Reality of a NYT bestseller

[Raphee]

This is a great post about the actual income one author made from hitting the NYT bestseller list.

http://www.genreality.net/the-reality-of-a-times-bestseller

[brainstorm77]

Interesting link. Thanks.

[fringle]

Ho humm.

[Izz]

Heh - good thing I'm doing it for the love. Plus, you gotta aim for markets other than the USA, too.

[Enna]

We really do write because we have to...not have to make money, just have to.

[Nadia]

I read that when it was first posted on Friday. Thought it was very interesting.

[Garpy]

It's having an extensive backlist that really generates the income. One book earning you a trickle of 1-2k royalties a year is nothing; ten or more books doing that is a wage. (just)

Another factor not oftened considered is the selling of territory rights. Individually, nothing spectacular usually at 1-3k per country. But when your agent manages to sell into a dozen or so countries, that really helps to keep you going.

The golden rule for making a living is longevity. Income-wise it pays more to keep churning out mediocre books every year than a cracking bestseller every now and then.

[scarletpeaches]

So this person's whining about a £25k advance?

[MetalDog]

Dollars, not pounds. I don't think they're whining, either - just saying that's how it is. I earn more than that a year and I'm not terribly well paid.

Gotta write though, paid for it or no =)

@edit - oh wait, you've already done a loose conversion, haven't you? Pardon my stupid! Still reckon you'd have trouble doing nothing else but writing on that sort of cash. You'd be very nervous about getting blocked =D

[Charlie Horse]

Maybe I should think twice about putting sugar in my boss's gas tank.

[NeuroFizz]

The value of this thread is this--many writers come into this business expecting to make a handsome wage year after year by writing a novel every year or two, so they quit their day job and bank on a cushy life of the writer. A bit of honesty, based on actual experience, is always welcome and needed so people realize that even an advance that looks like a good year's salary is broken into pieces paid over a couple of years, and totals significantly less than the original dollar amount written on the contract. On top of that, the royalty situation is complex and not nearly what one would expect. The best lesson is for writers to establish a pipeline model for their writing so, as mentioned, the new money keeps coming in as the backlist money props it up. The people who are successful in this writing business (other than the few who earn huge money) do so by being more than just extremely creative individuals--they are also hard working writers who earn every penny they make.

[Siddow]

Don't forget, that's mass market paperback.

Money magazine had a thing about hardcovers..lemme see if I can find it.

[Delhomeboy]

I thought the real money came from selling the paperback rights anyway?

EDIT: And why the hell did it take a freakin' year to get her first royalty check? Surely they can't be THAT slow...

[Siddow]

Argh...I can't find it. I read it in the hardcopy version of the mag, and have since donated all my old magazines, and my google-fu won't turn it up on the website. But per-book royalties on hardcovers are considerably higher.

[Siddow]

I thought the real money came from selling the paperback rights anyway?

Ideally, after the hardcover has been sold.

[James D. Macdonald]

EDIT: And why the hell did it take a freakin' year to get her first royalty check? Surely they can't be THAT slow...

You get royalties twice a year, usually, and depending on when your book comes out ... yeah. This isn't uncommon.

I've discussed this and many other things that this author highlights over in the Learn Writing with Uncle Jim thread.

There are lots of easier ways to earn more money, if money is what you're after.

[Eric San Juan]

So this person's whining about a £25k advance?
I read no whining, I only read someone sharing information with people and helping clarify some misconceptions about the living authors make. I don't see that as complaining or whining.

[ChristineR]

Well, it's after tax money, and it's not even the entire advance. And she hasn't yet gotten the money which she will get from outselling her expectations--so far, all her royalties have been credited against her advance, which she has not yet gotten all of. From what I can tell, she'll probably get about the same amount again in November. Plus she may continue to get royalties for years, and she will now be in a position to get a larger advance for her next book--after all, her current book outsold expectations and garnered her a lot of new fans.

[Gillhoughly]

: why the hell did it take a freakin' year to get her first royalty check? Surely they can't be THAT slow...

Oh, yes, they can.

It takes time for the bean counters to total up book sales from date A to date B. Some do it yearly, others twice a year, others quarterly, and some small e-houses are monthly.

Last week I got royalty statements for summer, 2008 for one of my titles.

Just keep in mind that a royalty is what your book has actually earned in sales.

An advance is what you get when you sign a contract. That's how much the publisher estimates your book will earn. Think of it as a loan that has to be paid off before they give you more money.

