Lee Child Chimes In

Joe: Yesterday I asked any Authors United signatory to engage me on my blog.

Lee Child took me up on it.

For those who aren't familiar with Lee, he's the author of nineteen mystery-thriller novels and over a dozen shorts about military policeman Jack Reacher (who was also the basis of hit movie in 2012 starring Tom Cruise). They are among the most popular books in the modern era, and Lee is a worldwide bestseller. They're well-written and I've read several and enjoyed them.

Lee's first novel was published in 1997. He's bought me too many beers to count at various conferences over the years, and was kind enough to blurb my second novel in 2004. (Lee may hold the record for blurbing more novels than anyone, which is testimony to his generosity). He also has volunteered at International Thriller Writers since its inception, and is a pleasant guy to hang out with.

Here is Lee's original email. Afterward, I'll break it down with my responses..

Lee: Joe, thanks for the invitation to participate.

Here’s my personal take … speaking generally, with a plural “you” … and as a guy entirely unafraid of the future, whatever it may bring – after all, I kicked your ass under the old system, and I’ll kick it under the new system, and the new-new, and the new-new-new, until I retire, or the lung cancer gets me, whichever comes first. I’m completely confident of that, and you’d be an idiot to bet against me. We both started from nowhere, and in the last three weeks I sold more ebooks – of one title – than you have sold in your entire life. Or will sell. Print visibility, you say? How? Print is a niche, according to you, and no one visits bookstores anymore!

And don’t tell me I was lucky or “anointed” or some such … again, we all start from the same place, but I worked harder and smarter than my rivals, and believe me, I’m ready to do it all again … so don’t tell me I’m scared or whining – truth is, I’m licking my lips in anticipation of the big win in whatever scenario comes next.

And let’s settle one thing … the so-called Amazon/Hachette contract … I think you overestimate it, or misunderstand it, possibly. It ain’t the key to some kind of magic kingdom. Almost every sale Amazon makes happens without a contract with the supplier or manufacturer. It used to be that way with Hachette. Hachette sold to wholesalers, at a certain discount, and the wholesalers sold on to Amazon, at a slight markup. Soon Amazon wanted to avoid that markup, so it went to Hachette and asked, “Please will you sell to us direct?”  And Hachette said, “OK.”  And that’s the so-called contract, right there.

Subsequently Amazon larded on the "fees"... in street terms, protection money, to keep the playing field level with other publishers also paying protection money. Equal visibility and honest rankings – which are the best kind of visibility – were at stake. In plain English, Amazon was saying, “Give us cash under the table or we’ll lie in public about the relative merit and appeal of your products.”

Publishers were, of course, accustomed to that – B&N pioneered a junior version long ago – so it was business as usual. No sympathy from me, by the way. Life ain’t fair, things suck, get over it.

But, here’s the thing – by continuing to trade under expired terms, it’s Hachette doing Amazon a favor, not vice versa. Amazon is still getting its protection money – and giving nothing in return right now – and still avoiding the wholesalers’ markup.

If Hachette walked away, Amazon would lose... unless it was prepared not to carry Hachette titles ever again. Which it isn’t, because Amazon’s whole theory is to be the go-to, first-stop, everything store. “I’ll get it from Amazon” is what they depend on hearing. “I wonder if Amazon has it?” would be the kiss of death.

Which is why the dispute is so intractable. It’s half-rational, half-emotional. And flawed – Amazon wants more protection money now (yes, it’s really that simple) but it isn’t prepared to get up from the table and walk away. Neither is Hachette. Hachette’s best play – logically – would be to walk away and suffer a few lean years before an alternative presented itself. I’m absolutely sure its parent company wants it to do that, and would support it in so doing. Huge European corporations are good at the long game. But local management is resisting, because the hiatus would derail too many careers. Again, half-rational, half-emotional.

And no big deal, in the grand scheme of things. Not to me, anyway. I’m not a Hachette author. PRH is a different ballgame, and as I said, even if it gets beat, I’ll prosper under whatever comes next.

So why did I sign my friend Doug’s letter?

Because of what I know, and what I can guess. I've known Amazon people for 17 years, dozens of them, old hires, new hires, quitters, true believers, through dinner party talk, pillow talk, all kinds of talk. I’m making no value judgments – you’ll never hear any of that from me – but things are what they are. And the big deal is – Amazon is a publisher too. Not a very good one yet – no big hits so far, and they missed the biggest trade publishing phenomenon of recent years, even though it was right under their noses – but Bezos never gives up, and he wants Amazon to be the only publisher, and he’ll do what it takes to make it so. Which casts a different light on what’s happening. He’s broken rivals before, and he’ll keep on trying.

So it’s a thus-far-and-no-further thing for me. I don’t want Amazon to be the only publisher. Neither should you.

It’s staggeringly naïve to think the current KDP landscape is anything other than a short-term tactic. Note well – I am NOT saying don’t get into it now just because it will get worse in the future... instead I say, hell yes, make hay while the sun shines. Exploit Amazon’s game plan for all you can get, as long as it lasts, and more power to you. But understand that today’s KDP is a pressure point, designed to suck authors out of the established system, along with sucking out money and margin by other routes. Truth is, it ain’t working great so far – no significant authors have jumped ship, and publishers are still profitable. But Bezos never gives up.

And if he wins... then we all have a problem. Note well – I am NOT talking about nurturing or culture or curating or any of that kind of non-existent crap. I’m talking about money. Amazon is a tech company. The basic tech paradigm says content is always the smallest part of the cost. Those guys really believe that. Storytellers will be working for whatever few pennies they choose to hand out. (Or some will. I’ll be doing something else by then. I don’t work for pennies.)

And don’t tell me some alternate savior will ride to the rescue. There won’t be one. Publishing makes no sense to any other player. Certainly there won’t be a publishing-only player. Not enough margin in it.

Now, I fully understand lots of folk will scoff and disagree and make fun of me. Have at it. I don’t care. I have no dog in this fight. I’m old and staggeringly rich and I can live like a king without making another buck ever. I have nothing to be scared of. That should be you. Your hopes are pinned to a mast that isn’t a mast at all. It’s a spear, and when it has done its job, it will be dumped.

So really we should all be equally concerned. We should make common cause. Behind the noise and the bullshit we’re all trying to do the same thing – sell our stories to the same people, for a living wage. And it’s those last four words that made me sign the letter. Not my living wage – that’s already in the bank – but yours, and the people that come after us.

Joe: Thanks for participating, Lee. (And a word of warning to commentors: Stay polite. Keep your comments focused on the argument. Anything personal and I will remove your comment and ban you. I see this as an opportunity to talk in depth about some important issues. If you want to troll, flame, hurl insults, or act badly, do it on your own blog.)

I'm now going to respond to your points.

Lee: Here’s my personal take … speaking generally, with a plural “you” … and as a guy entirely unafraid of the future, whatever it may bring – after all, I kicked your ass under the old system, and I’ll kick it under the new system, and the new-new, and the new-new-new, until I retire, or the lung cancer gets me, whichever comes first. I’m completely confident of that, and you’d be an idiot to bet against me. We both started from nowhere, and in the last three weeks I sold more ebooks – of one title – than you have sold in your entire life. Or will sell. Print visibility, you say? How? Print is a niche, according to you, and no one visits bookstores anymore!

Joe: First of all, congrats on selling more than 1.5 million ebooks (which is where I'm at to date) in the last three weeks. I assume I'll sell a few million more before I kick off, so let's call my total lifetime sales 5 million. It's damn impressive that you sold that many ebooks in three weeks of just one title.

But it's also nearing the end of that era. You're everywhere books are sold. I'm not. That's a huge advantage. One I never had. Your massive paper distribution serves as a giant, global advertisement for your ebooks.

Let's set aside the quality of our writing because that's subjective. We both attained a minimum quality standard to get the attention of major publishers. But the legacy industry never handed me the keys to the kingdom like they did with you. No coop. No discounts on the front table. No giant print runs and distribution. No worldwide sales.

You may believe the legacy publishing world is a meritocracy. I believe it's a lottery. No one earns a lottery win. No one is entitled to it.

You've kicked my ass because you had the weight of two heavy hitters behind you (Penguin and Random House) who got your books everywhere in the US with major marketing pushes. I'm unfamiliar with your UK and foreign publishers, but I'm betting they did an equally good job at distributing and promoting you everywhere books are sold.

This only happens to a rare few. 

Lee: And don’t tell me I was lucky or “anointed” or some such … again, we all start from the same place, but I worked harder and smarter than my rivals, and believe me, I’m ready to do it all again … so don’t tell me I’m scared or whining – truth is, I’m licking my lips in anticipation of the big win in whatever scenario comes next.

Joe: I'm not discounting your talent, or hard work, or business savvy. You've written some good books, made some smart choices, and fought hard for your career.

So have I. You're aware of that, as are readers of this blog.

But I never got the same breaks you did. Neither did 99.9999% of authors. While book sales aren't zero sum, there are only a certain number of titles that get put into the bestseller track and get a massive marketing push.

I understand why you believe talent and effort win the day, but you're wrong. Unlike a sport, such as track and field or basketball, writing talents and efforts don't translate to stats because there is no even playing field. Usain Bolt can run 200 meters anywhere on the planet. Michael Jordan can have a personal best even when his team is losing. Their successes don't depend on other factors.

