So I've made this list. Decide for yourself if these actions constitute treating authors badly. FWIW, all the things I'm mentioning have either happened to me or to my peers.
Legacy publishers offer the author 17.5% royalties on ebooks, and keep 52.5% for themselves.
Legacy publishers have full control over the title of the book.
Legacy publishers have full control over the cover art.
Legacy publishers can demand editing changes or refuse to publish.
Legacy publishers promise marketing or advertising. In fact, they promise lots of things. Then they don't follow through.
Legacy publishers fail to get paper books into certain important bookselling outlets, resulting in fewer sales.
Legacy publishers generate royalty statements that are incomprehensible.
Legacy publishers don't try grow an author's fanbase these days. If the books don't show increased sales with each new title, the author gets dumped, even if the reason for decreasing sales is the publisher's fault.
Legacy publishers hold onto rights even if the book is no longer selling. Getting rights back is a nightmare, and it takes forever.
Legacy publishers try to grab erights to books retroactively.
Legacy publishers take a ridiculously long time to publish a book. In some cases, more than 18 months.
Legacy publishers are a cartel. I suppose it could be a coincidence that the Big 6 all have exactly the same (low) royalty structure, and shockingly similar contract terms. But collusion seems easier to believe, and this collusion is aimed at limiting the income and power of authors. Legacy publishing contracts are painfully one-sided.
Legacy publishers have zero transparency when it comes to things like sales, returns, print runs, and inventory, and keep authors in the dark.
Legacy publishers fix prices. That's what the agency model is. Even worse, these prices are too high and hurt authors' sales.
Legacy publishers sometimes fail to edit.
Legacy publishers abandon books, releasing them into the market without any push at all.
Legacy publishers pay royalties twice a year. Are you freaking kidding me?!? It's 2012! Why are their accounting and payroll departments stuck in 1943?
Legacy publishers embraced returns for full credit. This is the biggest fail in the history of retail, and the reserves against returns practice has screwed thousands of authors. Isn't it funny how whenever you hear about an author auditing a publisher, unreported sales are always discovered?
Legacy publishers have done everything they can to postpone the switch from paper to digital. I was talking about this two years ago. This has cost authors a great deal of money.
Legacy publishers buy subsidiary rights they never exploit. Why buy them if you won't use them?
Legacy publishers waste huge amounts of money. They have offices in the most expensive city in the US, spend tens of thousands of dollars on booths at BEA, spend millions of dollars advertising bestselling authors who don't need the advertising, then say they can't offer more than a $12k advance? Fail. Move to Jersey, cut the expense accounts for lunch, and offer authors more money since they're the reason you exist in the first place.
Legacy publishers reject good books. I got half a mil in the bank that proves this one.
Do the above actions sound like legacy publishers are treating authors with consideration, respect, and affection? Or does it seem like they're treating authors like shit?
I've dealt with a lot of folks who work for legacy publishers. These are talented, dedicated, smart people.
That doesn't mean their companies don't screw authors.
I've spent hours upon hours talking to these publishers, trying to get them to innovate, to evolve.
They didn't listen.
I've spent a smaller amount of time talking to Amazon, trying to get them to innovate, to evolve.
Amazon did listen. And guess what? My Amazon published books made more money, faster, than any of my legacy published books.
If you're an author who has worked with a legacy publisher, you know how demeaning it is when your ideas, pleas, and plans are ignored. And if you've worked with Amazon, you know how empowering it is to be listened to. To have your opinions and ideas count, and be implemented.
I know many legacy pubbed authors who then self-publish. The majority of them agree with me: unless it was for a whole lot of money, they'd never take another legacy contract. Why is that? Doesn't that say something?
I know several self-pubbed newbies who had some success and got picked up by legacy publishers. Where are their blog posts about how well they're being treated and how their sales numbers went up? Where are their recommendations to other authors, urging them to abandon self-pubbing and sign a legacy deal?
I don't rant against legacy publishers because because they've wronged me. I rant against them to warn other authors, and show them better options. The path I'm on now is so much more rewarding, both monetarily and emotionally.