If your advance is 1000.00 and you earn 999.00 in your percentage of the sales, you don't make a royalty, though they'll send you a statement.

If your sales earnings are 1001.00, you've earned a royalty, but the publisher will hold that dollar back until the next statement and put it on THAT check.

The cutoff amount for my earnings is 25.00 with one house. If my sales aren't over that amount they apply it to the next statement and check.

That was an excellent article, btw. I strongly suggest everyone print it out and keep it handy.

As for fast advance payment--one of my friends closed her deal with a major house months ago. In fact, she had the first book finished and turned in the day she signed the contract. She is well ahead on her second title.

They've STILL not sent her that first advance check, having exceeded the time period as stated in her contract.

On her next contract, her agent will add a clause that they MUST send the check within a specific time period, or else pay extra as a penalty!

I should mention that, she's now a Times bestselling writer, so she can get away with that kind of thing!

[scarletpeaches]

Dollars, not pounds. I don't think they're whining, either - just saying that's how it is. I earn more than that a year and I'm not terribly well paid.

Gotta write though, paid for it or no =)

@edit - oh wait, you've already done a loose conversion, haven't you? Pardon my stupid! Still reckon you'd have trouble doing nothing else but writing on that sort of cash. You'd be very nervous about getting blocked =D

Aye, UK cash is roughly half the munniez numbers of dollars.

Me, personally, I could easily live on £25k a year. In fact that'd keep me out of a whole heap of trouble, so...yeah. I'd be glad of it.

(And I don't get blocked anyway, so nerves wouldn't be a factor there).

[ClaudiaGray]

I only got my royalties for July-December 2008 last week. So yeah, publishers take a while. (Except Disney. If you do work-for-hire for Disney, that check will be in your hand pronto. The other side of this, of course, is that the oh-so-flexible deadlines other publishers have? They're cast-iron for the Mouse.)

[Williebee]

I didn't read it as whining, either. A good piece. Thanks for the link. This in particular:

In Publishing telling the truth about earnings smashes the illusions publishers and writers want you to believe and, like breaking mirrors, it never brings you good luck.

As others have said, if you're writing, write for the love of the writing. If you want to be published, work your butt off for the purpose of being published.

Looked at realistically, writing may well be a sickness. A good sickness, and not one I want to get over, but still.... :)

[MetalDog]

Yeah 25kPA would be a fair whack more than my current wages - but the pressure to deliver a novel (and deliver very well) every single year wouldn't sit well with me at all. I've done the 'living hand to mouth' thing with contract work and it's horrible when the money's running low, your contract is about to end and your landlord decides they want to sell the flat =E

[Ken]

... had always thought NYTers were rolling in loot.
Guess you really have to be a Sking or Smeyers to earn a living in this cursed profession.
Writing rocks though, so I'll keep struggling on. Just seeing a book of mine in a store one day would be awesome :-) ... even if it does just earn me a measely buck or two.

[IceCreamEmpress]

So this person's whining about a £25k advance?

No, she's saying that when people assume that being on the New York Times best-seller list automatically guarantees HUGE CASH, they don't know the whole story.

Yes, $50,000/34,000 pounds is a decent year's wage, and I don't see her complaining about that. But the mythology here in the US at least is that when authors hit the best-seller lists, they've got it made! Rolling in cash! Rich forever! Buy your own plane!

That's just not the case, and I think it's helpful of her to share some real figures.

[Bubastes]

Good article. I read it as "Don't quit the day job, even if you have a NYT bestseller." Thanks for posting it.

[maestrowork]

The idea of "striking it rich" like Stephanie Meyer does not escape every new writer, but the reality is, most people only make a good living, if they succeed in making this a career. That would mean: write, write and write. The more you write and publish, the more you will make just by volume and aggregation. That's math.

Like Uncle Jim said, if money is what you're after, there are plenty of things to do that make better and steadier money. I certainly didn't come into writing for money -- I made six-figures before being an IT consultant.

I see the same thing in the acting community. Wannabe actors think they're going to be the next Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. They may all be great-looking, talented people, but much of that has more to do with luck, being at the right place at the right time, than just being a good actor. But it's a mistake to think just because the stars are demanding $20 million a movie, that every actor is rolling in dough. Of all the members of SAG (that they actually MADE it into the union -- they are millions who haven't), only a small portion are "working" actors, let along stars.

But with a lot of hard work, may working actors can make a decent living -- but it's a LOT of hard work, constant work, not for the faint of heart. And a lot of times, they make better money doing secretarial work or waiting tables. The real actors do it for love -- their love for the craft and the art. I myself have done enough work to get royalty checks periodically, but if I depend on that to live on, I'd be dead long ago.