Authors can't do it alone, and publishers make a lot of mistakes. Neither you nor I had any power over how many stores our titles were available in, or how big our marketing pushes were, or if our titles were pre-printed on the NYT Bestseller list, or how many reviews we received, or how many ads were bought. We don't know how my books would sell in airports or drug stores or Sam's Club or in Uzbekistan, because I've never been available in those places. We don't know what would have happened if I'd landed at Simon & Schuster rather than Hyperion (S&S made an offer, we didn't take it).

That's luck, Lee.

You seem to be arguing that your sales resulted from you working harder and smarter. But correlation doesn't equal causality. Yes, you worked hard and smart. Yes, you're one of the most successful writers in modern times. But any conclusions you draw are speculative.

Certainly you've read good books that were never huge hits. Certainly you've read huge hits that weren't good books. Certainly you know how hard and smart other authors have worked. Certainly you've seen titles get bestseller treatment and flop. In each of these cases, I'm right, not you. Luck played a big role.

If your success is fully based on the strength of your writing and your efforts, you can pull a Richard Bachman and soar up the charts with a pen name. By the way, Bachman didn't sell as well as King. Thinner sold 28,000 copies as Bachman, and 10x that amount when he was revealed as King. 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Richard_Bachman.html

Or I could write a novel under your name and it would sell as well as the rest of your backlist, and I bet no one would even know. You're a fine writer and storyteller, but I could name a dozen writers who can write a similar book in a similar style. That isn't an insult. Good writing is good writing. There's no magic to it. Ask the writers who took over for the posthumous Robert B. Parker, V.C. Andrews, Robert Ludlam, and Ian Fleming (weren't you even offered a James Bond book by the Fleming estate?). What we do isn't rocket science, and none of us deserve success.

Since you're not going to attempt a pen name and I'm not going to write a Reacher story, and since it will just devolve into a dick-measuring contest if we both start in about how hard we've worked to get where we're at, I suggest we move on.

Lee: And let’s settle one thing … the so-called Amazon/Hachette contract … I think you overestimate it, or misunderstand it, possibly. It ain’t the key to some kind of magic kingdom. Almost every sale Amazon makes happens without a contract with the supplier or manufacturer. It used to be that way with Hachette. Hachette sold to wholesalers, at a certain discount, and the wholesalers sold on to Amazon, at a slight markup. Soon Amazon wanted to avoid that markup, so it went to Hachette and asked, “Please will you sell to us direct?”  And Hachette said, “OK.”  And that’s the so-called contract, right there.

Joe: And then Hachette colluded with four other publishers to force Amazon to accept their new terms, i.e. the agency model. Amazon didn't want to accept those terms. Not because of the 30/70 split, but because it took away Amazon's ability to discount.

Suddenly contracts became important. What began as a mutual handshake (assuming you're correct about this) was no longer acceptable to either party.

Right now, Hachette doesn't want Amazon to be able to discount. Amazon wants to discount. Since Hachette forced a contract on Amazon--the agency contract--and that contract lapsed, Amazon does not have to sell Hachette's titles under Hachette's terms.

I've had verbal contracts in the past, and a handshake was enough. But when things become contentious, written contracts come into play. And, currently, Amazon and Hachette have no written contract, and Amazon apparently sees no reason they should go back to a handshake model under Hachette's terms.

Lee: Subsequently Amazon larded on the "fees"... in street terms, protection money, to keep the playing field level with other publishers also paying protection money. Equal visibility and honest rankings – which are the best kind of visibility – were at stake. In plain English, Amazon was saying, “Give us cash under the table or we’ll lie in public about the relative merit and appeal of your products.”

Publishers were, of course, accustomed to that – B&N pioneered a junior version long ago – so it was business as usual. No sympathy from me, by the way. Life ain’t fair, things suck, get over it.

Joe: It was under the table? How so?

As you said, bookstores have been selling coop for decades, and publishers have bought coop to place books such as yours (and not mine) in prominent places around the store. This isn't protection money, it's more like a kickback. I'm calling you on that terminology because I just did a post on the specific fear words and hyperbole that Authors United are using. Assuming you're correct about all of this, kickbacks are part of the book business, and Amazon didn't invent them, and they're legal.

You need to spend money to make money, and no one ever said it would be fair, fun, or easy. I didn't have an even playing field when we both had new releases in Borders--you had every advantage while I didn't--and I don't expect an even playing field now.

But at this point in time, I can do much better through KDP and A-pub than I was ever able to do through Hyperion, Hachette, or Penguin. More sales, and more money per sale. Through my legacy publishers, I made about $300k in eight years. On my own, I've done about 10x that in four years. And I'm not the only one. I bring this up in response to your earlier comment of "Print is a niche, according to you, and no one visits bookstores anymore!"

For the majority of writers, print has become a subsidiary right. Ebooks are the main income. But you are not in the majority. For you, print is still your main source of book income, and I'd guess a good deal of that income comes from non-bookstore outlets. These are outlets that I've never had titles sold in, and neither have most of our peers. 

Lee: But, here’s the thing – by continuing to trade under expired terms, it’s Hachette doing Amazon a favor, not vice versa. Amazon is still getting its protection money – and giving nothing in return right now – and still avoiding the wholesalers’ markup.

Joe: If Amazon wants to charge Hachette to sell its books, it can do that. If Amazon doesn't want to discount, it can do that. Amazon isn't a monopoly, and it isn't the government. Being a tough competitor or being tough with suppliers doesn't violate any laws.

Lee: If Hachette walked away, Amazon would lose... unless it was prepared not to carry Hachette titles ever again. Which it isn’t, because Amazon’s whole theory is to be the go-to, first-stop, everything store. “I’ll get it from Amazon” is what they depend on hearing. “I wonder if Amazon has it?” would be the kiss of death.

Joe: I believe you overestimate the value of Hachette's catalog to Amazon.

Right now Amazon has 500,000 exclusive ebooks available to customers. If Douglas Preston is no longer available on Amazon, do you really believe millions of Kindle owners wouldn't find something else to read? You think they'd seek him out? Forgo the fast, easy, and inexpensive Amazon shopping experience--on a proprietary format no less--and instead buy his books on a platform that is more expensive and less convenient? Or would they find some Preston-ish technothriller on Amazon and buy that for $3.99 with one-click? 

Mega bestsellers like you, and midlisters like me, have fans. But I think we both realize most of our sales are accidental. Someone browsing Amazon, looking for a particular type or genre of book. Or, in your specific case (as in Preston's), casual readers who want a thriller to take on the plane and only have a choice of six in the rack at their local airport. You have long signing lines when you do a book event. Those are fans. Are those lines proportional to the 100 million books you've sold? We know they aren't. Because the overwhelming majority of your readers, and mine, aren't fans. They're casual readers who gave us a try.

Let's look at it another way. In the USA, between 1926 and 1956, if you wanted to travel by car from Chicago to LA, you took Route 66. Along 66 were places for travelers to get gas, eat, and sleep. These places did well, because travelers had no alternative.

Then the Federal Highway Act of 1956 was signed by Ike, creating the Interstate. It was faster than Route 66. And what cropped up along the Interstate? Places to get gas, eat, and sleep.

Let's say there was a terrific restaurant on Route 66. One that was always busy, and made a lot of money. Maybe it had great food and unparalleled service. Maybe it was the best damn restaurant in the USA.

Guess what? That didn't matter. It still went out of business once traffic disappeared. People preferred the Interstate. And most of the businesses on Route 66, including the best restaurant in the country, withered and died. Because as good as it was, people preferred to get their food on the Interstate. They didn't go out of their way to eat at that wonderful restaurant. Bye-bye Route 66, and all who made their living on it.

As for "I wonder if Amazon has it" is something I do a lot. If Amazon doesn't have it, it's rare I go elsewhere... I just find something similar on Amazon. And I'm not the only one who does this.

Right now the majority of your sales is paper to casual readers, and you believe ebook sales have plateaued. (You mentioned this on the Passive Voice blog.) That may be true, for you. But while your ebook sales have plateaued, there is ample evidence that ebook sales overall are increasing. The market is growing, but legacy publishing sales aren't growing along with it. 

If you believe that in ten years there will still be chain bookstores, and books will still be available in the check-out isle at the local grocery, you aren't following the same trends I am. In just five years, ebooks have gone from a small niche to outselling paper in many genres. When those book outlets disappear, so goes the majority of the paper audience. And they will disappear. 

Lee: Which is why the dispute is so intractable. It’s half-rational, half-emotional. And flawed – Amazon wants more protection money now (yes, it’s really that simple) but it isn’t prepared to get up from the table and walk away. Neither is Hachette. Hachette’s best play – logically – would be to walk away and suffer a few lean years before an alternative presented itself. I’m absolutely sure its parent company wants it to do that, and would support it in so doing. Huge European corporations are good at the long game. But local management is resisting, because the hiatus would derail too many careers. Again, half-rational, half-emotional.

And no big deal, in the grand scheme of things. Not to me, anyway. I’m not a Hachette author. PRH is a different ballgame, and as I said, even if it gets beat, I’ll prosper under whatever comes next.

Joe: You mean by getting really, really lucky again? :)

It's entirely normal to look at where you currently stand and point to your past to explain how you got here. But that kind of thinking completely discounts luck and randomness. So many things happened that were beyond your control, and so many other things could have happened. If you'd gone with another publisher, or if I had, we might not be having this conversation right now. 

Lee: So why did I sign my friend Doug’s letter?