As Blake Crouch said in a recent Tweet: Where are all the longtime authors jumping to the defense of legacy publishing? Surely, since legacy publishers treat their authors so well, there should be thousands of happy authors rallying behind their publishers, disagreeing with my points, telling the world how wonderful their legacy experience has been.
There's a reason we don't see any of this. What could they possibly say?
"I love the fact that my royalty statements make no sense and I only get paid twice a year!"
"I love that my publisher prices my ebook at $12.99 and then keeps 52.5% of the list price!"
"I love getting my title changed to something I hate, and getting stuck with terrible covers!"
"I love the fact that my publisher didn't get me a single review!"
"I love turning in a manuscript and not getting the rest of my advance money until publication 18 months later!"
"I love the fact that it takes my publisher three months to give me the proofs, and then I have to return them in four days!
"I love it when I painstakingly go through a copy edit, and then when the book comes out none of my changes were made, and brand new mistakes were added!"
"I love being told there is no money for marketing my title, and then seeing a TV commercial for an author who has my same publisher!"
"I love it that my publisher insisted on owning world rights, and then only published in the US and Canada!"
"I love that my next-book option wasn't picked up because Barnes & Noble couldn't offer a big enough buy-in!"
"I love releasing only one book a year, even though I could easily write more! Non-compete clauses are awesome!"
"I love the 70% return rate on mass market paperbacks!"
"I love DRM!"
You don't hear a lot of stories about authors being treated well.
Instead, go to any writing conference, belly up to the hotel bar, and listen to the writers commiserate with one another, trading stories of who got screwed the worst.
Is legacy publishing all bad? Of course not. Some authors get rich. Some authors get much-needed editing help. Some authors get treated like royalty.
But I'm pretty sure that if we polled one thousand authors, and had them weigh all the good things their publishers do against the bad things their publishers do, the bad would far outweigh the good. I bet you'd find a lot of them having the same complaints I've mentioned. I bet you'd find even more complaints that I'm not even aware of.
The industry is broken. It cannot continue to treat its content providers as if it's doing them a favor. It cannot continue to engage in business practices that are so one-sided.
Writers are necessary. Publishers are not.
If you want to climb aboard a sinking ship, don't be surprised when you get handed a pail and ordered to start bailing.
If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. You can even post anonymously. All of you legacy publishers who love authors can come and tell me how I'm wrong.
But you won't. Because I'm right. The best you'll do is whine about my tone, or reiterate incorrect memes about my current self-pub success being the result of my legacy backlist, or call me a broken record, or get angry because I'm killing the sacred cow you suckle at, while ignoring all of the valid points I've made.
I'm sure all of you legacy folks have good intentions when it comes to how you treat your writers.
What was it someone said about hell and good intentions?
Tweet
298 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 298 of 298Well, whomever Big Rich Anonymous Pants is, I think much less of him than I do of Joe.
And here's why:
Joe understands the reality of luck.
Mr. FancyHat thinks his success is based on the fact that he's better than everybody else.
I guess when you're wined and dined, and your publisher drops big bucks on full page ads in the New York Times for you, you begin to believe you got were you are just because you're filled with wonderfulness.
Guess what? It doesn't work that way in showbiz, in sportsbiz, in businessbiz, and it sure as hell doesn't work that way in authorbiz.
I'm glad you believe you're better and smarter than the rest of the slobs on the B team.
You made it to your god-like perch on the mountain top because you were lucky, as well as talented and smart.
(And now excuse me, I have to go play Dungeons and Dragons.)
Firstly, thank you for getting me back up off my literary behind after a hiatus that stretches back to 1990, which, coincidentally, was the last time I had any contact with my legacy publisher. Warner, if it matters. Popular Library was the stamp.
They hit me with just about everything you point to in this blog. The one exception was that they did advertise me, though. The book was a "men's adventure" about truck drivers and the mob. They put an ad in Spin magazine. Just one. Once.
The book hit the stands in June of 1990, I got a sales report in January '91, and I'm still waiting for the second one. Repeated letters to their legal department went unanswered, bladda bladda, you know the drill.
Of course, Warner folded, got sold, that company folded, etc. Any money they ever owed me is gone, along with all the unsold books I was supposed to have the opportunity to purchase back when they ceased supporting it. In the end, I got something less than twenty cents a copy in royalties and a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.
