10 Reasons You Should Skip Traditional Publishers

bearilou said:

I'm also afraid that crowing that trade published books also sport bad spelling/grammar/formatting issues isn't terribly impressive. No one disputes it, but from my own experiences the probability of me getting a poorly edited trade is vastly smaller than my getting a poorly edited self-pubbed.

Click to expand...

Yep.

It's also important to think about how poorly-edited books from trade and self-publishers differ from one another.

I've seen both, and in my experience the poorly-edited books which come from trade publishers usually suffer from a lack of copy editing and proof reading. They've been worked on by a developmental editor, who has tightened up the story considerably: but there are occasional errors in punctuation, homophone substitutions, and instances where someone's hair colour changes. That sort of thing. This gives a strong, logical and nicely-developed story scattered with a few errors which irk but don't in the end make the book a disappointment.

Most of the poorly-edited self-published books that I've seen haven't been worked on by a competent developmental editor. They might have good clean text, free from punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors: but the text has been cleaned almost to the point of lifelessness; the author's voice is flat and dull; the text is almost always overwritten; and the story lacks appropriate pace, the plot is full of holes, and there's often confusion and contradiction. But at least the author's comma-use is fine.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're going to pay for an editor, I wouldn't use the ones which are provided--for a fee--by self-publishing service providers. From what I've seen of their work they're not good at what they do.

I have to wonder how many readers read books with what I like to call a "writer's eye". By this I mean, as a writer, I've found I've soaked in books a lot differently than when I was just a casual reader. I tend to nitpick more, think how I would've phrased things differently, etc. I can't seem to remove my editing goggles even for work I have no control over. But does the average reader worry about such things?

If we're not talking about typos, poor grammar, etc as far as what makes a book "good" or "bad", then it seems like we're entering subjective viewpoints. Readers will like what they like. Even when a particular topic or genre is "hot", there's still no magic formula that ensures a book will sell, not even with an excessive amount of marketing.

On a slightly unrelated topic, I don't understand why people seem to put down self-published authors who give away books for free. This, to me, is like begrudging published authors whose books appear in libraries. The end goal is reaching readers, and if you're unknown, freebies can be a great promotional tool. And if your work is strong and readers enjoy it, then hopefully you'll have picked up a few fans who will pay for your other/future books. I don't think it's fair to act like these authors have no business being excited about how many free books got downloaded. Success isn't just dollars and cents

Old Hack said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're going to pay for an editor, I wouldn't use the ones which are provided--for a fee--by self-publishing service providers. From what I've seen of their work they're not good at what they do.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree. The self-publishing company editors are next to useless, from what I've seen myself and heard from others. They do technical editing almost exclusively (i.e. checking spelling and punctuation). They don't touch the actual story, which is where editing is most needed, imo.

For that, you're best bet is to go with freelance editors and TELL them what you want.

LostInWonderland said:

If we're not talking about typos, poor grammar, etc as far as what makes a book "good" or "bad", then it seems like we're entering subjective viewpoints.

Click to expand...

Typos and grammar issues can be corrected and have little to do with what makes a book good or bad, in my opinion. If the writing isn't good enough then it doesn't matter how clean the text is, the book is still bad.

It's how this is measured which is significant to most of us, though. The usual yardstick is commercial viability, if you're after a trade publishing deal; or in sales and/or downloads, if you're self-publishing. Because when the reader decides, that's what happens.

LostInWonderland said:

On a slightly unrelated topic, I don't understand why people seem to put down self-published authors who give away books for free. This, to me, is like begrudging published authors whose books appear in libraries. The end goal is reaching readers, and if you're unknown, freebies can be a great promotional tool. And if your work is strong and readers enjoy it, then hopefully you'll have picked up a few fans who will pay for your other/future books. I don't think it's fair to act like these authors have no business being excited about how many free books got downloaded. Success isn't just dollars and cents

Click to expand...

It's for individual writers to decide what to do with their work and giving away books can work for some people.