Because of what I know, and what I can guess. I've known Amazon people for 17 years, dozens of them, old hires, new hires, quitters, true believers, through dinner party talk, pillow talk, all kinds of talk. I’m making no value judgments – you’ll never hear any of that from me – but things are what they are. And the big deal is – Amazon is a publisher too. Not a very good one yet – no big hits so far, and they missed the biggest trade publishing phenomenon of recent years, even though it was right under their noses – 

Joe: Are you referring to 50 Shades? You know that the other Big 5 publishers missed out on that too, right?

Lee: – but Bezos never gives up, and he wants Amazon to be the only publisher, and he’ll do what it takes to make it so. Which casts a different light on what’s happening. He’s broken rivals before, and he’ll keep on trying.

So it’s a thus-far-and-no-further thing for me. I don’t want Amazon to be the only publisher. Neither should you.

Joe: Who ever said I want Amazon to be the only publisher?

Competition is good. But I'd like publishers to compete for authors as well. Better royalties. Better terms. For decades it has been lockstep unconscionable contracts offered to all writers save for a few lucky ones like you. Contracts that last for an author's life plus 70 years. Non-compete clauses. I've listed these all extensively before. 

You won the lottery. So did your friend Doug Preston, and many of the other Authors United signatories. You could no doubt buy a $104k NYT ad with change you find between your sofa cushions. And you want that to continue. But it continues at the expense of authors who didn't win the lottery, all 99.999% of them.

Lee: It’s staggeringly naïve to think the current KDP landscape is anything other than a short-term tactic. Note well – I am NOT saying don’t get into it now just because it will get worse in the future... instead I say, hell yes, make hay while the sun shines. Exploit Amazon’s game plan for all you can get, as long as it lasts, and more power to you. But understand that today’s KDP is a pressure point, designed to suck authors out of the established system, along with sucking out money and margin by other routes. Truth is, it ain’t working great so far – no significant authors have jumped ship, and publishers are still profitable. But Bezos never gives up.

And if he wins... then we all have a problem. Note well – I am NOT talking about nurturing or culture or curating or any of that kind of non-existent crap. I’m talking about money. Amazon is a tech company. The basic tech paradigm says content is always the smallest part of the cost. Those guys really believe that. Storytellers will be working for whatever few pennies they choose to hand out. (Or some will. I’ll be doing something else by then. I don’t work for pennies.)

Joe: Most of us already have a problem. It's with publishers like Hachette. Right now, Hachette, and the rest of Big Publishing, treat the vast majority of authors as the smallest part of their costs.

Hachette authors are getting screwed, working for pennies. And Hachette's insistence on keeping ebook prices high to protect its paper oligopoly will continue to hurt all authors but the very top of the heap (such as yourself).

On the other hand, Amazon is allowing many authors to make money for the very first time.

Lee: And don’t tell me some alternate savior will ride to the rescue. There won’t be one. Publishing makes no sense to any other player. Certainly there won’t be a publishing-only player. Not enough margin in it.

Joe: We'll see. After my experience with the legacy industry, I'd never put all of my eggs in a single basket. And if there were only one basket left, I'd create others. A new publishing model makes a lot of sense to me, and I see a big demographic that Amazon is dismissing. As for margins, I'm funding it myself, and we should be in the black by the end of the year. 

Lee: Now, I fully understand lots of folk will scoff and disagree and make fun of me. Have at it. I don’t care. I have no dog in this fight. I’m old and staggeringly rich and I can live like a king without making another buck ever. I have nothing to be scared of. That should be you. Your hopes are pinned to a mast that isn’t a mast at all. It’s a spear, and when it has done its job, it will be dumped.

Joe: I've disagreed with you but never scoffed at you, and have always liked and respected you. And no one is going to make fun of you here.

My agenda is transparent. I'm pro-author. Right now, Amazon's stance aligns with what is best for the majority of authors. If it continues along those lines, great. If it doesn't, I don't plan to be at the mercy of a large company.

Lee: So really we should all be equally concerned. We should make common cause. Behind the noise and the bullshit we’re all trying to do the same thing – sell our stories to the same people, for a living wage. And it’s those last four words that made me sign the letter. Not my living wage – that’s already in the bank – but yours, and the people that come after us.

Joe: At this point, Amazon has given more authors opportunities to earn money than Hachette, Penguin, Random House, et al have, combined.

You've been extremely generous to new writers, me included. But perpetuating the current system isn't for the benefit of midlisters. It only benefits the publishers, and a few dozen gigantic bestsellers like you. You believe that Amazon intends to wipe out other publishers, and then it will pinch authors. At this very moment, Hachette and other major publishers are pinching authors with shitty royalties, high book prices, and one-sided contract terms. Bookstores are pinching self-pubbed  and Amazon-pubbed authors by refusing to carry our books.

Authors United isn't made up of altruists. It's made up of status quo writers who don't want the gravy train to end, and Stockholm Syndrome writers who want to be part of that gravy train. Preston's insistence that AU isn't taking sides is silly, and it's only one of many silly things your group is proclaiming. If Hachette does get its way, it will mean Preston's and Patterson's Amazon sales go back to normal, but it also means all the Hachette midlisters will continue to get screwed in the longterm.

But if Hachette allows Amazon to discount, all Hachette authors will benefit from increased ebook sales. It might come at the expense of paper sales, but for the majority of authors those sales don't matter; Hachette isn't getting their midlist paper titles into airports and grocery stores.

I see $104k wasted on an ad, and I think how many unhappy Hachette authors could have benefited from that money--money that could pay for lawyers to help get them out of Hachette contracts, get their rights back, and start actually making that living wage you mentioned. Instead it was wasted to help the rich stay rich, while those rich folks spouted nonsense.

Likewise, these authors could have benefited from accepting one of Amazon's offers to compensate them. 

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts on this, Lee. You haven't defended any Authors United statements, or addressed my criticisms of those statements, but you did make a valid and important point about Amazon attaining too much power. AU should have stuck to that and left all the other BS out of it. 

Your "thus-far-and-no-further" statement is entirely reasonable, but that's the way I feel about legacy publishers. As I've said many times, why worry about the tiger who may eat you tomorrow when there is a wolf currently gnawing on your leg?

The wolf is gnawing on 99.999% of all writers. So I'm not concerned about the tiger just yet.

I think we could support a common cause, but if you truly aren't worried about your future, and truly do care about authors making a living wage, you're siding with the wrong team.

Maybe there is no right team. Maybe Amazon, when they control the universe, will be worse than NY Publishing ever was (though looking at my previous legacy contracts, I doubt that.) But I was surprised you signed the AU petition, and surprised you chipped in for the silly NYT ad. I understand your goals are aligned, and that AU includes many of your friends, but you never struck me as someone who'd join a movement whose main talking points are all bullshit, let alone allow their words to speak for you.

That said, I don't see our viewpoints being all that different, and I'm glad to hear yours independent of the AU nonsense I've been fisking.

Also, I already knew this, but kudos for owning a pair bigger than any other Authors United signatory. You read opposing viewpoints, and respond politely and thoughtfully, while other vocal AU endorsers reiterate ridiculous bullet points off of cue cards and refuse to engage in any sort of discussion, let alone defend their position.

Your friend Doug is now approaching the DOJ to investigate Amazon, as if the DOJ isn't already aware of the situation. I assume this will involve more money. No doubt you're involved in a great deal of philanthropy and charity work, but I hope I've gotten you to at least reconsider how much help you're giving Authors United. 

Thanks again for stopping by. If you'd like to respond to any of my points in the comments, I'm in and out of the house all day, but I'll be monitoring. 

My Advice to Authors United

Authors United is in trouble.

While they haven't lacked for biased media attention, they aren't swaying Amazon, and aren't swaying public opinion. Amazon's approval rating has gone up since the Hachette negotiations went public, and readers don't give a hoot about a bunch of rich, entitled authors whose pre-order buttons are gone.

Whining in public, wasting money on a $104k NYT ad, and whining in public some more, has accomplished the opposite effect of what they intended. Instead of getting sympathy and results, they've gotten a taste of the future. Namely, what the world will be like when their publishers aren't maximizing their sales potential.

Amazon is just the tip of the iceberg, you see. Yes, Hachette authors are currently losing sales. But Amazon has no contract with Hachette, and has no obligation to sell any Hachette titles at all. When Amazon completely stops selling Hachette books, Hachette's midlist will die. B&N and indie bookstores don't constitute enough sales to justify a 40k paperback run, and printing fewer than that isn't cost-effective.

Right now Amazon boasts it has 500,000 exclusive Kindle titles. As the brick and mortar shelves shrink, those who have been avoiding ebooks (casuual readers, late adopters, laggards) won't have a choice; if they want new titles, they'll need to finally embrace ebooks.

My mother held out during the VHS to DVD transition. She didn't buy a DVD player... until she had to, because they stopped selling VHS.

When this happens with ebooks--when the casual reader switches to a tablet app or cheap dedicated ereading device--it will hurt more than bookstores. All those folks who read 1 to 5 books a year (the ones who make the mega-bestsellers, of which many are Authors United signatories) will no longer get their summer reads at drug stores or airports. They'll simply download something.

All that prime real estate, putting mega-selling authors in front of peoples' eyes with widespread paper distribution, will be gone. Then James Patterson will be stuck with ebooks as his major source of income. If he's lucky, Amazon will still be selling his work, albeit for $12.99 with DRM and no Kindle Unlimited. If he's unlucky, Hachette will never capitulate, and Amazon will stop selling him altogether.