On the plus side, after perusing your various blogs, I was motivated to rummage through my dusty archives and dust off the contract. It seems that I do have e-rights. I still have the manuscript for the sequel somewhere too, I think. Pursuant to another of your excellent blogs, Imma stick them both up on line and see if anybody's interested in purchasing dated adventures for a dollar while I'm working on new projects.
Thanks again for the motivation and the kick in the pants, and keep the truths flying.
What does a rambutan taste like? Is there a sample button?
Okay, I'm posting anonymously because I'm a bit miffed at some comments that Big 6 are the only way to quality.
Yes, there are bad indie books out there.
Yes, there are bad trad published books. (Snooki? Hey, how did the gamekeepers miss that whole---expletive deleted-- James Frey debacle.)
But dude, please do NOT lump me with the "there is no quality" just because I self-pubbed on Kindle. Let me explain:
1-- two of my Kindle books were previously "traditionally" published. Not by a big six, but still, traditionally published.
2-- One of these traditional publishers did NOT correct errors I had helped him mark on the galley proofs.
3-- I outsource my copy editing to a friend and former newspaper editor.
4-- This is the big one--NOT ALL SELF-PUBBED INDIE PEOPLE ARE RANDOM 'HEY I THINK I'LL WRITE MY FIRST BOOK' folks.
I have a master's degree in creative writing (yes, I know, education does not equal good writing) but my point is, to automatically dismiss everyone is to mean that the opposite is true: everything from the Big 6 is pure gold.
Tell me--today-- what do you think the Big 6 would think of Faulkner's "Sound and the Fury"?
I've heard from a lot of writers (GOOD writers.) that the biggest thing Big 6 are saying about literary fiction is; "Great, wonderful story. We have no idea how to market it, so we'll pass."
Okay, forgive my rant.
Thank you JA. Maybe I've just drunk the Kool-Aid, but I'm enjoying it thus far---made more money in one year on Kindle than I did over the last three with my trad. publishers.
I don't begrudge Meyer a dime she's earned or an ounce of her success. She connected with readers on a massive scale and therefore did a great job as a writer.
@David L. Shutter - Couldn't agree with you more. Why should I begrudge the Stephen Kings, J. K. Rowlings, or the Dan Browns of the world? They wrote a novel or a series of novels that (obviously) caught the attention of a ton of people.
I should be so lucky. :-) In fact, that's what inspires me to keep going forward. King was eking out a living in a trailer in Maine; J. K. Rowling was on welfare in Edinborough; Dan Brown had - what was it - 2 or 3 other novels out before the dam burst.
I've had similar opportunities in my own life - being in the right place at the right time for...whatever it was I was going after.
Thanks for bringing all that up. Made my morning. :-)
And to the poster who thinks Anon $1.5 mil is 60 or over? I'll be 50 in June, and I know where "You bet your bippy" came from (Rowan and Martin's Laugh In). I watched it on TV (on the air from 1968-1973) as a nutty 6 year old (in '68) until it ended. Watched it with my mother. :-)
And, yes, I do remember a number of skits from that show because I remember silly things like that. :-)
...the biggest thing Big 6 are saying about literary fiction is; "Great, wonderful story. We have no idea how to market it, so we'll pass
I like Scott Nicholson's quote: "If the hundred best fiction books of all time arrived in NYC at the same time, 90% of them would be rejected."
@Nancy Beck. Good point... My speculation was just that. We will never know who that was unless s/he comes back and decides to post under his/her real name, which is not going to happen.
My post was intended as a call to people who know what they are doing to come and analyze the post. :)
I re-read it again this morning and I'm no longer sure about any of my conclusions... Woman, man, 25, or sixty - could be anyone... It was entertaining though.