[brainstorm77]

I didn't see it as whining, its information I'm glad they shared.

[Delhomeboy]

Oh, yes, they can.

It takes time for the bean counters to total up book sales from date A to date B. Some do it yearly, others twice a year, others quarterly, and some small e-houses are monthly.

Last week I got royalty statements for summer, 2008 for one of my titles.

Just keep in mind that a royalty is what your book has actually earned in sales.

An advance is what you get when you sign a contract. That's how much the publisher estimates your book will earn. Think of it as a loan that has to be paid off before they give you more money.

If your advance is 1000.00 and you earn 999.00 in your percentage of the sales, you don't make a royalty, though they'll send you a statement.

If your sales earnings are 1001.00, you've earned a royalty, but the publisher will hold that dollar back until the next statement and put it on THAT check.

The cutoff amount for my earnings is 25.00 with one house. If my sales aren't over that amount they apply it to the next statement and check.



This begs the question: I've always heard that publisher's lose money on 9 out of 10 books, mainly from the books sales not making up the advance. If this is true, how does any book publisher stay in business?

[nevada]

No, she's saying that when people assume that being on the New York Times best-seller list automatically guarantees HUGE CASH, they don't know the whole story.

Yes, $50,000/34,000 pounds is a decent year's wage, and I don't see her complaining about that. But the mythology here in the US at least is that when authors hit the best-seller lists, they've got it made! Rolling in cash! Rich forever! Buy your own plane!

That's just not the case, and I think it's helpful of her to share some real figures.

Except of course, that she didn't get 50K in her hands. She got about 25,000K in three installments. That's a reality most beginning writers don't realize and I'm glad she wrote the article with actual numbers. Writing won't make you rich, or even comfortably well-off. You can write and sell a book and not get most of the money they pay you for it for years. It's a good thing to keep in mind for those people who say "I'll write a book and be rich, it'll be easy."

[maestrowork]

This begs the question: I've always heard that publisher's lose money on 9 out of 10 books, mainly from the books sales not making up the advance. If this is true, how does any book publisher stay in business?

Because of that 1 book. Stephanie Meyer's books, for example, help pay for all the other stuff the publisher puts out and loses money on... Big publishers have the capital to take care of the "losses" as long as they have some winners in the house. The fact is, they don't know if something is going to sell until they start selling it -- all they have is a promise of market potential.

It's the same with any businesses. Not all products a company puts out make profits. Some lose money, but then you have a flagship product like Coca Cola that is pretty much cash cow -- it makes it easier to continue with product development hoping to find the next big thing. Or movies -- I'd say 8 out of 10 movies lose money at the box office. They may eventually make the money back with DVD sales. But that's the business. What else are they going to do? Stop making movies? And there's no sure bets either. Just because you make Indiana Jones 16 times doesn't mean it's going to make money every time.

[maestrowork]

Except of course, that she didn't get 50K in her hands. She got about 25,000K in three installments. That's a reality most beginning writers don't realize and I'm glad she wrote the article with actual numbers. Writing won't make you rich, or even comfortably well-off. You can write and sell a book and not get most of the money they pay you for it for years. It's a good thing to keep in mind for those people who say "I'll write a book and be rich, it'll be easy."

And considering how long it takes to write a book, to query it, then to actually get it published and distributed... (and then if the writer has another book coming out? Or is it another 2 years away?)... you figure you'll make more money working at McDonald's.

Granted, some writers do get their six-figure advances (even here on AW), but I'd say those are more like exceptions than the rules.

[ChristineR]

This begs the question: I've always heard that publisher's lose money on 9 out of 10 books, mainly from the books sales not making up the advance. If this is true, how does any book publisher stay in business?

You may be confusing two things here. One is that most writers never "earn back" their advances. That is, they might get royalties of $2.00 a book, and get an advance of $50,000. For the first 25,000 copies sold, the author gets nothing because he's already been advanced that much. Most books never actually sell those 25,000 books, so the author just gets his $50,000 (minus agent percentage, expenses and taxes of course).

The other question is whether the book earns $50,000 + other expenses for the publisher. It might do this and still not sell the 25,000 copies. If the books sells for $10, and sells to stores for $6.00, then the publisher will earn $60,000 at a mere 10,000 copies. I'm not sure what percentage of books fall into this category, but I think it's quite a few.

