Self-Publishing Mistakes

dgaughran said:

If you are setting up your own business, you don't measure your ROI on day one, and then pronounce whether your efforts have been a failure or not.

You understand that there will be long hours at the start, possibly for little reward. You expect that you won't turn a profit on the first day you open your store.

You expect to invest time as well as money. Most people who start a small business are very like self-publishers. They often have a day job which pays the bills which they would like to give up one day.

They devote every spare second to the business, and would love to do it full time. That's the way it goes. I don't think many of them say to themselves "I made one sale today and I did 5 hours of promo so that means I got paid 7 cents an hour, I'm a loser".

Those promo seeds often take time to blossom. For example, I did very little promo this month because I am preparing another book for release. However, I have had several blog reviews in the last week, which should translate into some sales. Those review requests would have been sent out 5 weeks ago.

Click to expand...

Yes, Dave. I DO get this. I'm not ignorant of how business works. I've worked in the corporate world for over 30 years.

I'm trying to put information out there for people who DON'T know how it works. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the things people need to take into consideration when going into business or with trying to moderate expectations.

It's unfortunate that you don't like my cautionary point of view (which you've made apparent on numerous occasions), but them's the breaks. I'm quite sure I've had far more experience dealing with disillusioned and disappointed writers than you have.

dgaughran said:

I don't know what the percentage is, but I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, and assume that 80-90% figure is correct.

Click to expand...

Why should we assume that? It isn't.

dgaughran said:

Look, I'm not saying Rinzler is correct, I'm happy to accept a figure which is different, as long as there is some source for it.

Click to expand...

I can't give you a source for this information because in this instance, I am the source. It's something I've observed through working in publishing for so long, and through talking to so many other publishing professionals. I'll see if I can get some of those people to comment on my blog about it: that might be a useful post to write.

Concerning your last sentence, what "stances" disqualify someone from being a reliable source?

Click to expand...

You missed my point. Everyone has a stance: my current stance is "I don't like seeing people make false claims about trade publishing, and I really don't like seeing people who have never worked in publishing insist that they know all about it". Yours is "I'm thoroughly enjoying self-publishing and want to help everyone else reach this same fabulous place". Neither of those stances make our opinions and comments any more important, nor do they disqualify them: but they do colour our comments here, and everyone should take that into account.

shaldna said:

Publishing is a business, and publishers are in it to make money.

Click to expand...

Quite. It's illogical to think that a business which routinely loses money on most of the products it sells would continue in business for long.

Terie said:

It's unfortunate that you don't like my cautionary point of view (which you've made apparent on numerous occasions), but them's the breaks. I'm quite sure I've had far more experience dealing with disillusioned and disappointed writers than you have.

Click to expand...

Me too. When I spoke at the Edinburgh International Book Festival last year I was saddened by the number of writers I met who had got into trouble, one way or another, by listening to bad advice. I know that lots of people don't like what I say; but that doesn't mean that I'm automatically wrong.

dgaughran said:

How much do you earn? And how many books have you sold? What was your advance?

(If we are all sharing )

Click to expand...

I've got about 30 books out (they're all listed on my web page). My advances are around $50-$75K/book.

I haven't yet cracked the magic six-figure mark, but hey, I'm just a mid-list writer.

Rinzler:
Did you know that nearly all published books – conservative estimates range between 80-90 percent – lose money? These books don’t earn out their advances, don’t have second printings, they sell in the low four digits at best, are returned from the retail accounts and pulped or recycled.

Click to expand...

In addition to the point already made about how failure to earn out does not equate to lack of profitability, I'd say that the situation is nowhere near as simple as that. I keep going on about John B Thompson and his book MERCHANTS OF CULTURE, but it does feed into this discussion because a number of factors have meant that profitability per title is generally tight. He gives a rebuttal to a review here: http://www.blogos.eu/?p=558 where he says that 6-8% is typical for trade published titles (together with a range of other profitability levels) and this is due to a number of factors, not least the big discounts demanded by bookstores/supermarkets.