Here is my other 0.02 - not that my original was worth anything either. From an author who is still trying to make a living from writing stories (only having been published since 2008 and don't have the 20+ years experience a good many of you have) and who hopes that one of these days, yes her books will support her instead of having to keep working her full time job to support her book business, chiming in on several things:
1) - Anon 1.5 million - I'm not finding the posting right up front so I was wondering if that was earned or sales in January, but then again as someone posted how do you know what you earned last month or what your sales were last month? - From my understanding, those figures take months to come up with since there is so much involved into the accounting process - those retched returns from stores don't even show up for at least 6 months; on the other hand if you are a big name you may never have any returned books but last year or the year before, someone shared their royalties statement on their blog for the world to see. This person has print runs in the 10,000+ and had received a pretty big advance - the royalty statement was still showing several thousand returns for whatever the royalty period was but those returns showing were for a different period of time. So as someone else posted, do you get special treatment to know up front how much you earned or how many sales you had in a month (especially considering it's not even the end of the month after your reported period of making the 1.5 mil)? Whatever reason you know you made 1.5 mil in one month - yay, good for you and congrats on that. Some of us can only hope to achieve a fraction of that a year/a month/whatever time frame you want it to be. I know I'm not a bestseller and may never but I do offer quality stories. (My editor says I write my first drafts as 3rd or 4th or draft and she used to work for a publishing house in New York and she has been involved in the industry for over 30 years in some capacity or another).
I felt the posting was a bit of a nanana posting in that the first statement was - I made 1.5 mil in January -
2) The banter between Anon 1.5 mil and Joe has been epic as someone else said. But here is my take on it. The first time I read the posting (I can't find it here but know it's in my email somewhere), I felt the poster was being facietious and I also felt that Joe does know the Anon author and kind of encouraged him or her to post a comment like that so that it would liven up the comments and really bring some big discussion here (honestly - comments like - yeah you will always make more than I will because you are places I'm not - really tells me that these two folks are probably friends because no matter how much people say this is a lonely business, it isn't because there are critique groups, support groups, fan clubs, writers' conferences, agents, publishers, editors who are always helping writers through the whole process. Yes, the actual writing of the story is done in solitude but this is by far a lonely business. And you may be rivals on the court, but in the end you can still be friends). I've seen it catching glimpses of some sports shows - the two big dogs may be against each other on the playing field, but in the end, they will hug and talk and console.
(to be continued
(continuation)
3) How come Anon 1.5 mil hasn't come back to respond to any of the other commeents about him or her or defend his or her position?
4) Why post as an anon poster if you have something valid to back up your statements?
5) Why does this have to be an "I'm better than you because I make more money" business? Obviously there are always going to be readers out there and they are reading a variety of things, so why can't the wealth be shared? Why do people think that they have the corner on the market because they made x amount of money? As Joe pointed out, there is plenty of wealth out there and writers are just now getting the opportunity to tap into it and make decent livings from their writings. I don't need 1.5 mil to live comfortably, not that having that wouldn't be nice, but I do need my expenses paid and so need my writing to reflect that, and just because (down the road hopefully) I may only make $150,000/year (if I make that), doesn't mean I'm not happy and content with being supported by my once thought of hobby.
6) About calling yourself a "bestselling" author - if your rankings on amazon say you are a bestselling author, even if only for a day or two, does that not make you a bestselling author? (We are, after all, talking about self pubbing ebooks and amazon's rankings of said ebooks.) When I listed one of my stories for free last week, I made it to the #7 in kindle free books, ghost stories - I felt like a bestselling author at the moment, but I have no claims to say I'm a bestselling author since my sales aren't reflecting much since then. Who determines whether an author is a bestselling author or not? Is it your ranking on amazon.com or the income or what? - All I'm saying is that bestselling authors can make the claim but it also can be taken away as quickly as earned - some bizarro meteor could fall in a few towns from you (yes, that actually just happened here - meteor fell less than 50 miles from where I presently live) and wipe out all the people who made you a bestselling author and then were would the author be?
Okay - those are just some thoughts that came to me as I read the comments in my email. Joe, I'm not dissing you or anything because I really appreciate your being so upfront about the publishing industry and striving to be the beacon for us just getting our foot in the door authors. Anon 1.5mil - I'm not dissing you either because I don't know you and even if you are one of the persons everyone is thinking you are, I've not read any of your works, so whatever you did to earn that $1.5 mil, great job and keep up the good work.