However, a certain percentage of books do make money, and these will make up for the books that lose money. Obviously if publishers knew in advance which category a book would fall into, they would only publish the ones that would make money.

[Gillhoughly]

This begs the question: I've always heard that publisher's lose money on 9 out of 10 books, mainly from the books sales not making up the advance. If this is true, how does any book publisher stay in business?

Find a source for those figures. I'd love to see a page where any publisher who has not declared bankruptcy admits that in public.

I'm not saying it ain't true, but beware of the "I've heard that..." phrase. It may come from the same place where people get the idea that writers are rolling in loot.

One of my pals--the same one now on the NYT bestseller list--spent several years in non-payment hell.

She never earned back her advance on titles she had with one house.

The publisher didn't print enough books to make that happen. Sure, the books sold out, but another thousand copies would have made it an earner. Either they were dumb and shot themselves in the foot by underprinting, or they just didn't want to mess with paying her royalties and did it on purpose.

[maestrowork]

Either they were dumb and shot themselves in the foot by underprinting, or they just didn't want to mess with paying her royalties and did it on purpose.

But why would they want to do that? Don't they want to make money? Don't they want to make back the advance they paid her? It doesn't make sense to me that a publisher wouldn't want to make a profit even though it may mean 10% of gross goes back to the author. I mean, they would rather lose money on the advance than pay royalties?

[JJPie]

Thanks for the wonderful article. I found it really informative!

[NatJM]

It's a great article and didn't come across as complaining at all.

The bottom line is that US$25k is NOT a lot of money at all and many other jobs could regularly bring in more (whereas she doesn't know how much is coming next).

[brainstorm77]

Bottom line, don't quit ya day job! :)

[scarletpeaches]

It's a great article and didn't come across as complaining at all.

The bottom line is that US$25k is NOT a lot of money at all and many other jobs could regularly bring in more (whereas she doesn't know how much is coming next).

$50k. It was only '25k' when I translated it into the much superior British pound. :D

[Delhomeboy]

$50k. It was only '25k' when I translated it into the much superior British pound. :D

uh-huh...

[DMarie84]

Bottom line, don't quit ya day job! :)

Unless said day job is only part time and supplementary to another income and you only earn 10K a year at best :tongue

But that also depends on other factors too...so even that is questionable.

[IceCreamEmpress]

$50k. It was only '25k' when I translated it into the much superior British pound. :D

$50,000 US is 34,000+ pounds.

[scarletpeaches]

Wow! I'm richer than I thought!

(Metaphorically).

Great. I just gained another 9k. In my mind, anyway.

[James D. Macdonald]

This begs the question: I've always heard that publisher's lose money on 9 out of 10 books, mainly from the books sales not making up the advance. If this is true, how does any book publisher stay in business?

You may have heard it, but it isn't true.

Publishers start earning a profit long before a book earns out. They set the amount of the advance at what they figure the book will pay in royalties over its life. Usually they're pretty close to right. When a book doesn't earn out, that's the system working as designed. When a book does earn out, that's a happy surprise but not what anyone was planning on.

[Eric San Juan]

$50k. It was only '25k' when I translated it into the much superior British pound. :D
As she noted, that $50k very quickly becomes $25k once her agent, the tax man, and others get to it.

[IceCreamEmpress]

As she noted, that $50k very quickly becomes $25k once her agent, the tax man, and others get to it.

Yes.

So it's really $42,500 in income to her. And then she has to pay taxes on that, like everyone else who earns money.

Now, there are plenty of people who would be delighted with a year's wage of $42,500, especially these days. But it's a high school teacher's salary, or a retail manager's salary, not some vast riches.

So that's her point--even people who make best-seller lists aren't necessarily getting rich; they may be just making a modest living. I think that's pretty important information to share.

[Eric San Juan]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[James D. Macdonald]

But why would they want to do that? Don't they want to make money?

They've already made money. They're well into the black long before earn-out. At that point they've earned every penny they planned on in their budget.

Don't they want to make back the advance they paid her? It doesn't make sense to me that a publisher wouldn't want to make a profit even though it may mean 10% of gross goes back to the author. I mean, they would rather lose money on the advance than pay royalties?

All that not earning out means is that the author earned a slightly higher percent royalty than contracted for. The advance is one of the smallest parts of the price of publishing a book. On the other hand, the publisher doesn't have the hassle of keeping track of money coming and going and reserve against returns and cutting a check to the author every six months. Far easier to just put the book out of print, revert the rights, and move on to publishing the next book.

