future, post with glee of the impending downfall of the evil "big 6". All of that changes nothing.
The fact remains, IMO, the majority of self published work is crap. Far more than traditionally published work. And the reason many independent authors can't get published is they are just not good enough. Period, end.
The fact remains, IMO, the majority of self published work is crap.
Has everyone forgotten that we live in a world where Jersey Shore is a HUGE hit? Shit sells. A lot of it. Publishers know it. We can argue for hours about who is more "literary" but in the end, none of that matters. What matters to publishers is whether or not your book ends up in a stripped pile or in a bargain bin.
If I thought I could write a compelling narrative about teen vampires, I would start today.
Yes, shit sells.
But I'm not one of those buying it. And I don't waste my time watching shitty movies or ignorant reality TV shows either.
In my mind, self publishing crappy writing is no achievement at all, no matter how much money you make doing it.
Amazon’s Kindle platform is almost three years old.
In the last three years, New York has published 150,000 novels.
Today, there are 700,000 books on Kindle. 100,000 are novels.
35,000 romance
25,000 thrillers
15,000 historical
15,000 literary
10,000 sci-fi
10,000 fantasy
25,000 Kindle novels have no customer reviews.
40,000 Kindle novels have customer reviews of 4-stars or higher.
1000 Kindle novels per year sell more than 5000 copies.
10,000 New York novels per year sell more than 5000 copies.
95% of bestselling Kindle novels are published by New York.
The only novelists that are eager to self-publish on Kindle are the ones that New York is failing to help. How many literary losers can Amazon save? 120,000? 1,200,000?
If writing is a business, why do authors make decisions based on emotion instead of logic? Why does self-publishing feel like an act of revenge?
How many Kindle owners are getting excited to fill their digital library with the works of a New York Free Worstselling Author?
When will New York start releasing books in 3D?
I have read 1000 books in my life. Only one was self-published. It was written by Joe Konrath. Who should I try to read next?
Maybe Joe’s success on Kindle is a mystery, like Dan Brown’s success in print. Are there any other self-published Kindle authors making over $100,000 per year?
- Jack
If writing is a business, why do authors make decisions based on emotion instead of logic? Why does self-publishing feel like an act of revenge?
If someone who has never previously been published finishes a manuscript this evening, the only logical choice they can make is to self-publish it.
Very interesting article on an important topic. I have only worked in the publishing industry for a short time but already I see how much is changing. I love books and am (as you described) one of those who loves the feel and smell of a book. As an avid reader I buy as many books as I can, but I'm just one person. Ebooks may be the future, but I'll keeping buying print books for as long as I can.
"Dan Brown’s success in print."
Haha!!!
It's just business, folks. The authors in here that knock us self published folks are running out of ammo.
When 10% of the top bestsellers on Amazon are by people who still think Obama was born in Kenya, or about teen vampires/ zombies, the "I'm publishing art" argument falls sorta flat.
"How many literary losers can Amazon save?"
Classy.
Jack King writes: 1000 Kindle novels per year sell more than 5000 copies.
10,000 New York novels per year sell more than 5000 copies.
95% of bestselling Kindle novels are published by New York.
Those are eye-opening numbers. In other words, despite all the hype and wishful thinking of "indie" writers, print still dominates. And in the e-world, NY publishers still dominate in sales, if not in number of e-book titles published. What these numbers tell us is that readers are still turning to recognized publishers and authors over "indie" fare...
Of course, that could change. But if you only believed what you read in the comments here, the NY publishing business has toppled and "indie" writers are taking over.
Brick-and-mortar bookstores may be on the way out....but NY Publishing companies will evolve in the same way the record companies had to with the demise of record stores.
The editing skills and marketing muscle of NY Publishers will still be appreciated by authors...as will the negotiating skills and connections of agents.
The big question is whether the advances and royalties offered by NY will make it a more attractive choice than self-publishing...
Lee
It takes a tremendous amount of imagination and logic to write a novel. Those talents would provide a better return if channeled elsewhere.
That's my advice to newbie authors.
The average book in America sells about 500 copies" (Publishers Weekly, July 17, 2006).