But I will tell you this. I have musician friends who were invited to perform at the Olympics opening ceremony. They were delighted until they were told they would be expected to work for free. They declined this offer. They're professionals. They can't afford to work for free and they don't feel it's right to encourage a culture where there is an expectation that musicians will work for nothing.

Published authors get PAID for having their books in the library, BTW.

I like Harlan Ellison on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=player_embedded

HJW said:

It's for individual writers to decide what to do with their work and giving away books can work for some people.

But I will tell you this. I have musician friends who were invited to perform at the Olympics opening ceremony. They were delighted until they were told they would be expected to work for free. They declined this offer. They're professionals. They can't afford to work for free and they don't feel it's right to encourage a culture where there is an expectation that musicians will work for nothing.

Published authors get PAID for having their books in the library, BTW.

I like Harlan Ellison on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=player_embedded

Click to expand...

As a moderately successful self-published fiction writer (about $5500.00 my first year), I can tell you I don't like working for free and cringe when I hear people get excited over how many times their free book was downloaded. I use free as a way to get paid, period. If the pay doesn't follow a free run, then the free run was unsuccessful in my view. I only feel good about paid sales and just can't feel any excitement over giving away a product into which I put a huge amount of work. And yes, self publishing takes a lot of work--if you want a professional product. Whenever someone suggests it's easy, I get annoyed. Yes, it's easy to put up a shoddy book and damage your reputation, certainly. But how is that helpful?

HJW said:

Published authors get PAID for having their books in the library, BTW.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the royalties an author gets when the library purchases copies? Or is there something beyond that I'm missing? If it's the former, my point is that the book(s) can be checked out by an infinite number of people depending on how long it sits on the shelves. And all these people will have read it for free. The royalties would not be the same if all these people had to go out and buy a copy instead of getting it at the library.

I mentioned freebies as a promotional tool, ie: exposure. As seen on other threads here, this can be a great way to lead to future sales. No one is forcing anyone to do it. I don't think it cheapens the work, and as far as I know, I don't think Amazon allows books to be free indefinitely. That's why they're called "promotions". Amazon is in the business of making money after all.

LostInWonderland said:

Are you talking about the royalties an author gets when the library purchases copies? Or is there something beyond that I'm missing? If it's the former, my point is that the book(s) can be checked out by an infinite number of people depending on how long it sits on the shelves. And all these people will have read it for free. The royalties would not be the same if all these people had to go out and buy a copy instead of getting it at the library.

Click to expand...

The reader might get to read it for free, but under Public Lending Rights each time a book is checked out from the library the author gets a payment from the government.

http://www.plr.uk.com/allAboutPlr/whatIsPlr.htm

That's how it works in the UK and I'm assuming that the US has smilar arrangements.

Nope. The US doesn't have anything like that in place. The author only receives royalties from the library's purchase.

I don't have anything against self-publishing. It's possible to make money self-publishing ebooks, and it broadens the kinds of books that are published in interesting ways.

What I object to is the cottage industry that has sprung up in which some writers promote themselves by standing up to the straw-man that is the evil, greedy, tyrannical trade publishing cartel. To my mind, it is designed, more than anything else, to pander to the fears, egos and resentments of other writers.

HJW said:

The reader might get to read it for free, but under Public Lending Rights each time a book is checked out from the library the author gets a payment from the government.

http://www.plr.uk.com/allAboutPlr/whatIsPlr.htm

That's how it works in the UK and I'm assuming that the US has smilar arrangements.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sadly no PLR in the USA. It's part of the excellent library service the current shower in government is quickly dismantling - I believe PLR payments have just been cut.

Torgo said:

I don't have anything against self-publishing. It's possible to make money self-publishing ebooks, and it broadens the kinds of books that are published in interesting ways.

What I object to is the cottage industry that has sprung up in which some writers promote themselves by standing up to the straw-man that is the evil, greedy, tyrannical trade publishing cartel. To my mind, it is designed, more than anything else, to pander to the fears, egos and resentments of other writers.

Click to expand...