Consider the French Revolution. A bunch of blue bloods really thought they were born to rule, and the peasants couldn't live without them to govern. They were wrong.

Guess what? The reading community can easily live without books from every single Authors United signatory. Sure, some fans will be disappointed. But those fans will find other things to read. Just like I've been waiting for years for another Evil Dead film, but I've managed to find other movies to watch. The lack of Evil Dead 4 didn't mean I quit watching all films. The lack of Douglas Preston's latest in the supermarket check-out rack doesn't mean Preston fans won't find something else to read.

In 2011 I wrote two blog posts about this happening. One, The End of the Bestseller, goes into more detail about how the paper world, and its mega-bestsellers, will collapse. Check it out.

The other, The End is Nigh, has this quote:

"As I'd anticipated, print has become a subsidiary right. A niche market. Publishers will try to milk a few last drops of profit from it, and then they'll go bye-bye. 

At least, the old school publishers will. 

New school publishers, like Amazon, are primed to exploit this brave new world. They now control the distribution network. Watch as Amazon becomes the biggest publisher in the world." 

Hachette is cutting its own throat. By trying to protect its paper cartel, it is pushing readers away from its own catalog, and toward ebooks.

Hachette feels it has no choice. Unless they prevent Amazon from discounting ebooks, paper will die anyway. So why not go the contentious route and ruin the careers of hundreds of authors?

If other publishers follow Hachette's example, they'll fail. But if they allow Amazon to discount ebooks, they'll also fail. Their paper oligopoly will suffer either way. 

You fight technology, technology always wins.

But new technology, and the Amazon juggernaut, aren't the only nails in the legacy industry's coffin.

Authors United has tried to wage its battle in the court of public opinion, using the media to spread its nonsense. But it has discovered that readers don't care.

Writers, however, do care. They've been watching closely, and calling bullshit.

So while AU has been ineffective in changing Amazon's mind, or the public's mind, if has been an extremely effective propaganda tool for getting authors to stop submitting manuscripts to publishers.

In 2010 I wrote this:

"I'd always assumed that print publishers would begin to lose market dominance once ebooks took off in a big way, and they'd have to either restructure or die.

But now I'm predicting another death for them.

What is going to happen when authors stop sending their books to publishers?

If I know I can make $100,000 on a self-published ebook in five years of sales, and I have the numbers to back up this claim, why would any informed writer--either pro or newbie--ever settle for less?

The dominance of ebooks is coming. I have no doubt. But I always thought it was the readers who would lead the charge, based on cost and convenience.

Now I'm starting to believe that the ones with the real power are the ones who should have had the power since the beginning of publishing. The ones who create the content in the first place.

The authors."

Authors United is an ironic name for a group that is prompting authors to take sides. It is reinforcing the path indie authors have chosen, and embarrassing many who chose the legacy route. Publicly bitching that Amazon is hurting authors--when it is obvious that Amazon has an open door policy for authors via KDP and it is actually Hachette's inability to negotiate that is hurting authors--will scare more authors away from the Big 5. I was actually just talking with a bestseller who isn't going to even bother submitting a new book to the Big 5 out of a very real concern that they won't be able to sell via Amazon.

It's all a big, oven-baked plateful of fail with a generous slice of stupid for dessert.

Even more embarrassing is Authors United's failure to engage with peers who disagree. We're dishing out heaping helpings of humiliation and getting radio silence in return.

Where's the pride? Where's the desire to fight for what you believe in?

It does make some sense. Anyone who watched Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson get spanked when debating Paul Kedrosky can plainly see why they don't engage their critics; they're full of nonsense and could never win.

But if they're cognizant that their position is indefensible, why try to bother writing letters at all? Are they hoping the general public, and Amazon, are as stupid and accommodating as David Streitfeld?

Perhaps because, when you're really rich and have that oft-accompanying sense of entitlement, you tend to go down swinging. 

Even if you're swinging at empty air.

Now anyone who has been reading my blog for years (or followed the links I posted above) knows I'm pretty good at giving advice and predicting the future, because I tend to be right a lot. So I'm going to actually give Authors United some tips on what they could do in order to help themselves, and their fellow authors.

1. Write an open letter to Hachette. You've stated, repeatedly, that you aren't taking sides. Prove it. Let Hachette know how unhappy you are with their negotiating tactics, and do so publicly. Which leads to:

2. Leverage Hachette. Hire lawyers to get out of your Hachette contracts. Proclaim you'll refuse to sign any more deals with them unless they fix this situation. They have failed you, so let them know.

3. Force Hachette to accept one of Amazon's offers to compensate authors during the negotiation period. Amazon has tried several times to take authors out of the line of fire, and you've dismissed this without good reason. 

4. Stop whining. It looks bad. You aren't coming off as righteous and noble. You're coming off as privileged little snits. With all the money in play, you could hire a PR team, and media coaches for anyone who appears on TV. And if you've already done that, hire me. I've already told you what not to say, for free, on this blog. But if you're willing to waste $104k on a NYT ad, I'll take another $104k from you (which I'll give to a deserving charity) and walk you through how to win this battle.

5. Fix your soundbytes. When they are so easy to refute (Hint: Amazon isn't boycotting anything), all you do is show how lazy and ineffective your attempts at manipulation are.

6. Pay attention. You might think you're above the petty criticism authors like me level at you, but you're not. Ignoring what the blogosphere and Twitter and Facebook and the Internet in general are saying about you isn't taking the moral high ground; it's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah nyah nyah we can't hear you!" I've been showing you for months that your arguments are unpersuasive and your points are silly, and I'm one of many who have done this. Listen and learn and maybe you can correct some of your many mistakes. What kind of person doesn't look at the opposing viewpoints and try to grow from them?

And you can even take that a step further and:

7. Engage your critics. My blog is yours. If Roxana Robinson, Douglas Preston, Lee Child, James Patterson, Stephen King, Scott Turow, or any of the Authors United signatories wants to use my blog to make a statement, please do. I'm sure I also speak for David Gaughran, Courtney Milan, Barry Eisler, Hugh Howey, Bob Mayer, and other popular authors who have opined on this issue. We'd love to host you. Believe it or not, we agree on the core issue: We know writers are being hurt, and we don't like it. Let's build from there.

8. If you aren't going to change, quit. Seriously. You're hastening the demise of the industry that made you rich, which means you're hastening your own demise. Hachette, stupid as they're acting, are at least looking at the long game. Authors United is not. You're so concerned about short-term losses, you're helping to ensure a long-term loss.

It isn't too late to help all of the Hachette authors (and all of the future authors who will face this same situation when the other Big 4 negotiate with Amazon). But it will require taking a few steps back and being honest with what your goals really are. If you really aren't taking sides, and really want to help authors, you can be a force for good. With a reboot, your 1000 author petition could be 10,000 authors.

Authors United could actually effect change. So could the Authors Guild. But not if you continue down the path you've chosen.

The Name Game

Elsewhere on the Internets, David Gaughran gives the publishing industry a spanking, Dan Meadows gives Douglas Preston a spanking, and Hugh Howey gives Authors United a spanking.

I'm finding this highly amusing. The Hachette/Amazon situation has become a true comedy of errors. It's like watching Groucho Marx lead Freedonia into war by intentionally being greedy, dishonest, and self-serving.

I'm not sure if Authors United is a bunch of elitists who know they're full of shit and are trying to make the best argument they can to sway public opinion because they don't want the gravy train to end, or if they're truly as stupid as they appear.

I go back and forth. Think-tank forced to defend an unwinnable debate, or self-deluded pinheads?

What I'm really enjoying is the Law of Unintended Consequences. They're in a large hole, and they keep on digging. The situation has become a farce. And even though AU has the media in its pocket, the ridiculousness of their stance is becoming impossible to hide.

The same silly things are being repeated, over and over. Preston, Colbert, Russo, Patterson, Turow, Robinson, are attempting to use buzzwords and terms in order to evoke fear and sympathy, and failing spectacularly.

Collectively, they feel threatened, and there really aren't any good ways to defend their sense of entitlement, so they have to zero in on the same nonsense they've been preaching for years; protectors of culture, nurturers of writers, champions of indie bookstores, and defenders of fair business practices. Amazon is using "sanctions" and "boycotts", Amazon is a "monopoly" that is "targeting" authors.

This is all very specific language that the status quo has collectively adopted in order to spin the real story.

Barry Eisler wrote a hilarious piece on this kind of thing back in 2010, and it applies perfectly.

When waging the battle for public opinion, word choice matters. As Barry said in the above article, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, erupting 60,000 barrels of oil into the ocean per day, the media, government, and oil companies called it a "leak" and a "spill." It was actually an "ecological disaster". But describing it accurately would alarm the masses, so the language was tailored to put everyone at ease.

Authors United can't win on logic, facts, or even common sense, so they are appealing to emotion to sway public opinion, and the language they're using is tailored to that. So the same lies keep getting trotted out, with Authors United hoping that the public will start repeating them and public opinion will side with them.

I'm going to put the buzz words that are being repeated in italics, and explain why they're fallacious.

Amazon is not a monopoly. But people know monopolies are bad and illegal, so the term keeps getting used.

Publishers don't create culture. They don't create anything; authors do. But Authors United wants you to believe publishers are indispensable. And they aren't.

Books aren’t commodities. Well, yes, they are. They’re bought and sold, after all. AU wants to say they aren't, that people recognize the importance of literature and are above crass, plebian capitalism. But publishers print prices directly on book covers -- if that’s not a product, what is?  