In an interview here:

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2010/11/express/is-publishing-doomed-john-b-thompson-with-williams-cole

He talks about the current economic troubles being seen by big publishers, which he traces back to the recession that started in 2008 and which has been exacerbated by other issues already affecting the industry. He also goes into explaining why some publishers are slower to adapt to ebooks than others by reference to past developments such as the CD-ROM boom that never was.

I'd seriously recommend people check Thompson's book out because it contains a lot of interesting and easy to read information about how commercial publishing is operating (not just the big boys, but with smaller houses as well), which goes a long way to counter the misinformtion out there about how commercial publishing is broken.

MM

Old Hack said:

You missed my point. Everyone has a stance: my current stance is "I don't like seeing people make false claims about trade publishing, and I really don't like seeing people who have never worked in publishing insist that they know all about it". Yours is "I'm thoroughly enjoying self-publishing and want to help everyone else reach this same fabulous place". Neither of those stances make our opinions and comments any more important, nor do they disqualify them: but they do colour our comments here, and everyone should take that into account.

Click to expand...

That is not my stance. You shouldn't put words in someone else's mouth. I'm happy to tell you my stance, you don't need to - inaccurately - guess it. My stance is also publicly available, both through my posts here and on my blog. It's no secret or mystery.

My stance is that self-publishing is a viable option for certain writers and certain books, and that each writer should decide for themselves what is best for them on a per-project basis based on their own goals and circumstances.

Hardly controversial.

I don't urge "everyone else" to self-publish. I provide information on how to do it effectively if that is what they have decided. I also provide information on alternative paths. I don't present anything as the right answer all the time or the right answer for everyone.

I take great care to warn people of the pitfalls, and of the tremendous amount of work ahead of them if they choose to self-publish. I constantly warn people that it will cost them money if they want to give themselves any chance. I urge people to make sure their work is ready before they even consider self-publishing, and I tell them that they must adopt a professional approach.

I don't present the world of self-publishing as "a fabulous place". I tell them it is tough.

Momento Mori said:

. . . John B Thompson and his book MERCHANTS OF CULTURE . . .

Click to expand...

Only in hardback -- no Kindle edition -- unfortunately. If it were in a Kindle edition, I'd have bought it on your recommendation.

--Ken

dgaughran said:

My stance is that self-publishing is a viable option for certain writers and certain books, and that each writer should decide for themselves what is best for them on a per-project basis based on their own goals and circumstances.

Click to expand...

I'm in 100% agreement with this. With every single project you have to decide what's best for that book at that time.

ResearchGuy:
Only in hardback -- no Kindle edition -- unfortunately. If it were in a Kindle edition, I'd have bought it on your recommendation.

Click to expand...

Damn. I guess that's because it came out through Polity and they're quite small. It's kind of ironic though, given that he's also written about the impact of digital publishing.

MM

What you need to remember is that publishing is driven by the best-sellers but it's supported by the okay-sellers.

I've used this analogy elsewhere: Publishing is like playing professional poker. Your job isn't to win every hand (because you can't). Your job is to make the right bets.

dgaughran said:

That is not my stance. You shouldn't put words in someone else's mouth. I'm happy to tell you my stance, you don't need to - inaccurately - guess it. My stance is also publicly available, both through my posts here and on my blog. It's no secret or mystery.

My stance is that self-publishing is a viable option for certain writers and certain books, and that each writer should decide for themselves what is best for them on a per-project basis based on their own goals and circumstances.

Hardly controversial.

I don't urge "everyone else" to self-publish. I provide information on how to do it effectively if that is what they have decided. I also provide information on alternative paths. I don't present anything as the right answer all the time or the right answer for everyone.

I take great care to warn people of the pitfalls, and of the tremendous amount of work ahead of them if they choose to self-publish. I constantly warn people that it will cost them money if they want to give themselves any chance. I urge people to make sure their work is ready before they even consider self-publishing, and I tell them that they must adopt a professional approach.