I personally haven't seen a lot of this going on (with the exception of the article in the original post), but I think it's an interesting point. It seems like in the end, these self-published authors might be shooting themselves in the foot, being a face for a cause rather than just focusing on writing. I mean, do readers really care one way or another how the book comes to be? Do most readers even look at the publishers? Even as I writer, when I'm browsing Amazon for books to read, my main focus is whether I enjoy the blurb and sample. I don't immediately scroll to see who the publisher is, because frankly, I don't care. And if I, as a writer, don't care, then how common is it for readers to?

Publishing, to put it simply, is a means to an end. I think readers care more about the product than how it's made. In fact, I think that's true for just about everything people buy. Becoming a cheerleader or basher for types of publishing seems ineffectual and pointless. Instead of focusing on the process and selling that to readers, authors should be focusing on their books and promoting/marketing their product.

Torgo said:

Yeah, sadly no PLR in the USA. It's part of the excellent library service the current shower in government is quickly dismantling - I believe PLR payments have just been cut.

Click to expand...

Depressing, isn't it. God knows what of any value will be left by the time they're done (sorry, totally OT).

Old Hack said:

Typos and grammar issues can be corrected and have little to do with what makes a book good or bad, in my opinion. If the writing isn't good enough then it doesn't matter how clean the text is, the book is still bad.

It's how this is measured which is significant to most of us, though. The usual yardstick is commercial viability, if you're after a trade publishing deal; or in sales and/or downloads, if you're self-publishing. Because when the reader decides, that's what happens.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I can only shake my head when I hear other self-pubbed writers talk as if paying an editor fixes everything. The words "you need an editor" have become a substitute for "you need to learn how to write better."

LostInWonderland said:

I personally haven't seen a lot of this going on (with the exception of the article in the original post), but I think it's an interesting point.

Click to expand...

Like Torgo, I'm sick of it.

Trust me: there's a lot of it out there, and it does no one any good. If you want to take a look try googling for the phrase "publishing is broken", or perhaps the words "publisher" and "dinosaur". I don't want to link to specific blogs or websites, but I know of whole websites full of stuff denigrating writers who choose to work with trade publishers, and the people who work in trade publishing. It's unfair, and it stinks, and I think it belittles the people who make these comments.

It's contributed significantly to the negative reputation that self-publishing has in some circles. I don't blame people for thinking that self-publishers are rabit, spiteful and ill-informed, because that's all that a lot of them have seen.

What do to about it? All we can do is make efforts to prove that all writers and publishers have good and bad points, and do our best to not behave like that ourselves.

Justin_AC said:

Definitely agree. The self-publishing company editors are next to useless, from what I've seen myself and heard from others. They do technical editing almost exclusively (i.e. checking spelling and punctuation). They don't touch the actual story, which is where editing is most needed, imo.

For that, you're best bet is to go with freelance editors and TELL them what you want.

Click to expand...

What self-publishing company are you all talking about? I've never heard of any, unless you want to include the self-publishing help that some agents are trying to push. I've only ever seen freelancers.

MMcDonald64 said:

What self-publishing company are you all talking about? I've never heard of any, unless you want to include the self-publishing help that some agents are trying to push. I've only ever seen freelancers.

Click to expand...

The older "vanity publishers." Not just one specific company, but the ones that offer package deals. Like "$1500 for a box of your books, a professionally designed cover, and a detailed editing session by one of our longtime editors!"

It's crap. Or the stuff I've seen and heard is crap.

Old Hack said:

Yep.


Most of the poorly-edited self-published books that I've seen haven't been worked on by a competent developmental editor. They might have good clean text, free from punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors: but the text has been cleaned almost to the point of lifelessness; the author's voice is flat and dull; the text is almost always overwritten; and the story lacks appropriate pace, the plot is full of holes, and there's often confusion and contradiction. But at least the author's comma-use is fine.

Click to expand...

