I want to have control of the eBooks. From everything J.A. Konrath and Barry Eisler point out, it seems like self-publishing is the way I want to go. Or through Amazon's new publishing arm.
Are you going for mainstream or self-publishing?
- Thread starter ArchaWriter
- Start date
- Status
Be careful with the highlighted portion. If you're considering self-publishing, then get some solid information from *both* sides of the industry. Mr. Eisler is far more balanced in his presentations than Mr. Konrath, but they're both published by Amazon, so they have a stake in making that choice the best one.
Beware of *anyone* who claims one form of publishing is the "only way" for everyone. Everyone's books are not the same, nor do they require the same handling.
Go through the self-publishing threads here and get some sales numbers from people who aren't at the top. Read the success stories and the lack-of-success stories. Then decide if you still think it's the best option for you. It may be, and if it is, then good luck! You can come back and post your successes here in the self-publishing area for others to use as inspiration.
Fair point, but I think they are convincing with their opinions. Through Amazon, it's either 30% or 70%, but through the big 6, it's 17%ish, but they hold the eBook rights forever (in many cases, because the view eBooks never going out of print and referring back to you.)
Professional editing is where the big 6 provide the most value, but there are many great freelance editors.
Having my book on the shelf at a bookstore isn't my main objective either, and that's where the big 6 can help too.
I don't want to derail, and I'm not trying to dissuade you from choosing self-publishing, because it can work if used to its full advantage, but you're missing a few key areas where mainstream (which is far more than the Big 6) can provide an advantage.
Yes, editing is a big one, but they also provide publicity / marketing that gives your book a huge advantage. (Along with professional covers, formatting, etc.) The royalties are lower, but they pay cash up front. (AFAIK, Amazon's non-self publishing arm does this, too, so if you can get a deal that way you're getting an advance.)
Check out the bestselling books that aren't self-published. Most, if not all, of them in a given week are going to be the books put out through commercial houses. They have the name recognition and reach to make people anticipate a book's release before it ever becomes available for purchase.
Not universally true -- it all depends on what your contract says, and that's negotiable.
As others have said, both Mr Konrath and Mr Eisler have an interest in Amazon. You might also like to read this, and then consider Mr Konrath's other articles through a similar lens.
They can be very convincing. Just remember that there's a big difference between opinion and fact.
It's usually 30-70% of a small number of sales, or a lower royalty on a larger number of sales. Quite often, the lower royalty earns you more money because of the higher sales.
The rights issue would only be the case if you signed a contract agreeing to those conditions. Most good agents would advise their writer-clients against doing so.
There are many trade publishers, not just the Big Six; and they all do so much more than editing and achieving a presence on bookshop shelves.
I urge you not to self publish until you're properly up to speed on how trade publishing works, and the benefits it can bring to a writer's careeer.
I don't think it's derailing at all. A healthy discussion is great.
However, I don't think they provide a lot of publicity/promotion and marketing for very long. The trend seems to be going after authors with an established platform (a high traffic blog etc) where the author has already done a lot of the work.
Regarding covers and formatting, they are inexpensive to outsource and possible to do by yourself if need be.
Regarding money up front, that's always nice, but your first deal with the big 6 (from what I've read) usually doesn't result in much money up front. And you don't receive royalties until you earn out your advance and they only pay twice a year. Amazon is monthly, right? And with more transparent accounting that you are able to see. In addition with the Kobo platform, it seems like authors will have more control and more information regarding sales.
When it comes time to make the decision for me, speed will also determine things. I could release on Amazon the same day, or wait for a decision from the big 6. I also don't like the gatekeeper role they have traditionally played.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 6,004
- Reaction score
- 1,233
I pulled this out specifically to pursue a line of questions. Understand I'm not doing this to poke at you because I am interested in pursuing some self-publishing myself. I am also looking at trade publishing for other projects so...bear that in mind.
People talk about the money. Money money money and I agree it can be a deciding factor (at least it is for me). Money now versus money later.
Something that never really gets discussed though is how much money a self-publisher puts out upfront. Sure, you can get a good cover but how much are you actually putting out for it? That has to be a consideration in determining how much money you end up making back on a book where you have put out cash for cover, editing, possibly some marketing avenues.
If you do it yourself, are you really a good judge of what makes a good cover? How to work it up so that it doesn't look, I'm sad to say, like an amateur did it?
Editing. You can get your best buddy to edit you for $200 but how will you know just how good of a job that was done? What did you pay for, exactly? Or if you get it professionally done, how much money are you looking at now? $1000?