From a wannabe successful writer - E :)
Elysabeth Eldering
Author of Finally Home, a YA paranormal mystery
"The Proposal" (an April Fools Day story), a humorous romance ebook
"The Tulip Kiss", a paranormal romace ebook
"Bride-and-Seek", a paranormal romance ebook
http://elysabethsstories.blogspot.com
http://eeldering.weebly.com
Ma America, The Travelin' Maven
Author of the JGDS, 50-state, mystery, trivia series
Where will the adventure take you next?
http://jgdsseries.blogspot.com
http://jgdsseries.weebly.com
I ran across an ebook this morning that uses a very famous current bestselling author's very famous current bestselling fictional character in its title and as the basis for its plot. It would be like me building a series of stories where Nicholas Colt investigates Alex Cross (or Lt. Jacqueline Daniels). Never mind ethics. Is this even legal? I'm assuming the book is self-published, as I can't imagine any legitimate publisher touching something like this.
I couldn't finish reading Breaking Dawn. :)
I read them all. (Had a teen in the house at the time who was reading them so I was "previewing") They could have been edited to about half their length, for my taste.
I also read her later book, "The Host" - far better, actually, than the vampire books. Although with as much guff as she gets, the vampire books weren't that bad if you like teen romance. At least, not as bad as people make them out to be.
The last few Harry Potter books were more poorly written, imho. And I can't remember which HP book it was, but Harry was so teen angsty I was ready to throttle him. Far worse than Bella on a good day. :P
So speaking of gender... (and Stephen King, who said Meyers couldn't write and the Twilight series was all about getting a boyfriend...) I think there's a prejudice against romance and love and all that "mushy" stuff and it's drawn down gender lines (although as archangel points out, nothing is completely black and white...)
Meyers touched a very LARGE audience of readers. They were primarily female and their focus was on love and romance. She's reviled. Rowling touched a VERY large audience of readers in a genre historically primarily dominated by male readers... and she's revered.
I'm not sure either of them wrote a book any better than the other. They both found huge amounts of readers who enjoyed their work.
But I do find it interesting how the Twilight series is made fun of, while Harry Potter is being taught in schools. I'm not sure one has more value than the other.
Anybody heard of Jeremy Lin? The basketball player that was cut from 2 teams and was a hair away from quitting all together? Now he's the hottest player in the NBA. Sometimes, the only thing that seperates the "B" team and the Anonymous $1.5 million dollar author is an opportunity.
I think the bottom line is that legacy publishing is working very well for Anon 1.5m, and that's fabulous. For him. And I suspect that if the Big 6 suddenly all shut their doors, he would do fine in the self-pub world, too.
But I have to tell you, there's a lot of anxiety involved in an industry upheaval like the one we're facing now.
The reality is that we authors who have been traditionally published have enjoyed our privileged status, even if we were nowhere near the tower of lofty bestsellerdom. Being published by a big publisher meant we were better than slush. We knew how to write. As authors, we were worth something, even if we didn't make a lot of money.
After enjoying published author status, it's scary to end up back in the slush pile, to have to prove yourself all over again. That's what this new self-publishing world demands.
It's no wonder that a very successful, A-list traditionally published author is going to want to believe he has gotten where he is based entirely on merit. If traditional publishing goes away(though I doubt it will), he wants to believe it is within his power to rise to the top once again, that he doesn't have to rely on something as uncertain as luck.
For the record, I think he'll be fine IF legacy publishing ever fades away. And that's all good. But for every author traditional publishing has treated well, there are hundreds who have dealt with the not-so-author-friendly practices outlined in this blog post. This new self publishing revolution can work well for us...if we're able to break away from the shackles of our egos.
In traditional publishing it's boom or bust, not much in between, especially not anymore. There's a lot of middle ground in self publishing. And it's open to anyone who has the talent, skill, work ethic, business prowess and LUCK to take advantage of it.
@Pat Anvil
Pat, the scientist in me wants to go look up the citations but the writer in me is saying, get back to work.
One of the problems with relying on life experience solely is that the extraordinary events tend to stick in our minds, and then seem more the norm (when they are the exact opposite). There is scientific evidence supporting what I just said as well. When we look at a woman who has made it to the top of the heap by being competitive, we say "wow, isn't she competitve." We aren't particularly noticing the competitive men because that's more ordinary.