This is a good point and it leads me to something that continues to bug me when self-pubbed people argue against major publishers. A lot of aspiring authors I've met and counseled forget about the second half of the term "self-publisher". They remember the "self" part, because after all, that's THEM. They're the self. But the "publisher" part? They seem oblivious to the concept. A fair number of people who self-publish seem to have no interest at all in the business of publishing. What is copyediting? What is editing? What's a distributor? How are bookstores run? It's almost like they cover their ears when people try to explain that they need good quality cover art, and knowledge about the structure of plotting and characterization and such. "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"

If you're self-publishing, you . . . YOU must take on each role that a regular publisher has. YOU are the art department, the sales department, the distribution department, editorial, etc. If you choose not to learn what those duties are, what publishing companies actually DO from 8-5, then your book will suffer. It just will.

However, if you study cover art design, if you pay attention to the excellent advice of a hundred (or thousand, even. I haven't counted) blogs written by editors and authors who have come before you about how to write, if you learn what a copyeditor does, and a style editor, and a distributor, then you stand a good chance of success.

Because would you try to fix your car yourself, with no guide, with no knowledge and expect it to run? Of course not. Would you bitch to the world how the mechanics of the world are just trying to screw humble drivers? (Well, maybe specific mechanics, but not ALL of them.) Hopefully not.

Or maybe you would. Maybe some people just can't help but be annoyed by people who study their craft and learn it well enough to succeed. Major publisher, small press or self-pubbed. Maybe it's just about not wanting to take the time to LEARN how to do it.

LostInWonderland said:

I have to wonder how many readers read books with what I like to call a "writer's eye". By this I mean, as a writer, I've found I've soaked in books a lot differently than when I was just a casual reader. I tend to nitpick more, think how I would've phrased things differently, etc. I can't seem to remove my editing goggles even for work I have no control over. But does the average reader worry about such things?

Click to expand...

I'm so glad this came up.

Does the average reader worry? Apparently not. Do they care? I think yes they do if the book also falls down in other aspects.

SMeyer and DBrown both are wildly successful. Many writers will pick at them mercilessly for subpar writing. Yet the books still managed to capture the average reading person's imagination, so all the 'problems' the books have are easily overlooked.

But if a book has trouble even engaging the reader on that level, the editing wobbles suddenly become more apparent and the reader complains about them.

I don't have numbers or proof but I read a lot of 1-star reveiws on Amazon. When I disregard the OMG DIS SUXZ reviews and read the ones with a little more meat in them, I began to see the pattern emerge. 'Characters were boring, plot was dull, where was the editor?l' is pretty much the pattern. So...they don't necessarily see them when they are engaged in the book, but they do see them if they aren't.

LostInWonderland said:

On a slightly unrelated topic, I don't understand why people seem to put down self-published authors who give away books for free. This, to me, is like begrudging published authors whose books appear in libraries. The end goal is reaching readers, and if you're unknown, freebies can be a great promotional tool. And if your work is strong and readers enjoy it, then hopefully you'll have picked up a few fans who will pay for your other/future books. I don't think it's fair to act like these authors have no business being excited about how many free books got downloaded. Success isn't just dollars and cents

Click to expand...

I don't put them down for offering books for free. It's supposedly a good marketing technique, I understand that.

It's when they are crowing that they are wildly successful in threads and in articles that talk about how much more MONEY they are making by going self-publishing than they are going trade. But they don't give specific dollar numbers. They give proof of their success in the number of downloads, which doesn't directly translate into dollar amounts. If you're going to tell me that you're making more money going the self-published route than going trade, then show me the money, don't show me your number of downloads. That's meaningless when it comes to proof of the monetary advantage.

Nor is it really any indication that they are successful. It just means a lot of people downloaded a free book. I still have books on my kindle that I haven't read but downloaded it because it was free. I can't tell if its any good because I haven't read it. So, honestly, that doesn't translate out that the book was successful, just that for the price (free), it got downloaded. It certainly isn't a testament that the book was any good. So how are they defining success? A good book or just a lot of downloads?

Or would success translate into more purchases for their other works that they sell? Or is it just a download count?

A high page count on fanfiction at fanfic.net didn't mean people liked it. It just meant there was a high amount of click through.