I don't present the world of self-publishing as "a fabulous place". I tell them it is tough.

Click to expand...

My stance as well. I think David just does what I do most of the time. When you see an argument on one side, you try to explore it from other sides as well to fully understand the issue. Sometimes we land on different sides, but I definitely don't think he's here with an agenda.

dgaughran said:

That is not my stance. You shouldn't put words in someone else's mouth.

Click to expand...

I meant it in a positive way, Dave: it wasn't a criticism of you at all; more a comment on your energy and enthusiasm which, as I've told you before, I really appreciate. I'm sorry you didn't read it that way. But talking of putting words into someone's mouth, do you remember making this comment to me?

dgaughran said:

Concerning your last sentence, what "stances" disqualify someone from being a reliable source?

Click to expand...

I hadn't said anything about how anyone's stance disqualified them from being reliable: just that our viewpoints colour our opinions.

My stance is that self-publishing is a viable option for certain writers and certain books, and that each writer should decide for themselves what is best for them on a per-project basis based on their own goals and circumstances.

Click to expand...

Which is also how I feel. And for writers to be able to decide for themselves they have to know what's true and what isn't. There's so much misinformation on the internet.

I don't urge "everyone else" to self-publish.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that you did.

I don't present the world of self-publishing as "a fabulous place".

Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say that you did. I wrote that your stance seems to be,

"I'm thoroughly enjoying self-publishing and want to help everyone else reach this same fabulous place"

Click to expand...

I intended the "fabulous place" to refer to "thoroughly enjoying". Again, I'm sorry you misread me. Again.

James D. Macdonald said:

I'm in 100% agreement with this. With every single project you have to decide what's best for that book at that time.

Click to expand...

Yep.

kaitie said:

My stance as well. I think David just does what I do most of the time. When you see an argument on one side, you try to explore it from other sides as well to fully understand the issue. Sometimes we land on different sides, but I definitely don't think he's here with an agenda.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone suggested that Dave has an agenda.

As a newbie to all sides of publishing, I appreciate all posts, even ones that make claims contrary to my beliefs. And I love seeing that we have a positive/civil discussion going here without losing it and blaming stuff on any sort of double standard

So I just wanted to thank everybody who contributes at length and quality.

Carry on.

Lock thread!

Old Hack said:

Lock thread!

Click to expand...

Er, wouldn't that be YOUR job?

Al Stevens said:

Commentators are, in this context, people who post comments somewhere. I'm sure you can use google to find what others say on this subject. I posted one such link in an earlier message. Want more? Go for it.

I thought you might say this. Frankly, with the exception of a very few, I never heard of these bloggers and others and I have no reason to take anything they say seriously, as opposed to reviewers I respect (or not), primarily in magazines and newspapers (albeit they are becoming fewer and fewer and I do think there's a need for the industry to develop other credible sources we can turn to).

I agree with almost everything you post on this board. I just happen to know that in the good ol' days of trad publishing more titles lost money than made money.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated. Since I don't have statistical proof to counter your 90% belief, and since I agree that many titles lose money and still do, our disagreement seems to be only the percentage. I'll go with 30% or so until someone can prove me wrong.

scope said:

I'll go with 30% or so until someone can prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

65.8% for me. Saw it in my Palantir.

Aylaa said:

as a self publisher (though i prefer indie b/c of the music relation) I ask friends how they find books, and all say, word of mouth. Worrying about the small stuff wastes time. Writers have to network, and network hard if they want readers.

The very best method for selling an ebook: "readers who purchsed... also purchased ...." short of word of mouth, is all u gotta worry about.

Click to expand...

We all seem to agree that word of mouth is key. However,
there's just so much that we as writers can do to help create such a buzz.
You are a self-publisher. What can you and other self-publishers do (or are doing) to help create word of mouth?

dgaughran said:

I don't know what the percentage is, but I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, and assume that 80-90% figure is correct.

I will show you how - in theory - even with a figure of 90%, a publisher could still make a nice profit.