Writing is a job. It isn't some special calling for the elite. It isn't some form of magic where the shaman practitioners must be deified. I'm a writer, and damn lucky to be one, but I'm no better than someone who makes toasters on an assembly line.

Authors aren't being targeted. Amazon's goal isn't to put books in their crosshairs for systematic termination. In fact, Amazon has tried, three times, to compensate authors for the duration of the negotiations. Hachette no longer has a contract with Amazon, but Amazon is still graciously selling Hachette’s titles. If Amazon truly wanted to leverage Hachette into signing a new contract, it could stop selling all Hachette titles. But it hasn't done that.

Amazon isn't delaying Hachette titles. It simply isn't stocking Hachette books, and why should it when there is no contract in place?

There isn't any boycott or sanction. Hachette books are available elsewhere. Amazon isn't blocking any sales.

Amazon isn't reducing book discounts. They're pricing books according to the prices Hachette itself stamps on books. They aren't refusing preorders, either. Is it a smart practice to sell titles that haven't been released yet when there is no surety that they'll ever be able to fulfill those orders if they can't come to terms with Hachette?

Amazon isn’t punishing writers who are helpless. Writers are only helpless in that they signed a contract with a publisher who refuses to negotiate with Amazon because the publisher wants to protect its paper oligopoly by keeping ebook prices high. Amazon isn't negotiating with writers, it is negotiating with Hachette. Writers are collateral damage--and writers put themselves in harm’s way by signing with a member of a cartel with a specific agenda.

Look at these words again: reducing, refusing, boycott, sanction, blocking, delaying, targeted, commodities, culture, democracy, monopoly, punishing, helpless. They’re all being used to deliberately mislead.

Writers, who in the past were afraid to speak out against publishing nonsense like this because they didn't want to be blacklisted, are now actively pointing out how asinine publishers, and authors, are acting. Authors United, in its effort to win public support, has become a laughingstock. The publishing industry, and status quo authors, despise the term "legacy" to describe them. But it is an apt term, and is becoming widespread.

Authors United and their allies (I'm looking at you, NYT publishing apologist pinhead David Steitfeld) are not only failing to get their buzzwords accepted by the public, they're introducing derogatory terms that are eventually going to be adopted the same way "legacy publishing" has been.

"Whale math", which is attributed to Streitfeld in one of the most hilariously inept analogies in modern journalism, is a term coined to describe a ridiculous comparison in order to bolster one number while downplaying another. To quote Hugh Howey:

"the opinion of 900 authors is worth a fawning article (complete with Douglas Preston hanging out by his writing shack on his 300 acre summer estate), while the opinion of 8,000+ authors is meaningless . . . because far more people care about saving whales."

"Special snowflake" has been applied to Authors United because of their insistence that books, and authors, must have different rules applied to them because this is Important Art and Culture. Writers aren't assembly workers, they're better than that. Books aren't disposable razor blades, they're better than that. Elitist, self-important bullshit. Authors Guild President Roxana Robinson insisted she isn't a special snowflake. I agree, Roxana. You aren't special at all. So stop asking for special treatment.

"Typocrite" is someone in the publishing industry (someone who should know the value and meaning of words) who repeatedly claims they aren't doing something, then does it. Authors United says they aren't taking sides, while repeatedly chastising Amazon and not placing any blame at all on Hachette. AFAIK, they haven't even contacted Hachette. Roxana Robinson states readers are buying books from places other than Amazon, but that Amazon is still hurting authors. Authors United pens a letter praising the importance of editors, and then doesn't have anyone edit all of the typos and nonsense out of their own letter. Believing 900 signatures is somehow greater than 8000. Stating Amazon's reputation is at stake, when Amazon customer approval since the Hachette dispute went public has actually gone up. Publicly whining that Amazon is hurting authors, which is the equivalent of saying that "Your negotiation tactics are hurting us so your method is working." This is all typocritcal behavior, and something the legacy industry does a lot.

"Bookholm Syndrome" is when authors fight to protect the publishers that are exploiting them, even though they can't do so well because publishers actions are selfish, harmful, and indefensible. This applies to midlist authors yearning to become bestsellers, or newbie authors yearning for a publisher deal.

So what does all this mean?

It means the legacy industry has lost control. In the past, it was the only game in town. It controlled the only kind of book distribution--paper distribution. If you wanted to get onto bookstore shelves, you had to deal with a legacy publisher because they had a lock on it. You also had to accept unconscionable contract terms as a writer, because it was that or nothing.

Amazon has given authors a choice. We no longer have to bow to the cartel. And because of that, coupled with the rise of the Internet and the ability for everyone to seek out information and voice their opinion, we have a whole group of writers who aren't going to kowtow to legacy publishers. Once afraid to speak out, we can now freely criticize the stupidity and unfairness of the business. We can be honest without fear of reprisal. We have access and means to discredit bullshit when we hear it.

Legacy publishers, and their special snowflake authors, can be easily discredited. It doesn't matter that they can get all the press coverage they want by contacting media outlets. It doesn't matter that they can waste money on $100k ads in the NYT. Their message isn't being accepted by the largely uninterested public, but it is being widely vilified within the author community.

Years ago, I likened the legacy industry to dinosaurs after the asteroid hit. They still think they're relevant, but it is only a matter of time before they die off.

In the last Authors United letter, they mentioned the term dinosaurs and tried to dismiss it typocritically:

"But what these commentators and Amazon itself may not realize is that traditional publishing houses perform a vital role in our society."

In reality, legacy publishers have no vital role. In fact, they’re being the opposite of vital; they're actually harmful. Through their actions--price fixing, collusion, refusing to negotiate with Amazon, treating most authors like shit--they are disintermediating themselves. They are the living definition of shooting themselves in the foot.

What I didn't know, years ago, was that watching an extinction-level event would be so damn funny.

Nonsense United

And Authors United confirms that a group can indeed be less than the sum of its parts when it acts in such a blatantly stupid way. But, like any group of likeminded people bonded together by mutual ignorance, they can persuade the legacy media tools at the NYT and The Bookseller to run their biased propaganda without any counterpoints.

Fails all around.

Their recent letter almost isn't worth fisking. Really. It's so poorly done, such a flimsy, whiny argument, that a child could deconstruct it.

But I didn't have a child available, so I did it.

If you want a refresher on the nonsense, start reading my blog from May 24 to present.

Now let's get to fisking. Lies and hyperbole in bold, my responses in common sense plain font.

Letter to Amazon.com, Inc. board of directors

The letter, with the list of signatories attached, will sent by Federal Express to each of the ten board members of Amazon.com. They are:

(A list of ten names and addresses)

Hmm. I wonder if Douglas Preston would like it if his address was put online.

Is that the point of using snail mail locations rather than email? A bit of the old "we know where to find you" intimidation technique?

Why not also show the board members pictures of their houses via Google Earth? Isn't that how the Facebook trolls do it?

Dear [name],

We are writing to you in your capacity as a director of Amazon.com, Inc. As we all know, Amazon is involved in contract negotiations with several media and publishing companies, including Hachette. About six months ago, to enhance its bargaining position, Amazon began sanctioning Hachette authors' books. These sanctions included refusing preorders, delaying shipping, reducing discounting, and using pop-up windows to cover authors' pages and redirect buyers to non-Hachette books.

Didn't take long for the BS to begin.

This began in January, not six months ago, because Hachette refused to negotiate with Amazon prior to their contract with Amazon expiring.

Amazon has had no contract with Hachette for several months. And yet it still sells Hachette titles, while under no obligation to do so.

Refusing preorders - Why should Amazon sell advanced copies of work when they might not be selling any Hachette titles in the future if an agreement can't be reached?

Delaying shipping - Amazon has said they aren't delaying shipping, they simply aren't stocking Hachette titles. If Hachette wants faster shipping, they should get their titles to Amazon faster.

Reducing discounting - Oh noes! Amazon is selling books for the prices that Hachette sets!

Using pop-up windows - First I've heard of this, and the few minutes I took clicking on Hachette titles on Amazon failed to produce any results. But if it is true, let's look at the big picture:

1. Should Amazon be allowed to do whatever it wants to on its own website? Sell what it wants to, for prices it wants to? Sell ad space if it wants to? Stock what it wants to? Ship how it wants to?

2. If a retailer isn't behaving like the supplier wants it to behave, should the supplier fight for better terms? Leave? Negotiate in good faith? Capitulate?

For some reason, Authors United believes that publishers have the right to tell Amazon, Bezos, and the board of directors, how to run their store.

Now, the US has a history of third parties trying to intimidate retailers. But at least the mob did it effectively. Authors United seems to be using the intimidation tool of shame.

Shame doesn't work. I know this for a fact, because I've repeatedly shamed Authors United signatories to stop their nonsense, and they haven't.

But I'll keep trying. And I won't have to try very hard. Seriously, read on, it gets extremely humiliating.

These sanctions have driven down Hachette authors' sales at Amazon.com by at least 50 percent and in some cases as much as 90 percent. These sales drops are occurring across the board: in hardcovers, paperbacks, and e-books. 

Sanctions? AU called it a "boycott" before, apparently because not one of the many great, wise, prestigious, bestselling, award-winning authors who signed the last letter knew the correct definition of "boycott".

What is a sanction?

Trade sanctions are trade penalties imposed by a country or group of countries on another country or group of countries. Typically the sanctions take the form of import tariffs (duties), licensing or other administrative regulations. 