And to be honest, it gives me great moments of despair to know that I will never be able to make a decent living from my writing because so many writers do not value their writing to put a monetary amount on it. They give it away for free 'just so they can be read and enjoyed' and 'they base their success on being read and enjoyed and not the money' that it appears to me to be setting up the cycle of the expectation of the reading public to get their reading for cheap or for free.

But that's a rant for another day.

Old Hack said:

Like Torgo, I'm sick of it.

Trust me: there's a lot of it out there, and it does no one any good. If you want to take a look try googling for the phrase "publishing is broken", or perhaps the words "publisher" and "dinosaur". I don't want to link to specific blogs or websites, but I know of whole websites full of stuff denigrating writers who choose to work with trade publishers, and the people who work in trade publishing. It's unfair, and it stinks, and I think it belittles the people who make these comments.

It's contributed significantly to the negative reputation that self-publishing has in some circles. I don't blame people for thinking that self-publishers are rabit, spiteful and ill-informed, because that's all that a lot of them have seen.

Click to expand...

Whoa. Sorry, this bit just stopped me in my tracks. Let me say that I don't have a dog in this fight. Meaning, I don't self-publish or trade publish (yet) and don't have anything against either option.

So, with that being said, I think we need to rewind a little. For years, self-published authors were scoffed at as lazy, quitters, egomaniacs, bad writers, etc etc etc. They weren't considered legitimate, just because of their choice in how to put their work out to the public. They were shunned by a great many in the writing world. Maybe because there was a time that being self-published meant you paid for the privilege of seeing your book in print. Either way, self-publishers endured put-downs from their peers (who probably didn't even consider them their peers in the first place).

It wouldn't surprise me if that's the source of the backlash at trade publishing now. With the internet came free publishing for all, and all you needed was a little effort. People who 20 years ago couldn't afford thousands of dollars to self-publish, can now do so in the matter of minutes (once formatting is done) at no charge to them. Ebooks are picking up steam and by many is seen as the wave of the future. There is now such a thing as a bestselling self-published author; I know I was taken aback when I first heard this. Self-publishing is now a viable option for just about everyone, and now authors are actually in a position to reject trade publishers, before trade publishers get a chance to reject them.

Is it okay for for self-publishers to put down authors who publish traditionally or lash out at the publishers themselves? No, of course not. But it's also not okay for "legit" authors to lash out at self-publishers either, and that's been going on for years.

And just FYI, I googled the terms you mentioned, and I actually expected to find more on the subject than I did. Maybe I didn't go far enough through the search results or something, but either way, I think people who run blogs have every right to say whatever they feel. Do I have to agree with it? No. But it's a blog, and blogs are often filled with opinions I don't agree with.

In the end, it just seems like people are blowing off steam for whatever their own personal reasons. I actually don't think the shunning of trade publishers now is anywhere near as insidious as the shunning of self-publishers is and was. Will some bloggers really have much say over the future of trade publishing? I very much doubt it. I don't really see how they could.

Anyway, forgive the rant. I meant no disrespect, but the sympathy towards people for having such cruel assumptions about self-publishers as a whole really struck a nerve.

bearilou said:

I don't put them down for offering books for free. It's supposedly a good marketing technique, I understand that.

It's when they are crowing that they are wildly successful in threads and in articles that talk about how much more MONEY they are making by going self-publishing than they are going trade. But they don't give specific dollar numbers. They give proof of their success in the number of downloads, which doesn't directly translate into dollar amounts. If you're going to tell me that you're making more money going the self-published route than going trade, then show me the money, don't show me your number of downloads. That's meaningless when it comes to proof of the monetary advantage.

Click to expand...

When we start showing dollar amounts, then we are accused of bragging. I had a pretty good run of free--three times actually-- I've had thousands of downloads, but what makes it a good deal is that I've had good sales of my second and third books, which for all intents and purposes, have not been free. I tried a one day freebie with book two, but I wasn't happy with those results and cut it short by a few hours. It 's possible some people got that book free who had also downloaded book one as a freebie, so I might have lost those sales, but hopefully, some will buy book three and beyond (as they are written), so I consider it a wash.