I mean, seriously, I have on occasion pulled out the ol' calculator and done some quick and dirty numbers for pricing, cash outlay on the front end, royalties to see how many books I'd need to sell at what price point in order to make back my initial investment. Then I extend it further to figure out how many is needed to meet what is currently circulated as the initial advance from trade publishing.
I look at how many hours would be needed to 'market' versus how many hours I need to write. Even Amanda Hocking admitted that she spent many hours marketing when she would have rather been writing.
When the discussions go round and round about the pros and cons of each avenue of publishing pursuit, it seems that sometimes these small nitty-gritty numbers get lost in the noise.
Look at the numbers and prices of people who are self-publishing. Not Konrath, not Eisler, not Dean Wesley Smith, not Katherine Rusch, authors who, by the way, have not started at ground zero with self-publishing, but have come into SP with books that were previously trade published, their first books benefiting from professional editing and cover design paid for by their publisher, and by some extent already have a fan following...head over the SP portion of the boards here and read discussions by some of our successful authors who have started from ground zero. Get a sense of sales per month, per quarter, per year.
Do fast and dirty numbers on a piece of paper and be reasonable in expectations of what you can expect to sell the first month, the first three months, six months...yearly.
This is something I do regularly when I find myself getting swept up in the hype of OMG SELF-PUBLISHING YAY! I am already pretty well versed in the barest of the basics of trade publishing aspects and what to expect (both good and bad) but it's far too easy to get caught in the fast running stream of self-publishing and hope to have fabulous success like the few who get reported and forget that there are far more who aren't having that kind of success...and to run those numbers to see what you can reasonably expect.
If that's something you can handle, then self-publishing may be the way to go if you're comfortable with that.
I can only speak for myself in this regard, but I was given a multi-page plan for proposed publicity/marketing before I ever signed with my publisher. Publishers want books to sell, and they're going to do what they can to make that happen.
This one's hit or miss no matter which path you choose. You might craft a cover you love, but readers hate, or you might have a professional cover that you can't stand, but draws readers by the thousands.
It depends on the deal you get. If you go it alone, then no, you won't be getting much. If your book is for a smaller audience, then no, you won't be getting much. Several authors, myself included, have gotten "major" deals for their first deals.
Yes, royalties are twice a year once you've earned out, but I know of at least one author on this board who earned out a "major" advance on her first royalty period. If you sell world rights to a publisher, and they in turn sell foreign rights, you earn out more quickly and start earning royalties.
The average sales numbers of KDP published books vs. commercially published books are weighted heavily in favor of the commercial titles. So, while you're earning a higher royalty rate, you're earning it on far less sales. Notice I didn't say "Big 6" titles. Scholastic, for instance, isn't a Big 6 publisher, nor is it one I have a contract with, but their titles sell thousands of copies, compared to maybe one hundred sold for an unknown self-publisher's first title.
Again, only my experience, but I had an answer from the Big 6 in 32 hours. Others have faster times.
Please don't think I'm mentioning things like this to discourage you. I just want to illustrate that no two books progress at the same speed or end up with the same deal. You can't take the "facts" presented by hardcore fans of either type of publishing at face value without checking them yourself.
But readers do. Gatekeepers serve a function, and that is to make sure that the quality of what the reader pays for meets certain basic standards. I'm not even talking about story, plot, or pacing. I mean grammatical standards.
I turned in what was considered a "clean" manuscript, and there were hundreds of changes in it on the copyedits.
If you go with self-publishing, then I truly hope you sell thousands of copies. I believe you can if you have a plan in place to deal with the usual pitfalls for others who have tried the same route.
However, I also believe that most any book that sells thousands as self-published could have sold tens-of-thousands as commercially published.
Absolute best advice.
Research the options and choose what is best for you and your book.
As for my answer to the original question, I swing both ways. There are some markets and books that lend themselves better to one option or the other. I choose what's best for me, the book and my current, ever-changing, situation.
Jeff
I may have mentioned this already, but this is the type of thing that people going into any business for themselves need to consider. How many self-publishers have even considered writing a business plan? One of the things a business plan tells you is whether or not your business stands a chance of succeeding, because you have to take into account all of the expenses, all of the time needed, and what others in the same type of business and at the same scale are doing in terms of sales. So you have to include the cost of cover art - and that means looking at what other successful self-publishers have done, not just "Oh I can do that myself for nothing". It means looking at the cost of proper editing, again looking at who successful self-publishers have used, not just "I can get this English teacher cheap". It also means looking at Konrath and Eisler only if you are also a previously trade published author with a following; if you're a new author, it means tossing them out and looking at other first time authors and what their sales figures look like. It also means looking at the genre those sales are in, or if it's fiction or nonfiction.