Oops. They don't know what a "sanction" is, either. Amazon isn't a country, last I checked. And they aren't enforcing tariffs.

What Amazon is doing, as I've mentioned before, is engaging in the nefarious act of capitalism. Capitalism often involves negotiation.

Is Douglas Preston imposing a sanction on Hachette during contract negotiations when he holds out for more money? Is he boycotting Penguin Random House because he signed with Hachette? Does he think he's fooling anyone by misappropriating fear words while engaging in an emotional appeal fallacy?

And why isn't my shaming making him stop? Do I have to post his address?

Because of Amazon's immense market share and its proprietary Kindle platform, other retailers have not made up the difference. Several thousand Hachette authors have watched their readership decline, or, in the case of new authors, have seen their books sink out of sight without finding an adequate readership. These men and women are deeply concerned about what this means for their future careers.

Which is why we, Authors United, are writing to our publisher, Hachette, urging them to come to an agreement with Amazon.

Oh, wait...

We urge you to review our names at the bottom of this letter. No group of authors as diverse or prominent as this has ever come together before in support of a single cause. 

Except, you know, for that petition Howey and Konrath did, with eight times as many signatures.

We are literary novelists and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists; thriller writers and debut and midlist authors. We are science fiction and travel writers; historians and newspaper reporters; textbook authors and biographers and mystery writers. We have written many of your children's favorite stories. Collectively, we have sold billions of books. Amazon's tactics have caused us profound anguish and outrage.

This is a business negotiation. If you're serious about making Amazon do your bidding, don't sell your billions of books on Amazon, and maybe Amazon will be threatened by that and cave.

Otherwise, you're repeatedly stating how powerful you are, then not using any of that power as leverage. Way to influence. Way to show how much you care about this issue.

Translation: Way to cop out.

Russell Grandinetti of Amazon has stated that the company was "forced to take this step because Hachette refused to come to the table." He has also claimed that "authors are the only leverage we have." As one of the world's largest corporations, Amazon was not "forced" to do anything.

And no one is currently forcing Amazon to continue to sell any Hachette titles. Because Amazon and Hachette currently have no contract.

But Amazon is still selling them.

This is an obvious fact. We all have choices. Amazon chose to involve 2,500 Hachette authors and their books. It could end these sanctions tomorrow while continuing to negotiate. Amazon is undermining the ability of authors to support their families, pay their mortgages, and provide for their kids' college educations. We'd like to emphasize that most of us are not Hachette authors, and our concern is founded on principle, rather than self-interest.

So now Amazon owes authors a living?

I'm amazed by the permeating sense of entitlement in this letter. These authors believe the system owes them. And I say this as someone who was at the mercy of legacy publishers for a decade. I know what it's like to have my dreams, hopes, and finances screwed by the whims of a giant corporation.

But here's the thing: I signed those one-sided, unconscionable publishing contracts. I went into them willingly. And when something better came along, I got the hell out.

Authors United, your gripe isn't with Amazon. You didn't sign a deal with Amazon. You can self-publish with Amazon right now and get preorders and fast shipping and price your books as you wish.

Your problem should be with Hachette. Hachette, who wants to keep ebook prices high, even as you lament Amazon's lack of discounting. Hachette, who cares more about its part of the paper distribution oligopoly than it does about its authors. Hachette, who you HAVEN'T CONTACTED YET.

We find it hard to believe that all members of the Amazon board approve of these actions. We would like to ask you a question: Do you as an Amazon director approve of this policy of sanctioning books?

Do you, Authors United, approve with the policy of encouraging straw men?

The straw man fallacy is brought up a lot on the Internet. You'd think that all of those smart Authors United signatories with their assloads of awards would know what it means.

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Amazon isn't sanctioning books. This is a misrepresentation of what is happening, and it requires ignorance for people to believe it. Classic strawman. I know that, and I don't have a single Pulitzer.

Efforts to impede or block the sale of books have a long and ugly history. Would you, personally, want to be associated with this? We feel strongly that such actions have no place in a common commercial dispute. Amazon has other negotiating tools at its disposal; it does not need to inflict harm on the very authors who helped it become one of the largest retailers in the world.

More appeals to emotion. More strawmen.

Amazon doesn't have an armada surrounding Hachette's warehouse, preventing it from selling titles. There is no flotilla blockade preventing Hachette's books from reaching readers. Their books are available elsewhere... including on Amazon.

Repeat after me: It's not a boycott, it's not a sanction, it's all fallacious, it's not a boycott, it's not a sanction, it's all fallacious...

Our position has been consistent. We have made a great effort not to take sides.

A great effort that includes not contacting Hachette. Ever. Because that's the real definition of how you don't take sides, by petitioning one side and not the other.

And they've sold billions of books. Really.

And really, see how shame doesn't stop stupidity?

But, to be fair, Authors United and I are using shame differently.

Authors United is trying to use shame to control Amazon. It's ineffective, and embarrassing, and transparent, and has no facts or logic to back it up.

I'm using shame to inform people about this issue. The Authors United signatories won't listen to me (though it would be a step in the right direction if they actually began to read the nonsense they signed). But other writers, and readers, who want to know the real core of this issue (since the legacy media won't tell them) can read about it here. Backed up with facts and logic.

We are not against Amazon. We appreciate that Amazon sells half the books in the United States. But Amazon has repeatedly tried to dismiss us as "rich" bestselling authors who are advocating higher ebook prices—a false and unfair characterization, as most of us are in fact midlist authors struggling to make a living. 

Then stop signing with publishers. Hachette has failed you. Hire a lawyer and go solo.

And we have not made any statements whatsoever on book pricing. 

If I join Greenpeace, is there an obvious understanding that I care about the planet and want to save endangered species, even if I never made a statement about saving whales?

And, just to be nit-picky, Authors United made a statement on book pricing just a few paragraphs previously when they accused Amazon of reducing discounting.

Even if I hated Amazon and spent my vacations happily gripping my socks for Hachette execs, I wouldn't sign a letter this sloppy. It's embarrassing.

Our point is simple: we believe it is unacceptable for Amazon to impede or block the sale of books as a negotiating tactic.

Amazon has every right to refuse to sell consumer goods in response to a pricing disagreement with a wholesaler. 

Uh... wha?

So it is unacceptable for Amazon to use negotiating tactics such as impeding book sales, but Amazon has every right to refuse to sell consumer goods as a negotiating tactic?

Did I even need to fisk this? Authors United just fisked themselves.

Jesus, did any signatory ACTUALLY READ THIS?

We all appreciate discounted razor blades and cheaper shoes. But books are not consumer goods. 

Books are not consumer goods.

Hmm. Kinda makes me wonder why publishers print the prices on the cover.

Books cannot be written more cheaply, nor can authors be outsourced to China. 

Books can't be written cheaply? I believe I wrote my first nine novels for free. And since leaving my publishers, every book I've written is for free. I don't get an advance.

As for outsourcing, I don't believe I'm owed a living, or that what I do is particularly important.

I'm not curing cancer. I'm not even saving whales.

In fact, I'm a damn lucky son of a bitch who gets to make a living doing what I love, which is more than most people can say.

Books are not toasters or televisions. Each book is the unique, quirky creation of a lonely, intense, and often expensive struggle on the part of a single individual, a person whose living depends on that book finding readers. This is the process Amazon is obstructing.

We, at Authors United, are better than people working in China. We're better than people who make toasters and televisions.

We're special snowflakes, unique and quirky, and the lonely, intense struggle we endure for the sake of ART is much more difficult than coal mining or waitressing or mechanical engineering or brain surgery or conservationism or rocket science.

If I ever reach this level of self-importance, I want someone to slap the shit out of me.

Seriously. Slap me until I shit all over myself. It would be less embarrassing than agreeing with the above Authors United paragraph.

When all you have to do to humiliate someone is hold up a mirror, it's time to stop making public statements.

There has been much talk on the Internet about how traditional publishers like Hachette are "dinosaurs" defending a moribund business model. There have been claims that Amazon is leading the way to a new publishing paradigm, one that that pays authors higher royalties, allows anyone to publish, and cuts out the elitist gatekeepers. We agree that Amazon has spurred important innovations in publishing, including a wonderful self-publishing model that has given many new writers a voice.

Hey, we found something to agree on!

But what these commentators and Amazon itself may not realize is that traditional publishing houses perform a vital role in our society.

So did outhouses. Then that pesky tech upstart, indoor plumbing, came along.

Publishers provide venture capital for ideas. They advance money to authors, giving them the time and freedom to write their books. This system is especially important for nonfiction writers, who must quit their jobs to travel, research and write. 

Those poor bastards! Forced to quit their jobs so instead they can travel, research, and write! Someone pass the Kleenex!

How does this hardship compare to working on a factory assembly line, making discount razor blades?

Without an advance, for example, many aspiring writers would never be able to leave their jobs to write their first books. 

(Headdesk) Seriously, by a show of hands, how many of you left your job to write your first book?

No one? You mean (gasp!) you were working on your first book while also holding down a job? And keeping your family happy? And you didn't complain, because you were doing what you loved?

Thousands of times every year, publishers take a chance on unknown authors and advance them money solely on the basis of an idea. By assuming the risk, publishers expect—and receive—a financial return. What will Amazon replace this process with? 

Hint: Amazon already did. It's called KDP. It's when authors write their books for free, and then sell them. While keeping all the rights and the majority of the monies earned.

This model is working for tens of thousands of authors.

How, in the Amazon model, will a young author get funding to pursue a promising idea? 