As far as money goes, you asked for it, so here it is. Last June, my first book went free via price matching. I'd been receiving good reviews up until that point, had it out about a year, and made maybe three thousand dollars on it. I had completed book two six months after book one, so it had sold about 550 copies in the four months it was out. Not bad and it was at $2.99, so that was another $1k

Within days after the first book went free, book two took off. I remember being stunned when it sold 130 copies in one day. When book one stopped being free, it was only 99 cents as I'd had it on sale prior to going free. I wasn't able to change the price while it was free because a Smashwords distributor still had it at 99 cents, so I was stuck with it. So, long story short, last June I earned $6,300 on the 99 cent book, and $10,000 on the second non-free book. I recall one day when I sold 2000 copies of the 99 cent book (which adds up to $700--not too shabby!) and that same day, I sold over 300 of book two so in one day, I earned about $1,300

Does it stay that way? No, but I don't feel that I devalued my books when my earnings for the year were $28,000. That's a really good part-time job. This year, I'm doing even better so far, and hope to top last year's earnings.

And to be honest, it gives me great moments of despair to know that I will never be able to make a decent living from my writing because so many writers do not value their writing to put a monetary amount on it. They give it away for free 'just so they can be read and enjoyed' and 'they base their success on being read and enjoyed and not the money' that it appears to me to be setting up the cycle of the expectation of the reading public to get their reading for cheap or for free.

But that's a rant for another day.

Click to expand...

I value my writing, but if I priced each individual book at what I think they are worth in relation to the effort I put in, nobody would buy them. Even at a modest $10/hr, and a guesstimate of 1,000 hours put into each one, they would cost $10,000.

Instead, I've chosen to look at what I've earned and that is the value of my writing. So, my writing isn't worth just the $0.35 I received on my 99 cent book last June, but the $6,300 I earned from it that month. I've been meaning to do an earnings total on this individual book and since it's second anniversary is coming up, I should do it soon. I'm guessing I've made at least 20k from it. That's quite a bit more than the average advance, and an advance is what many authors accept as the value of their book since there is a good chance they may never earn it out and see another dime.

LostInWonderland said:

So, with that being said, I think we need to rewind a little. For years, self-published authors were scoffed at as lazy, quitters, egomaniacs, bad writers, etc etc etc. They weren't considered legitimate, just because of their choice in how to put their work out to the public. They were shunned by a great many in the writing world. Maybe because there was a time that being self-published meant you paid for the privilege of seeing your book in print. Either way, self-publishers endured put-downs from their peers (who probably didn't even consider them their peers in the first place).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that many who chose self-publishing were (and, in some cases, still are) treated badly. But the thing is, it's important to remember a percentage of those who choose the route DON'T do it as a choice of forum or to become a legitimate business. There is, sadly, still a contingent of self-pubbed authors who are bad writers. There are those who are lazy. There are those who are egomaniacs. Yes, the same can be said of some large press authors too. But the percentage of SP bad authors is simply higher, because many get rooted out of the game at the large presses. Publishers want to earn money from the author, after all. So the bar is higher. Does that mean ALL SP authors are bad? Hardly. Does that mean ALL large press authors are good? Hardly.

SP authors stand a better chance today than ever before, primarily because of the internet. Not only is it a tool to publish, it's a tool to learn how to write. So more SP authors are choosing self-publishing, after learning how to write, as a method to get more money out of the process. Good on them, I say. I might be joining the ranks in the future. I have several books that, while good, weren't in a format that could be easily reproduced by a publisher. They liked it, but ultimately rejected it. But the internet is more fair. I might stand a chance pubbing it that way--now that I've learned how to write.

MMcDonald64, thank you for sharing your numbers. It's posts like yours that give the real picture of self-publishing. It gives large press authors the opportunity to decide whether it's better to stay with large press, or give SP a try.

I know one NYT author who writes one particular subgenre, who couldn't sell a different subgenre she'd written, even though she regularly sells through her advances and more. So, self-pubbing will gain another entry, like Konrath and Eisler and a dozen others. SP is a whole different game with a built-in audience. I hope she makes millions from it.