There is so much more to self-publishing than just "I can do it myself and fast.", just as there is much more to trade publishing than "I just have to get an agent.". Once the story is written, you're no longer an author - you're a business person, no matter which route you take. And there's a whole lot more to that role than most people ever imagine.
If I ever pursue publishing, and I don't know if I'll ending up choosing to pursue writing professionally, is through traditional publishing. I don't think I have the chutzpah for self-publishing (self-promotion, marketing, author branding, finding an audience, etc...).
Also, I think traditionally published (YA in my case) fiction needs more gay characters in general, and I'd be happy to contribute. Yup.
Also, I think traditionally published (YA in my case) fiction needs more gay characters in general, and I'd be happy to contribute. Yup.
Heck, if writers did that they'd be working as WalMart greeters!
There are serious issues with doing a viable business plan for a fiction book author (not a technical writer, journalist, etc.) and not the least of them is adequately predicting the marketability of the work. That's in the realm of the publishers and they fiercely guard that information.
There are total freaks of nature (Fifty Shades) that skew the numbers and there's a major issue with assessing the basic abilities of an author. There are major authors who's meteoric success came after years of failure and hard work. And some who only became successful after death.
I'm lucky. I have trade experience as well as self-pub experience (before ebooks) as well as a MBA and a wife who's a graphic designer and works with magazine and book publishers. And I still think a traditional publishing path is the way for most new authors to start. If you can't get something accepted after many tries, it's usually your fault.
I know a number of amateur/wannabe authors who have a great story who would never be accepted by a publishing house. Some have stories that just aren't marketable enough, some just can't write well enough to get that story across. I'm of the opinion that almost anyone can learn to write well. Until they do though, a publisher won't touch them. Unfortunately, their work is usually available for 99 cents or less on a Kindle...
Jeff
I agree that for trade published authors it's not really necessary. But when thinking of going into the publishing business (ie, self-publishing), one needs to look at it as one would any business venture. Money is going to go out of pocket and time otherwise spent writing is going to be used - therefore, a business person needs to consider, as much as is possible, what the return could realistically be. (And for any small business, finding those numbers and comparisons is just as difficult as with publishing - but they do it as best they can. I know because I had to do it.) They must, just as trade publishers do, determine what the profitability is likely to be and whether that's good enough to justify the expenses.
Meaning: Do your homework.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 6,004
- Reaction score
- 1,233
Yes, absolutely.
And it's not like we're advocating writing up a Business Plan all proper-like. I just hear quite frequently from self-publishers about how much more money they would get from self-publishing (which I'm not disputing) but I think that approaching it more from a business perspective if that's a motivating factor in self-publishing would be an exercise they should investigate.
Even if it's back of the envelope with rough (and hopefully realistic) numbers and expectations.
Clearly, this is not a concern for those who say they are writing 'for the love' and aren't motivated by monetary matters. I guess I'm saying that kind of falls away, though, when they tout 'making more money/more royalties' as being one of the reasons why they've chosen the route they've chosen.
Like SW said, doing homework.
well, interesting
In theory what you said makes sense. Not quite so sure it makes sense in today's market.
I've read thousands of published books. Old, new, used, borrowed, best sellers. You know there's a lot of awful crap that got published? Not just opinion. Juvenile writing style, inconsistent, no characterization, no ending, no point, plagiarizing, run on sentences, lack of any research, obvious plot holes. Junk.
OK, I suspect a lot of it was published 10-20 years ago when times were freer. But a lot of those authors that "made it" are now kind of grandfathered in under easier rules, publishing endless rubble.
On the other hand, it's tough for a new writer to break in these days. I understand it's not as easy as it used to be. But even recently I've read great books by 1st time authors where they never published another book. Talents that vanished. I assumed because their first got lost in the noise, not enough sales, they gave up or were let go.
To make it, you've got to have skill, luck, work hard, and catch the market just right. And a lot of stuff has been done before. It's not getting any easier to do something unique.
So, I'd say there's a lot of published junk out there. And there's a lot of good authors who aren't getting published. Or who's first novel sank like a stone, despite being pretty good. So the temptation to avoid the whole publishing process is growing.
Not as clear cut as it used to be.
In theory what you said makes sense. Not quite so sure it makes sense in today's market.
I've read thousands of published books. Old, new, used, borrowed, best sellers. You know there's a lot of awful crap that got published? Not just opinion. Juvenile writing style, inconsistent, no characterization, no ending, no point, plagiarizing, run on sentences, lack of any research, obvious plot holes. Junk.
OK, I suspect a lot of it was published 10-20 years ago when times were freer. But a lot of those authors that "made it" are now kind of grandfathered in under easier rules, publishing endless rubble.