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/book_writing_not_rewarding_on.php
Not sure if that number includes self-pubbed/small presses etc. For any author to make a living is amazing.
The wonderful thing about the electronic world is any book is available indefintly with very little effort. print books are given a few months and then dumped- physical space is limited. Which can saturate the market even more. But if someone reads a new Selena Kitt 5 years from now, with little effort they can go find and obtain her entire backlist. How many authors can you say that of in print? i ish i could find some crap (it was crap- read Sweet Valley High for instance) I read as a teenager. They are gone, baby, gone.
As for bad books- don't just speak with your pocket book. Speak with your keyboard, write a review.
@jt I thought you wanted me to ignore you. Or are you over that now?
I've also never posted "with glee" about the downfall of the big 6. I just think it's a Titanic. Incidentally I wasn't gleeful when I first heard the story of the original Titanic either. I wasn't like "Yay, death and hypothermia!"
Just because I think something's going to happen doesn't mean I'm "gleeful" about it.
I also don't recall saying "everyone" needed this kind of emotional validation. There are many perfectly valid reasons someone could seek a NY publisher. But plenty of people by their own WORDS express that they NEED that kind of validation. So I'm not presuming anything about anyone. I'm taking what they say about needing to be deemed "good enough" by a "real agent or editor" at face value.
Also... what heap? I wasn't aware there was a "heap".
Readers don't even think like this. Readers care about good books and good authors. They don't subdivide based on how one got published or who their publisher is. That's all industry and writer nonsense.
I know many writers want to "believe" readers care who published a book, but I've met very few readers who aren't also writers or otherwise involved in the publishing industry, that think that way.
When 10% of the top bestsellers on Amazon are by people who still think Obama was born in Kenya, or about teen vampires/ zombies, the "I'm publishing art" argument falls sorta flat.
LMAO!
Zoe,
Go back and reread what I posted. Slowly this time.
You are attributing comments I never made about you specifically.
And for the record, I am not trying to engage you on any level. I posted my thoughts in response to comments you made. I am merely participating in the discussion.
By all means, please ignore me.
What's really fascinating about this debate is the fact that writers are the snobs when it comes to self-publishing. Readers don't give a crap. If it's good they'll buy it and tell their friends.
@Gary
I have to agree! LOL
jude said:
> I have sampled quite a
> few self-published novels
> on the Kindle site, and
> I have yet to find one I
> considered to be readable
i believe jude has said this
before. lots of times before.
so many times that i'm gonna
start counting how many times
he says it, starting with now...
that's time #1. so far...
some of the rest of you/us
could cut back the repetition
as well, it's getting to be very
very very very boring in here.
rex, you can post as much
as you like, you are funny...
-bowerbird
I think you need to separate Kindle app purchases versus purchases made on a Kindle.
I own an iPad. I love reading on it. But I buy my books on the Kindle app as Amazon sells books better than iBooks does.
I think Amazon as done a great job getting the Kindle app on Mac, PCs, Android, iPad, iPods...etc.
You should not confuse the store selling the ebook with the device used to read it.
Lee: "Those are eye-opening numbers. In other words, despite all the hype and wishful thinking of "indie" writers, print still dominates. And in the e-world, NY publishers still dominate in sales, if not in number of e-book titles published. What these numbers tell us is that readers are still turning to recognized publishers and authors over "indie" fare...
Of course, that could change. But if you only believed what you read in the comments here, the NY publishing business has toppled and "indie" writers are taking over."
I'm not sure these numbers are "eye-opening"; rather, they aren't really surprising. Print books have been around since Gutenberg (about 500 years), and in some form or another much longer (4000 years). Ebooks have been around for less than two decades. Also, New York publishers are established, and have many decades of advantages over newer ones. As I noted in an earlier post, this advantage reached near-monopolistic proportions in the 1990's, and to expect that to change overnight is clearly premature.