MMcDonald64 said:

<whole lotta snippin'>

As far as money goes, you asked for it, so here it is.

<whole lotta more snippin'>

Click to expand...

That has been one of the most useful comments yet. Thank you for taking the chance on sharing that with me. I certainly won't accuse you of bragging, and even if you were, it would be well-deserved bragging rights.

Grats!

bearilou said:

I'm so glad this came up.

Does the average reader worry? Apparently not. Do they care? I think yes they do if the book also falls down in other aspects.

Click to expand...

I'm snipping some of the quotes to keep this post from getting too long, but I read everything.

I think on this point we're agreeing, I'm not sure. I was trying to get to the point that a strong story that readers enjoy does make up for lackluster writing style (or overly simplistic, as seems to be the case with a lot of self-published authors I've noticed). I'm not naming names, but there have been bestsellers (in trade publishing) that I felt were just awful. Poor pacing, extraneous detail, unrealistic dialogue, etc. It leaves me with a feeling like I'm some uncultured swine for not "getting it" if it's so popular On the other hand, I've read self-published books which I thought were quite engaging. Perfectly written? No, but the story was good. In the end, it's really up to the readers to decide what they will forgive and what they won't. I do think that some "mistakes" that we writers see, the average reader wouldn't think twice about. Not all, but some.

I don't put them down for offering books for free. It's supposedly a good marketing technique, I understand that.

It's when they are crowing that they are wildly successful in threads and in articles that talk about how much more MONEY they are making by going self-publishing than they are going trade. But they don't give specific dollar numbers. They give proof of their success in the number of downloads, which doesn't directly translate into dollar amounts. If you're going to tell me that you're making more money going the self-published route than going trade, then show me the money, don't show me your number of downloads. That's meaningless when it comes to proof of the monetary advantage.

Click to expand...

As curious as I may be, I would no more ask how much money someone made from writing as I would for any other profession. It's none of my business. Being a writer myself, even if I was self-published like them, would not give me any more of a right to know. People are welcome to share their successes, and as has been discussed before, success is measured differently for different people. If someone is called out for not giving specific dollar amounts, they could just as easily lie than own up to having given away their books instead of selling them, if that's the game they want to play.

So how are they defining success? A good book or just a lot of downloads?

Click to expand...

It's true that downloads don't automatically equal readers. However, it's a higher chance that the book will be read by a portion of those readers, than if the book didn't have the free promo and only got a few downloads in the first place. And as I already said, it still takes a good, engaging book for the freebie readers to want to come back for more books by that author (which would hopefully be paid books, if the marketing strategy is working). In another thread, it was said that this strategy mostly works for series authors. Even Amanda Hocking (bestselling self-published author) has claimed to use this strategy to sell her series (first book set at 99 cents, and the rest of the series priced higher).

And to be honest, it gives me great moments of despair to know that I will never be able to make a decent living from my writing because so many writers do not value their writing to put a monetary amount on it. They give it away for free 'just so they can be read and enjoyed' and 'they base their success on being read and enjoyed and not the money' that it appears to me to be setting up the cycle of the expectation of the reading public to get their reading for cheap or for free.

Click to expand...

I'm really sorry you feel this way. But I have to say, I think is a little unfair to put this upon your fellow writers. People use all sorts of strategies to sell their books, and I don't think anyone's efforts are killing sales for other authors. I hate to do it, but I'm going back to the library analogy. Just because books can be freely checked out of the library by anyone, doesn't mean they're hurting sales for these or other authors. Word of mouth is a powerful thing, especially in this age of social media. Reaching readers is, imo, the first step to getting your "brand" out there.

And even if a writer's goal is just to have readers enjoy their books, well, that's frankly their own business. Just because THAT book is free, doesn't mean a reader won't pay for a book that sounds really good to them. It's not like free books, stories, poems, movies, music etc are a new thing. Free entertainment on the internet is vast. But people are still willing to pay for things they consider to have value.

MMcDonald, I read the sample of your first book. Your writing is very good. Did you try at all to go the trad route or did you go straight to self pub?