On the other hand, it's tough for a new writer to break in these days. I understand it's not as easy as it used to be. But even recently I've read great books by 1st time authors where they never published another book. Talents that vanished. I assumed because their first got lost in the noise, not enough sales, they gave up or were let go.
To make it, you've got to have skill, luck, work hard, and catch the market just right. And a lot of stuff has been done before. It's not getting any easier to do something unique.
So, I'd say there's a lot of published junk out there. And there's a lot of good authors who aren't getting published. Or who's first novel sank like a stone, despite being pretty good. So the temptation to avoid the whole publishing process is growing.
Not as clear cut as it used to be.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
It's hard to imagine that a trade-published novel that sank like a stone would likely have done better if self-published. Unless the author is a social networking and marketing genius (in which case, why didn't she put that to work getting the buzz out for her novel in the first place?).
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 55
I don't think I write crap, although admittedly that doesn't say much. I simply see it as a question of numbers.
Number of people who will read my novel when I try to go mainstream: 0 (aside from a few proofreaders).
Number of people who will read my novel when I self-publish: maybe a few hundred.
I could just put my novels on a site for free, but paradoxically that will probably garner me fewer readers then if I ask a modest fee for my books.
I know my novels simply don't have mass appeal, and that no agent will want to run the risk of trying to get them published. That's the downside of writing for a niche market. For all qualities I deem myself to have, commercial instinct certainly isn't one of them.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
a smaller niche than say "people looking to read about a sex-addict who pretends to choke on food as both a cheap con and a way to gain affection?"
smaller than "people actively seeking a re-telling of the Wizard of Oz, from the viewpoint of the witch?"
smaller than "people who just looked so damn hard before, but could never find vampires who pouted AND sparkled?"
99% of the time, if not more, I don't buy into "niche". Make the story interesting enough, people will buy it. It wasn't like Da Vinci Code tapped into this huge market of desperate Catholic Conspiracy buyers....
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 55
It's slice-of-life in a fantasy or SF setting. Or, to put it the other way around, (urban) fantasy and science fiction where most of the time is devoted to the relationships between characters rather than the adventures themselves.
I posted some of my material online (also on here), but people don't like it because I take my time to explore a situation. In other words: most readers think it's too ... damn ... slow ...
Not if they pick up a fantasy of SF story and expect explosions, violent chases and magical battles form the first page onward.
wow.
that is a big part of a LOT of SF and fantasy, but you're also skipping past a shit-ton of other examples, work that was in either realm and did not start, or end, with explosions. The Time Traveler's Wife and Solaris both spring to mind quickly.....someone more into the genres could probably riff off a dozen titles that were harder SF or fantasy and still devoid of swordfights and photon torpedos, without breaking a sweat.
You've clearly had your share of experiences, but again, those aren't niche themes....if you are losing readers in SYW and elsewhere it may be immensely comforting to simply say you're "above the genre conventions they are hamstrung by" but I'd choose to point the finger at myself and figure out what I'm doing that's losing them, personally, as I've seen a lot of books about very little that were still page-turners.
I suggest you do a bit of research into your genre before you make such sweeping accusations.
There's also a big difference between "slow" and starting your book at the right spot. You don't have to begin with explosions but you do have to start with action.
Or whatever. Go self-publish. Good luck and come on back and let us know how that turns out. Sounds like you've made up your mind anyway and anything we say is pretty well going to be ignored.
I've just finished reading Jo Walton's book Among Others. It's about a girl whose sister dies, and she ends up at boarding school where she feels like an outsider. But then she joins a book club and things start to look up for her.
It's a gorgeous coming-of-age story which also happens to have a bit of magic in it, and fairies. It's won prizes. But it also fits into the same narrow niche you describe, Shika. Don't be so quick to dismiss trade publishing as an option for you.
It's a gorgeous coming-of-age story which also happens to have a bit of magic in it, and fairies. It's won prizes. But it also fits into the same narrow niche you describe, Shika. Don't be so quick to dismiss trade publishing as an option for you.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
There's nothing particularly "niche" about that. It's called PNR.
Okay, I'm being a little facetious, but even if romance isn't the focus, there's plenty of SF/F with well-developed social and personal relationships where the worldbuilding and magic and tech and stuff is secondary. This does not sound remotely like something "no publisher would touch" if it's executed well.
Maybe it is. Just because you are writing "slice of life" doesn't mean your story doesn't have to... you know, have a story. I read plenty of fiction that is all about personal relationships with little action - most of it litfic rather than SF/F, but stories about characters and their relationships can be interesting, and they can also be really boring and too.... damn ... slow. Consider the possibility that yours falls into the latter category, rather than assuming your readers Just Didn't Get It because they wanted to be entertained with orcs and fireballs.
- Status