By, um, working and earning money? Like 99.99% of writers did?

Thank goodness you clarified earlier that you aren't entitled, rich, bestselling authors, because without that disclaimer everyone reading this would certainly be thinking that you are.

And what about the role of editors and copy editors, who ensure that what ultimately ends up on the shelf is both worthy and accurate?

This! Because there can be no editing without editors, and the only editors that exist work at publishing houses.

Just like the only books worthy to exist are on bookstore shelves.

You know, except for the 1.5 million ebooks I sold.

So other than the fact that anyone can hire an editor, and that bookstore shelf space is no longer required for an author to make money, it was a good point.*

*That's sarcasm. It wasn't a good point.

We are certain that you, as an Amazon board member, prize books and freedom of expression as much as we do. Since its founding, Amazon has been a highly regarded and progressive brand. But if this is how Amazon continues to treat the literary community, how long will the company's fine reputation last? We appeal to you, with hope and goodwill, to exercise your governance and put an end to the sanctioning of books, which are the very foundation of our culture and democracy.

Cue the Star Spangled Banner, unfurl the flags, throw the ticker tape, and let's all hope Konrath doesn't fisk this and reveal how stupid we're being. In public, no less.

Sincerely,

[Each one of us listed below has read, approved, and signed this letter]

Then each of you should be deeply, grossly, unabashedly ashamed.

Addendum:

Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader makes some points that I missed, including the misquoting of Russ Grandinetti.

Hugh Howey takes NYT "journalist" David Streitfeld rightfully to task.

Jen Rasmussen has a hilarious, spot-on take,
http://jenrasmussen.com/authors-united-vs-amazon-a-primer

Addendum Deux:

There are more obvious points I missed, that are being brought up in the comments here and on Passive Voice. I'm repeating them to make sure they're read.

Dazrin sez: No comment on the "will sent by Federal Express" in the first line? You would think a thousand professional authors would catch that.

Joe sez: Maybe they expected their editors to catch it.

Barbara Morgenroth sez: "And what about the role of editors and copy editors, who ensure that what ultimately ends up on the shelf is both worthy and accurate?"

Stated in a missive that is both unworthy and inaccurate.

Joe sez: I wonder if there were any editors that signed this. If so, let this be a cautionary tale for writers seeking editing help.

Marc Cabot sez: Mr. Konrath, if you will print a nice copy of this fisking and FedEx it to each of the board members of Amazon - whom Mr. Preston has kindly provided addresses for - I will compensate you for the FedEx charges.

Joe sez: Thanks, Marc. I could probably "sent by Federal Express" without needing compensation. But I don't think I need to bother the board. If they're on the board, they're smart, and no doubt already aware of all this.

Uncle Jo sez: Wait, this is the big event all the blowhards were yammering about? A stern letter? Yet another publicity push?

Joe sez: Yeah. On September 4 Publishers Weekly quoted Douglas Preston:

“we are forced to move on to our next initiative"

No one blames you for this bold, rash, unprecidented move, Mr. Preston. I just hope it doesn't escalate to you ringing Jeff Bezos's doorbell in the middle of the night and then running away. Or--even worse--placing a flaming bag of dog poo on the porch before you bolt.

I pray you aren't forced to go to those extremes.

Hugh Howey sez: In this latest letter to board members, he says that Amazon could employ some negotiation tool that does not impact authors. I’d love to hear his ideas. Or at least one idea. How can Amazon hurt Hachette without hurting its authors?

Joe sez: Well, if Amazon wanted to escalate, they could send a letter to Hachette's board of directors. Wait... that would be silly and serve no purpose. Well, maybe they could find out where the board members live, then ring their doorbells in the middle of the night...

William Ockham sez: I hate to give writing advice to these folks, but using "sanction" in this context is a terrible strategic move. The word is essentially its own antonym. It could mean "endorse" or "penalize". Moreover, it carries a connotation of the subject (Amazon) having official authority over the object (Hachette titles). The assistants of the letter's addressees are busy people and you wouldn't want to generate confusion on their part when they read your letter.

Also, avoid using absolutes like "no group of authors as diverse or prominent as this has ever come together before in support of a single cause". This just encourages people to think about other literary causes that likely generated more widespread support. For example, hundreds of writers signed petitions supporting Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, including Jean-Paul Sartre, Graham Greene, W. H. Auden, Arthur Miller, John Updike, Truman Capote, and Kurt Vonnegut. Are you folks really more prominent than those guys? Seriously?

Timothy Wilhoit sez: “Since its founding, Amazon has been a highly regarded and progressive brand,” it says. “But if this is how Amazon continues to treat the literary community, how long will the company’s fine reputation last?”

Classic concern trolling. I really feel their concern for Amazon’s fine reputation.

Joe sez: The carrot and the stick. They used the appeal to fear, and the appeal to patriotism, why not the appeal to flattery as well?

Meryl Yourish sez: That’s not how Boards of Directors work. A CEO has to screw up really badly for any BOD to take action against them.

This is really just another empty piece of symbolism that will fool people who don’t understand business practices.

That would include most of the authors of Authors United.

Joe sez: This letter isn't for the BOD. It's for the media. To the extent the public cares, those who really do will seek out more info and find blogs like mine and those I've linked to.

Do you know if you sound out the word "guillotine" really slowly it sounds exactly like the word "gullible"?

It was much easier to be gullible without Google.

David sez: I’m still waiting for the letter that begins,

“Dear Amazon, we know that Hachette’s agreement with you expired months ago, and we’d like to say thanks for continuing to sell our books on your site despite the lack of a distribution agreement. In doing so, you’ve allowed our income flow to continue…”

Not holding my breath.

Joe sez: Me, neither. We live in a culture that prays for rain, then bitches when their shoes get muddy. How about:

"Thank you for stopping alongside the road and giving me your spare tire to replace my flat, but you gave me a sucky temp spare and now I can only drive under the speed limit."

Evie Love sez:  I mean, they just told Amazon that they NEED them and will starve to death without them. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do while negotiating...

Joe sez: The law of unintended consequences runs strong in this group.

S. Elliot Brandis sez: Sales of your books are down because your publisher has failed to negotiate a contract with their biggest retailer.

Do you:

a) Talk to your publisher to find out what they’re doing to resolve the conflict. Their business dealings are having an adverse effect on your career, and you’re keen to know what they’re doing to improve the situation.

b) Talk to your people (lawyer, agent, etc) to find out what alternative options you have, should your publisher be unable to resolve the conflict in a timely matter.

c) Write a series of rambling, self-important open letters complaining about the retailer, because… well, why not? Something about Chinese razor blades?

Joe sez: Think about if you're on the debate team, and you're chosen to defend an untenable position, one that is so stupid that there's no way you can possibly win.

Then imagine your future liveilhood depends on you winning the debate and convincing others.

In the case of midlisters, this situation will sting, a lot. But they have some options. This will force them to self-pub sooner than they would have otherwise, but survivor instinct will kick in and eventually they'll free themselves from their publishing oppressors and start reaping the benefits of keeping their own rights, controlling pricing, etc.

In the case of the Richie Rich authors, they're hemorrhaging unfathomable amounts of money. Even if they self-pub, they won't make the same amounts once B&N folds and the Big 5 vanish. Granted, going from 15 mil a year to only 4 mil doesn't qualify as a tragedy, but they aren't giving that up without a fight. Even though the fight, so far, has been alternately cringe-worthy and hilarious.

Mike Coville sez: The bottom line AU is not getting is that Amazon is not obligated by law to sell any book. There is no law that forces Amazon to discount, allow pre-orders or maintain advance stock in a warehouse. Amazon did all those things to benefit Amazon’s customers. If Amazon determines that someone is acting against what they want to provide their customers (i.e. over pricing ebooks) they have the legal right to stop providing those perks.

Selling your book on Amazon is not a right, it is a privilege!

Joe sez: This is a point that isn't brought up enough. At least this time there were no accusations of Amazon being a monopoly and using predatory pricing.

The DOJ doesn't EVER go after companies for being tough competitors, or for fighting to keep consumer prices low. Via an email train, some famous authors were wondering if Authors United's next move would be to bring a suit against Amazon. I don't think that's likely. If anything, if the DOJ start seriously poking around the history of publishing, they'd see ample evidence of a price-fixing cartel--the Big 6--that hurt both consumers and writers (via unconscionable contracts). If someone went after Amazon in this way, so much dirty laundry would come out in discovery that reader and writer class action suits would explode.

William Ockham sez: This letter will make a great case study in a Media Relations class. Call it “Start with every possible advantage and squander them all with an exercise in public bellybutton lint-picking”.

Could this letter be any more self-absorbed? Did anyone spend 30 minutes finding out who these people are? That “publishers are venture capitalists” may work on your NYC friends, but there are real VCs on the Amazon board. Good luck with them. And there are several current and former tech execs on the board. Do you really think your neo-Luddism will play well with them? Whatever you think of Jamie Gorelick, she will know about the ebook antitrust suit, so ignoring it won’t help you.

But my fondest hope would be for John Seely Brown to write back to you. I am sure he has better things to do, but that would be fun. Because you aren’t expecting any response. This is all just a cathartic exercise for you. It gives you a feeling of empowerment to “do something”, even if that something is an embarrassing display of ignorance. But the board of directors of Amazon is made up of real people who have worked hard to get where they are. They would make my list of favorite people, but they aren’t idiots.