[katiemac]

You may have heard it, but it isn't true.

Publishers start earning a profit long before a book earns out. They set the amount of the advance at what they figure the book will pay in royalties over its life. Usually they're pretty close to right. When a book doesn't earn out, that's the system working as designed. When a book does earn out, that's a happy surprise but not what anyone was planning on.

Let's say you sell your book, and over the next five years you earn out on your advance. Then the publisher goes under. What happens to a book then? Does the author kiss any chance of royalties goodbye, or is there someone out there cooking the books on titles still on the shelves? Would there even be any of those publisher's books on the shelves?

[James D. Macdonald]

Let's say you sell your book, and over the next five years you earn out on your advance. Then the publisher goes under. What happens to a book then? Does the author kiss any chance of royalties goodbye, or is there someone out there cooking the books on titles still on the shelves? Would there even be any of those publisher's books on the shelves?

If the publisher goes bankrupt you'd better hope that your book reverted before then, because once it's in bankruptcy court your book is an asset that can be sold to satisfy the publisher's debts, and whoever buys it is under no obligation to pay you anything at all.

(You know those clauses in the standard publishing contract that state that in the event of bankruptcy the rights revert? Only a monkey would believe it. A bankrupt company cannot give away its assets. The court will come and get them.)

But suppose there isn't a bankruptcy. The place just closes its doors. Any books that are still on the shelves are ... well. Best of luck to you. I hope you got the rights back while there was still someone in the office who could sign reversion letters.

[cyberwraith]

This has been a very satisfying thread. Thank you everybody for writing. I've learned a lot.

I think the most important earnings an artist of any kind makes is the ability to live life on their own terms. To not have only 119 days (weekends, plus two weeks vacation) of the year in which to follow their own agenda.

[NatJM]

$50k. It was only '25k' when I translated it into the much superior British pound. :D

US$50 is the gross advance but she only got about $25k- $26k to be exact but it's splitting hairs here - in her bank account, after paying her agent and the taxman. This translates as about £15k (the pound hasn't been worth US2$ for almost a year now!) and therefore, my statement stands ;)

[CheshireCat]

I thought the real money came from selling the paperback rights anyway?

Ideally, after the hardcover has been sold.

These days, at least here in the US, if a book sells in hardcover, the same house has mass market rights usually. There's no separate sale. As a matter of fact, many contracts cover both hardcover and MM (as well as trade) in order to give the publisher the option of which format to go with.

I'm sure there are some exceptions, but most hardcover houses have at least one MM imprint, and would naturally prefer to have any hit as a rollover in MM rather than see another house publish that edition.

[Straka]

Sort of what I expected of a trade paperback (granted on the lower side of it). But very informative. Thanks for the posting.

[Delhomeboy]

These days, at least here in the US, if a book sells in hardcover, the same house has mass market rights usually. There's no separate sale. As a matter of fact, many contracts cover both hardcover and MM (as well as trade) in order to give the publisher the option of which format to go with.

I'm sure there are some exceptions, but most hardcover houses have at least one MM imprint, and would naturally prefer to have any hit as a rollover in MM rather than see another house publish that edition.


If I sound like a greedy kid here, I'm sorry. I don't write just for the money, of course, but I also know very little about the specific ends and outs of publishing.

But, anyway, then where does the quote-unquote "big money" come from? Stephen King, I know, got 400,000 for paperback rights for Carrie. Of course, that was back in the seventies, and from what you said, they don't do that anymore. So is the first book of an author doomed to not make a huge amount of money? Do you have to keep writing them until they sell enough to warrant a big advance?

[Noah Body]

Pretty informative OP, thanks for showing that.

[willietheshakes]

These days, at least here in the US, if a book sells in hardcover, the same house has mass market rights usually. There's no separate sale. As a matter of fact, many contracts cover both hardcover and MM (as well as trade) in order to give the publisher the option of which format to go with.

I'm sure there are some exceptions, but most hardcover houses have at least one MM imprint, and would naturally prefer to have any hit as a rollover in MM rather than see another house publish that edition.


Yup.

In fact, Scott Turow just negotiated a new deal to address this issue (well, in addition to other things).

[ClaudiaGray]

If I sound like a greedy kid here, I'm sorry. I don't write just for the money, of course, but I also know very little about the specific ends and outs of publishing.

But, anyway, then where does the quote-unquote "big money" come from? Stephen King, I know, got 400,000 for paperback rights for Carrie. Of course, that was back in the seventies, and from what you said, they don't do that anymore. So is the first book of an author doomed to not make a huge amount of money? Do you have to keep writing them until they sell enough to warrant a big advance?