Here's the thing I find interesting: not whether the "Big 6" are going to fail in the face of changing conditions in the publishing field (some may, some may not), but how the face of publishing itself is changing. Here are some thoughts:
I think that for the writers at the very top (Stephen King, J.K. Rowling) and those near the top (Ursula K. LeGuin), things will change very little. They are near-guaranteed moneymakers, and no businessperson in their right mind would mess with a good thing. So long as they can retain and heavily promote those writers, the major publishers should be able to maintain profitability. One challenge for the large houses is to find and cultivate the next generation of such writers.
It gets more interesting with mid-list writers (here I think we can include folks like Joe). Will these writers, having the option of going it alone as Joe has done, start making more demands of their publishers? Will the publishers continue to try and control the electronic rights to these authors' works? Here the publishers will need to adapt.
For new writers, the question of whether or not to self-publish has now changed. Here it is difficult to generalize, since there are so many authors who fall into this category. For those with the skills to do the entire publishing process themselves, self-publishing may be the best route, especially if they write in narrow niches (and there are many such) that are unlikely to attract the attention of traditional publishers because they are not seen as profitable on a large scale. Others, who believe they can be the next J.K. Rowling, etc., are probably better off trying to find an agent and going the more traditional route. You make your decision and take your chances, since neither route is risk-free.
For me, what's most interesting is that these changes (spurred largely by Amazon) are beginning to break down the near-monopoly of the major publishing houses and are opening doors to profitability for smaller publishers and self-publishers who, among other things, don't have the same expensive overhead as the larger firms do. This may (and I hope it does) open the door to a more diverse range of published work being available than was possible before. It will also result in a lot of very bad material being published (and indeed it already has).
Some find this last fact appalling, though I'm not quite sure why, since it is as easy to peruse an ebook as a regular book, and the buying decision is still very much the same.
bob said:
> I think you need to
> separate
> Kindle app purchases
> versus
> purchases made on a Kindle.
why?
joe doesn't care what kind of
machine you read his books on.
as long as you buy at amazon,
he gets his money, thank you...
and amazon doesn't care which
machine you read its books on.
as long as you buy at amazon,
it gets the money, thank you...
-bowerbird
> 1000 Kindle novels
> per year
> sell more than 5000 copies.
>
> 10,000 New York novels
> per year
> sell more than 5000 copies.
>
> 95% of
> bestselling Kindle novels
> are published by New York.
i'd like to see some evidence for
those statistics, but taking 'em
as accurate at face value, it'd
seem that it should be easy to
find the 50 self-published novels
yearly that one should peruse.
voila, l'overload est vanquished.
if your taste runs to best-sellers,
that is...
-bowerbird
I find it interesting that the interwebs have focused on how my Kindle ebooks are far outselling iPad.
One case steady for one month does not a trend make, and I think it's a wee bit early to draw any conclusions.
Six months, maybe a year from now, we'll see how my iPad sales are, and how they compare. We'll also no doubt hear from other authors.
When we have a lot of authors comparing sales data over a period of time, we can start talking about dominant ereader platforms. Until then, please don't draw hasty conclusions based on my early numbers.
That said, Amazon makes it very easy for browsers to find me, and Apple does not, so I'd guess things won't change very much in terms of percentages. But that's a guess, not a fact.
@bowerbird Yes, unless I can think up something new and earth shattering to say in this thread (unlikely), I'm just letting my posts stand as they are. People can read or not. I'm tired of repeating myself 300 times in one thread and I know everyone is tired of reading it.
With regards to this:
so many times that i'm gonna
start counting how many times
he says it, starting with now...
that's time #1. so far...
Let's make it a drinking game. :)
Even dead, Steig Larson, holds the top three spots on all of the lists, and the films haven't come out yet. Mr. Perez is unlikely to achieve this, but he has climbed the highest on one list. As always, the exceptions are as that label is defined.
To the so-called Indie publishers posting here, no one has ever heard of you. I predict this will hold true for all of the reasons Lee stated. The fact is, despite slush pile odds of a small percentage of these works being publishable, they aren't in their present form. This is why industry sanctioning, and the quality controls that come with it, still, and will, rule the commercial marketplace. For you see they put out quality books in electronic form too, as well as hardcover paperback. Everyone else doesn't necessarily do so. A bad product from clueless wannabes will never win the day. Never.