Joe sez: Any veteran of schoolyard Nerf football knows the Hail Mary Pass, where as a last ditch effort to score before the bell ends recess, you just chuck the ball and hope your team catches it.

Sometimes this last-ditch effort scores a touchdown.

Sometimes it results in an interception.

Not knowing who the board members are, how they got there, and what their likely reaction will be, can result in an interception.

Dustin sez: And I have to say, as an actual PHYSICAL production worker, that there is little that could piss me off more than their remarks regarding blue collar labor. I try not to take it personal but their elitism, their belief that their million-dollar contracts and high class living standard makes them better than someone who works in a job that is, very likely, destroying their body for a paycheck makes it pretty hard not to start to hate them.

They’ve made it painfully obvious they think we’re peons and barbarians at the gate, so I’m done feeling an ounce of sympathy for the decline of their way of life. We tried to be nice. We offered advice. Now it’s time to move on and step over their corpses when their careers die. I won’t miss them.

Joe sez: I worked as a waiter, in retail sales (I was the guy in Sears taking baby pics), as a construction worker, for a few factories, telemarketing, and several other low paying blue collar (and white collar) jobs. Working a double shift on Mother's Day at Red Lobster was on par with brick laying in 100 degree heat and being on the line at an English Muffin factory at 4am--they were all hard, thankless jobs that didn't pay enough.

I don't understand elitism. I busted my ass to make a living, busted my ass to get published, continue to bust my ass to write and sell books, and I consider myself fortunate. Straining over sentence structure or plotting in a WIP, or facing a pub deadline, is a thousand times better and easier than cleaning a grease trap at Burger King.

Having your publisher fight with Amazon is the very definition of a First World Problem. I've worked very hard for my entire adult life, and I understand how lucky I am.

Eric Welch sez: I’m curious as to how the AU organization actually works. Have they incorporated? Do they meet or communicate to discuss the next course of action? How much unanimity is there really? I have a suspicion that they may not be as united as some of them would like to appear.

Joe sez: After reading the letter a few times, I don't see how anyone with half a brain would sign it.

My face would be so red right now if I had. Really. I've made mistakes before, and wanted to just disappear, and I can't imaging the AU authors feeling any less humiliated to be associated with this drivel.

Unless they didn't read carefully.

We've all signed things we didn't read. Every time we click a User Agreement, we're just trusting it's the same old gobbeldy-goop.

Preston has repeatedly said that this is about Amazon hurting authors. Who would be for authors being harmed? I mean, if you were asked to sign a petition to help stop the spread of dihydrogen monoxide, which kills thousands of people per year and is found in acid rain as well as every every lake, river, and ocean, you might sign it without thinking too much.

I hope that was the case here. The signatories saw Hachette authors being hurt, and signed something to protest that.

It doesn't matter that the letter is nonsense, or that they're backing the wrong team. It just feels good to do something. Especially when your name is among so many prominent, award-winning, bestselling authors.

These bestselling authors have no agenda, because they said they don't. They just want to help the poor little struggling midlisters out.

It doesn't matter that they never helped out midlisters before, by petitioning publishers to give better royalties, or petitioning bookstores who actually do boycott authors.

This isn't about rich, entitled authors advocating high priced ebooks, even though they are supporting Hachette, which is probably delaying negotiations by demanding to control ebook prices.

This isn't about protecting the status quo paper oligopoly.

It's all about the little guy.

And if my argument sucked this poorly, and I couldn't win based on facts, that's what I'd try to do, too. To sway public opinion with sentiment and hope to effect change before anyone looked too closely.

Good luck with that.

BTW-Authors United, do you see what I did with my addendums? I took smart things that other people said, and used them to make my own argument stronger. They caught things I missed. You had over 1000 signatories. Why the hell didn't you do that?

Author Conference of the Future

If it ever does happen, this is how I'd picture it:

One giant room, similar to ComiCon, with a stage and microphones.

Authors sit at tables, which are set up everywhere. For table space at the 3 day conference, authors pay $25 a day.

Attendees get in for free.

Authors bring their own paper books to sell. They can accept cash, or credit cards via PayPal Here.

Authors can bring cardboards stands, giveaways, whatever they'd like to make people come to their tables. I suggest having QR codes on promo material, so attendees can instantly buy ebooks.

Conference fees pay for the room space, advertising, and maps that show where the authors are on a numbered seating chart (also name plates and name tags for authors) and the schedule for the author talks.

Use Autography as the ebook vendor. Each author can autograph and personalize ebooks for anyone who stops by their table and buys one, and the ebook will be sent directly to the buyer's email address. Autography will collect payment then pay writers 70% of the ebook price after the conference.

Any author who wants to appear on the main stage in book room to talk for 15 minutes can, for an additional $50. Authors who want to appear on panels can book a block of time together (for example, 3 authors on stage at the same time would get 45 minutes and it would cost a total of $150).

In addition to the main room, there will be additional side rooms available as needed. If an author (or group of authors) want to appear in a side room to speak, it is $25 for 15 minutes per author.

Author speaking fees include a "we'll be back by" sign for when they are speaking or taking a break.

Joe sez: There are a lot of benefits to a conference as I've described it.

All authors are welcome. You are guaranteed signing time and speaking time as long as you sign up for it.

Fans get in for free, which will allow them to spend more money on books.

All authors can sign for as long as they want to.

All authors can speak for as long as they want to, on whatever topic they choose.

Even if an author has a table every day, and talks every day, the max they'll spend is $175. This is cheaper than most conferences, with a lot more visibility.

These fees pay for the hotel space, advertising, and paper programs for the con (these programs will also be available online, since many people will have tablets). If there is extra money left over, food for the green room.

With no booksellers, authors make 100% of the price they sell their paper books for, and 70% of the signed ebooks they sell through Autography. Authors can also sell whatever they want on their tables, like Cafe Press swag.

Free attendance would encourage walk-ins.

I can envision some sort of self-pub awards going on after hours. Sort of like an Indie Oscars. With a bar, of course.

Legacy authors would be welcome, but would probably need permission from their publishers to sell their legacy titles. I know Autography has deals in place with many big publishers already.

It seems to be doable. And if it got enough buzz and attracted some big authors, I could see it being successful. Money would need to be spent on advertising, and every author who attended would really need to get the message out to their fans.

Also, I want to be clear that I am NOT organizing, running, or will in any way be involved in an event like this. I'm simply musing about what such an event would entail, and maybe someone will run with the idea.

Am I missing anything? What would make you want to attend, both as a writer and as a reader?

Ebook Sales Down? Here Are 15 Tips!

It happens to everyone.

Sales slump. Riding high in April, shot down in May.

No one knows why some titles sell and others don't, or why some sell for a while and then taper off. My own experience defies any long tail explanations. Sales tend to fluctuate, and I'll see spikes on titles I released back in 2009. Some of my ebooks have broken the Top 100 many times over many years, proof that there is no such thing as "backlist" when ebooks are forever. Your title is brand new to someone who has never seen it before.

A decline in sales is natural. So natural that I wrote about it back in 2010.

But what can a writer do when sales begin to flounder, other than panic, get depressed, and curse the universe?

1. Write more. The more titles you have, the more you'll sell. Even if you only managed to accrue 1 fan, a new title means 1 sale.

2. Advertise. I still use BookBub, BookSends, and EbookBooster. If anyone has other suggestions, list them in the comments.

3. Sales. Kindle Countdowns and free periods always seem to goose sales in a title/series.

4. Increase prices. Huh? But you just said to try sales! I know. Try both. Amazon's new KDP Pricing Support Beta has suggestions. Try following them and see what happens (when I switched to suggested sales prices, my profit went up).

5. Collaborate. It never hurts to cross-pollinate with other writers' fans.

6. Try a new genre. The road to success is littered with folks who shifted gears, tried something different, and finally succeeded.

7. Change covers and book descriptions. Can't hurt. Or maybe it can. But you won't know until you try.

8. Try other retail outlets. If you're KDP Select, opt out and try other platforms. If you're on other platforms, try KDP Select.

9. More formats. Are you in audio yet? Do you have paper versions? Foreign languages? I'm currently #47 in Germany.

10. Billboards. I was talking about these back in 2008. A billboard is anyplace that points people to your work. Besides the obvious social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, Amazon), you should have a website that links to your books, allows readers to sign up for your newsletter, and announces what is coming soon.

11. Pre-orders. Amazon now allows this for KDP authors. I've used it to decent success (I was the very first self-pubbed author who had a pre-order page, back in 2010).

12. Pen names. Your name isn't selling? Invent a new one.

Now here are some things to avoid:

13. Don't whine in public. To quote Stephen Lynch, Charlie Brown will never get laid. No one likes a loser, and those who wallow in self-pity tend to bring more bad luck their way. Complain to your spouse over a beer, not online where you'll develop a bad rep. Always stay upbeat. And remember that the Internet is Permanent. Don't post shit that could come back to haunt you later.

14. Don't spam. Tweeting your ebook link twice a day is the limit, and don't do it more than two days in a row. People want information and entertainment, not sales pitches.

15. Don't quit. I've posted previously that if you can quit, you should. This is something I've been saying on this blog since 2005. (Damn, I'm old.) The fact is, no one knows when success (whatever your definition of success is) will come. I don't truly know if you'll ever get what you want out of this biz, but I do know that you won't get anything if you don't keep trying.

Like much in life, it all comes down to luck. Keep expectations low (no one owes you a living), keep working hard, keep learning, keep experimenting, keep at it, and you will improve your odds.