Let's say the imprint "Lucky Guess Books" releases 10 books a year, and 9 of those lose money. Let's say the losses are $10,000 a book. That's $90,000. All I need to be able to stay in business is for book number ten to be a blowout. Let's say it does really well. Let's say it makes $1m.

That's not such a bad business model after all.

There are lots of businesses where a 10% success rate would be considered good. Don't get too worked up about it meaning that someone doesn't have a clue what they are doing.

Predicting the future is hard, and very few people can do it accurately with any regularity.

Click to expand...

I don't find your arguement logical. Why would a business person entertain a business model where they think or know that 90% of their future product will lose money and have to HOPE that 10% (in this case, 1 out of 10) will make enough money to cover all the losses and produce a profit?

dgaughran said:

Look, I'm not saying Rinzler is correct, I'm happy to accept a figure which is different, as long as there is some source for it.

Click to expand...

C'mon, you know better. Do you really think a publisher of any magnitude is going to release their profit and loss statements, and the details of same? Unfortunately, all we have to go on is the experience of AW membership.

Terie,

Great post (#221).

Capital said:

As a newbie to all sides of publishing, I appreciate all posts, even ones that make claims contrary to my beliefs. And I love seeing that we have a positive/civil discussion going here without losing it and blaming stuff on any sort of double standard

So I just wanted to thank everybody who contributes at length and quality.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same thing. Group hug!

scope said:

Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated. Since I don't have statistical proof to counter your 90% belief, and since I agree that many titles lose money and still do, our disagreement seems to be only the percentage. I'll go with 30% or so until someone can prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

The 90% belief isn't mine although I guess I'm stuck with that attributution by association. It came from someone else. IIRC I said, "most," which can be from 51% on up, and I thought that the 80-90% that someone else posted could be reasonable.

There seems to be an illogical position being held here that a majority of losers automatically condemns a business to fail.

It does not as long as there are enough big winners to carry the load. That's been pointed out a couple of times, but those who don't want to accept it are ignoring it. Happens all the time. Please don't let the facts get in the way of my arguments.

I don't, however, believe that small presses can sustain those kinds of numbers today, mainly because they can't count on having any big winners to offset the losers. The rules have changed; POD and ebooks allow low-selling titles to make profits for publishers, which, I believe, accounts for the doors of small presses staying open. Good for them.

scope said:

I don't find your arguement logical. Why would a business person entertain a business model where they think or know that 90% of their future product will lose money and have to HOPE that 10% (in this case, 1 out of 10) will make enough money to cover all the losses and produce a profit?

Click to expand...

Oh, sure. Probably every small used book store operates on that business model. Most of their stock doesn't move. Lots of small business operate that way. Big inventory of nonperishable items, relatively small number of items sold.

A local old-time hardware store does just that. They have to have it on the shelf when someone wants it so the customers keep coming back. That kind of way of doing business goes way back.

You know what I'd be interested to know? This is mildly off-topic, but something that seems to be true is that the actual amount of average advances hasn't really gone up that much for the past several years. I might be wrong on that, but I do seem to remember reading about the fact that the average advance now is about the same as it was fifteen years ago.

Considering inflation, this essentially would mean that authors are paid less now than they were in the past. If that's so, I'd expect that more authors are able to earn out advances now than in the past. Is there any truth to this possibility? Or am I just way off base.

kaitie said:

You know what I'd be interested to know? This is mildly off-topic, but something that seems to be true is that the actual amount of average advances hasn't really gone up that much for the past several years. I might be wrong on that, but I do seem to remember reading about the fact that the average advance now is about the same as it was fifteen years ago.

Considering inflation, this essentially would mean that authors are paid less now than they were in the past. If that's so, I'd expect that more authors are able to earn out advances now than in the past. Is there any truth to this possibility? Or am I just way off base.

Click to expand...

I have no data to support this, but I think the supply of books is rising (authors die, their books don't), while the demand is falling (thanks, Internet). Laws of economics would dictate lower profits for suppliers.