@Mark
It depends on what you define as "winning the day" and "crap". From what I've seen, many people will define anything indie as automatically crap whether they've read it or not, and any level of success as automatically inferior unless the book says "Random House" on the spine.
I'm fairly certain that there are talented indies out there. I know, because I've read many of them. Susan Bischoff, Kait Nolan, Moriah Jovan, M.T. Murphy, Levi Montgomery...
One who I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading, Amanda Hocking is right as we speak... number 25 in the overall Kindle store. FIRST FREAKING PAGE!
She just released this new ebook. She's been building a backlist steadily (I admire the hell out of her productivity), has great covers, and from what I'm hearing everywhere, great books.
She's an indie.
Go indie!
People can buy her new release, Wisdom, here
So, despite what you say... it does appear that many indies "are" in fact "winning the day". They might end up winning the week, month, year, and decade while they're at it.
It doesn't matter at the end of the day if your book is in print or electronic print. Let's just get on with the process of creating good work.
@Tupsharr press. I totally agree with you. I keep telling people if they want to go the trad route, go with a small pub. These people have their fingers on the ball, they react quickly to change, they are your best bet if all you want to do is write.
Me, I want to do it all. I'm currently writing a zombie book, I had the cover image and title in mind before I had the story.
I adore my collection of paper books; ever since my husband and I began writing a fiction adventure series--a little over ten years ago--we dreamed of having our books in print one day. There is nothing like a paper book and a small, family-owned bookstore on the corner to buy them from. The steady climb of prices over the last ten years has been heartbreaking to watch, even more so to see the little shops begin closing up one by one, starting long before the eBook phenomena really took hold.
After having a literary agent for a year and a considerable pile of rejection letters we dropped the agent and began posting sample chapters online. The overwhelming amount of positive feedback led us to compile a website in early 2008 and begin selling our lovingly crafted PDFs to wiling buyers, ones who could no longer afford to go to the strip mall book conglomerate nearest them for reading materials, and who had already read the genres out at their local library. These frontier explorers bought and tired new indie authors at a fraction of the price and then recommended them to their friends and so on.
We've earned a modest second income since then with our eBooks, penning two new titles each year, and keeping 80%-85% of the sales... no publishing cost, no agent, no distributors, no publicist.
I inwardly lament--at times--not being 'in print', and yet I also sense the shift mentioned in this well-penned piece. I remedied my laments by going out and having our adventure series printed and bound, one copy of each, for our own shelves. We likewise will retain our shelves of loved paper books, but I have not bought a new book in years; as a book reviewer, I get my advance copies for free. Soon, I fear, that pool will dry up as well.
Cheers.
I won't apologize for being a lover of books. My oldest is from 1890's. Maybe it will become even more valuable in time.
I think writer's have been seriously underpaid and under appreciated or used and abused if you like. Could you imagine an actor taking 15% of his 20M then giving his agent another 15%. I think the mid list author will finally get his due. Perhaps the big guns will be forced to give us the quality we deserve.
I'm throwing my hat in the ebook ring this fall. I'm as hopeful as I am terrified.
I just stumbled into this blog as I am not a writer, I am a reader. I am an avid reader, and devour two or three books every week. From what I can gather about readers in the US, I guess this means I read more in a month than the average American reads in a year.
Since I am retired, I can little afford to purchase a couple $25-30 hardcover books every week. I can't even afford to buy many $9 paperbacks or $9.99 e-books per week; so I go to my local library.
Now you authors may well be asking, "So what?". Well, first of all, reading through posts here it seems that the writer community thinks Kindle and e-book are synonymous. I can understand that since Amazon has the prettiest bookstore going right now, but you do need to understand that having your e-book published by them does cut you off from a certain segment of e-reader owners.
More to the point, it cuts you off from being added to the e-collection of any libraries. This may be a bit "geeky", but there has been a standard format established for electronic publication and that is .EPUB. Unfortunately, Amazon has chosen to leave the ability to read .epub missing from the Kindle. Further, .epub is the format that Overdrive, the management software that libraries use to distribute electronic reading material, uses.