Big money rarely comes, and when it does, it's usually accumulated from many titles, over time, and a solid sales record that encourages the publisher to up your advance.

There are certainly authors who get big advances for their first books, or for early books. I was not one of those! Mostly, though, you have to build a sales record with your early books in order to get larger advances on the later ones.

[Prawn]

Great post, great thread.

I hope one day to be published, of course, but I look at writing as a part-time job that I love. Even if I get a nice advance of 5 or 10 K for a book, it will still only work out to about 5 bucks an hour. I could make more at Wal-mart. It ain't about the money, or at least not for me.

[maestrowork]

But, anyway, then where does the quote-unquote "big money" come from? Stephen King, I know, got 400,000 for paperback rights for Carrie.

He got only $2500 for the hardback, but it sold like hot cakes, and that's why he got the big advance for the paperback.

Rowling also only got £2500 for the first Harry Potter book. Only when Scholastics knew about the book did they win it in an auction for $100,000. Even that is not an outrageous sum.

I don't know how publishers make these decisions. I know of a local author who got $750,000 for his debut novel. I don't how well it turned out, but that's a rare case. I don't exactly sure how they make these decisions but I'm sure they went through all the bean counting and determined that book had the best potential to be a mass best seller and it was worth the investment.

Does that mean they always win their bets? No. Charles Frazier's Twelve Moons got a record $8M advance but it bombed. The Da Vinci Code became a mega-hit even though Dan Brown had been a midlist author for a while. So sometimes it's just luck. The thing is, we have no control over luck and talent, but we do have control over discipline and hard work. I've always said, reach for the stars while your feet are firmly on the ground.

[jy'lenn]

I've been told and read and heard that writer's have to have a 'day job' to keep alive. Personally, I'll take the bragging rights with little money. For those who haven't heard/noticed/read I'm a bit on the evil side (ok, a lot on the evil side, lol). Besides, I've got two kids and a step-son-to-be that I know would enjoy being able to say 'my parents are writers!'

besides, I've got friends, co-workers, and former co-workers who are rooting for us to be published.

Money isn't everything and if this can give me some extra cash to pay the bills, I'm all for it, but it's more for the fun and fullfilling a dream than anything else. :D (ok, shoving it in my bro's nose would be really fun too... sibling rivalry and all that. ;))

[CheshireCat]

If I sound like a greedy kid here, I'm sorry. I don't write just for the money, of course, but I also know very little about the specific ends and outs of publishing.

But, anyway, then where does the quote-unquote "big money" come from? Stephen King, I know, got 400,000 for paperback rights for Carrie. Of course, that was back in the seventies, and from what you said, they don't do that anymore. So is the first book of an author doomed to not make a huge amount of money? Do you have to keep writing them until they sell enough to warrant a big advance?

No, you don't sound greedy; knowing about the money is a good thing, especially for anyone hoping to write for a living.

As someone else said, usually the "big money" comes with time and a solid track record. It can be slow -- and I mean slow. I'd written dozens of books over more than fifteen years before I was earning what I'd consider reasonably "Big Money," and had to hit the Times list before the money got Really Big. (For what it's worth, all my bestsellers have earned me more than the amounts quoted in the article -- but I've been writing a lot longer and got considerably higher print runs.)

A first novel can earn an author a lot of money -- it just isn't the norm. Auctions can drive up advances way beyond what most first novels get, for instance. A stellar agent can sometimes get more money up front.

But most advances are based on the publisher's P&L, and the P&L is based, of course, on what they hope the book will sell. If they guess right, they don't lose money; if they guess wrong and the book does better than expected, everybody is happy; if they guess wrong and the book tanks, nobody is happy.

The truth is that anybody hoping to "make it" financially with a single book is shooting for the moon. If you want to do this for a living, plan to work steadily and produce a body of work you hope will gradually build your audience over time. Those are the bread-and-butter writers publishers depend on.

[jodiodi]

I just hope to write a book people will want to read and maybe it'll help pay our bills. I've gone from a fairly decent salary to nothing in the past year, so anything from a book would be welcome.

I've always had stories in my head, was always the 'writer/director' of our games when I was a kid. I just don't know if anything I write is going to find an audience. But I want to try, so at least I can say I gave it a shot.

[Raphee]

Great answers in response to the post.

It does put your priorities straight about why you are writing.

[smoothseas]

Interesting thread and thanks, Raphee, for the link.