It would probably be a real incentive to Amazon to update the Kindle firmware to accept .epub if writers began to push them. Yeah, they might lose a few sales to less pretty online stores, but I think their bottom line could stand it, but it would mean you could sell book there also.
BTW, I would love to buy your book Joe, but since I have a Sony reader I wouldn't be able to use it.
belator books said:
> we dreamed of having
> our books in print one day.
> There is nothing like
> a paper book
both lulu and createspace
make very nice p.o.d. books
these days, at _great_ prices
considering the fact that you
can order a print-run of 1...
indeed, the quality of their
output is often _better_than_
the product out of new york,
since they use better paper...
> http://simoncheshire.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/the-quality-paperback-is-dead/
every author needs a copy of
every single one of their books
proudly displayed on their shelf.
-bowerbird
the problem with library books
by overdrive (with adobe d.r.m.)
is that there are two middlemen
(overdrive and adobe) who want
to be paid, and both of them are
charging quite exorbitant rates.
so don't try to get amazon to
pay these costly middlemen --
since it just ain't gonna happen.
instead, get your local library to
work with other libraries to get
amazon to support library usage.
-bowerbird
Amazon doesn't have to pay Overdrive, the libraries already do that. They simply have to start selling e-books in .epub format.
@JSM Most of us aren't just available on the Kindle, but it's what we talk about the most and focus most of our marketing efforts because it's where we get most of our sales, due to Amazon's superior book recommendations system.
Most of us are also available at Smashwords (multi-format including epub), Sony ebookstore, Apple ibookstore, Kobo, Diesel, and Barnesandnoble.com
But most of us aren't making enough money from any of these other outlets to talk that much about it. We're there though for people who need those other formats and seek us out directly.
As for overdrive... Springbrook Audiobooks can get indies into Overdrive if they're interested.
However, I would hope someone would be willing to pay $2.99 or less to read my work and own it in E, rather than getting it from their library. It's just not that expensive to read me.
> Amazon doesn't
> have to pay Overdrive,
> the libraries
> already do that.
please educate yourself
before you speak publicly.
if amazon wants to offer
books through overdrive,
they must pay overdrive,
and part of that charge
gets funneled to adobe
for handling the d.r.m.
on the files. believe me,
that d.r.m. is expensive.
and if you knew how much
overdrive soaks libraries
-- public tax dollars! --
you might just be appalled.
-bowerbird
Unfortunately you don't know how many of the Kindle store sales were actually purchased through the iPad Kindle app on the iPad and consumed on the iPad. All you know, is that it was purchased through the Kindle store or the iBooks store.
Likely, about half of those books purchased were read on the iPad, as there has been as many iPads sold to date as there have been Kindles sold all time with each numbering around 4.5 million each. This number does include the number of books purchased through the Kindle iPhone or iPad Touch. So the devices they are actually being read on might be mostly iOS 4.
Just something to consider.
Bonnie Cotman said...
This is a great topic.
I just wanted to say that change can be a scary thing, but we have to face the fact that life as we know it is changing forever, and the changes are going to become more and more profound. Whether the changes be bad or good, the challenge to make the best of those changes will be ours. If print books go out more trees will be saved.
I for one are bent on self publishing because I have no other choice. Besides, I'm a natural born DIY fool, so I'm making every effort possible to bring my book to market and will put it out in print and e-book. And I'm deaf to boot. My challenges will be crucial enough, but I so strongly believe in my present nonfiction titles that I will stop at nothing to get it all published.
I'm saying that it don't matter which way the industry goes because I'm watching it and intend to make the best of whatever situation. So far, I'm finding fraudulent statements being made in some publishers' websites and I'm looking for patterns in advertisements and books doing the same thing. Telling us what we can't do so a sale can be made.
My opinion to all is to look for patterns because I found that most statements we hear over and over again are actually oppositional in truth. And we must protect ourselves from being told what we want to hear. What we want to hear will help us to part with our money, but it won't provide the answers we need. Be careful. Don't let other people's desperation to stay in business deter you from your goal.
Huh. Chances are, those telling us not to do this or that is doing exactly that!
Post a Comment