As to the hierarchy, yes, men often accept authority better because they are more hierarchal. But accepting that someone has authority over you and being competitive is not the same thing.
Back on topic, I love somebody's analogy of a hybrid car. If an author gets a good legacy deal, and is also self-publishing, why not do both. And as more authors do that, it may force the legacy publishers to treat authors better, when they know their money-makers can all too easily tell them to stick their contracts where the sun don't shine.
Jude, I think I found that book you're talking about. Written by a woman, who has a last name that is also a type of pants? Ummm ... wow. That can't be legal, unless the author gave his permission.
I sure wouldn't.
Adam Pepper said: Anybody heard of Jeremy Lin? The basketball player that was cut from 2 teams and was a hair away from quitting all together? Now he's the hottest player in the NBA. Sometimes, the only thing that seperates the "B" team and the Anonymous $1.5 million dollar author is an opportunity.
You hit the nail on the head, sir. And the new opportunities in self-publishing offer more authors an opportunity to be discovered.
Ann Voss Peterson said: There's a lot of middle ground in self publishing. And it's open to anyone who has the talent, skill, work ethic, business prowess and LUCK to take advantage of it.
Ann, your entire post is dead on. Very few publishers today are willing to sign on an unknown author who they think might sell 5-10k copies. But for an indie author, that's not bad money. It will at least help pay some bills and make it worth the effort to keep writing.
Merrill Heath
Runner
Dan and Jude, I know the book you're talking about. The blurb at the top indicates it's a series. Either this author has permission to use the character (which I find unlikely) or it will be off the market very soon.
Merrill Heath
Runner
For the record, I think he'll be fine IF legacy publishing ever fades away.
I agree, Ann. But is that the issue here?
Let's assume legacy pubs become ebook only in the future. I've seen no evidence that they will drop prices. Which means Anon's backlist will be priced high, and without the support of his/her paper sales acting as billboards everywhere paper books are sold.
Can $12.99 compete with $3.99? Maybe. But I don't think so. Ebooks are cars. Some cars are economy. Some are utilitarian. Some or sport. Some are luxury. They all serve different needs.
Ebooks are fungible. A thriller is a thriller. Why pay $13 when you can pay $4? Because those books are really 3x better?
That's how readers will think. And if that happens, Anon's sales will take a giant nosedive.
Joe sez:
"A thriller is a thriller. Why pay $13 when you can pay $4? Because those books are really 3x better?"
John Locke has made a career out of this attitude: "These days, the burden of proof is on them. Now the best authors in America have to prove they’re ten times better than me. And in a game like that, I like my chances."
You might remember where he said that.
Dan
I agree, Joe. Note, I said he'd be fine, not that everything would remain as it is now.
I think the established authors will continue to sell at the higher prices. People don't think twice about paying $12.99 or $14.99 for Grisham, King, Patterson, etc. But it will be interesting to see who fills the gap between $3.99 and $12.99. Right now there aren't a lot of books in the middle. I expect to see some good indie authors, as they build a name for themselves, climb up into the mid-range of $4.99 to $7.99.
Ebooks are fungible. A thriller is a thriller. Why pay $13 when you can pay $4? Because those books are really 3x better?
Disagree. People gravitate to what everybody else is reading or watching or listening to. So while ebooks level the playing field a lot, giving more people a shot at relevancy, in the end there's still going to be a few people dominating and a steep drop off for everybody else. Those few at the top will get to command higher prices, just maybe not as high as before.
To answer the Diane Capri question:
http://www.karenmcfarland.com/an-interview-with-diane-capri
Last spring I wanted to find out what the Amanda Hocking fuss was about, so I downloaded her very first book. It had already been cleaned up considerably, but was still, at that point, a mess in terms of grammar and formatting. Nevertheless it had a plot that unquestionably pulled in the young and the romantic in a compelling way (hey, I'm still romantic, but not that young). It was all about coded sexual desire. Yawn.
Folks told me it was a rip-off of Twilight, so I went and read the first three in that series. Compared to Hocking's then-unedited work, Meyer's looked brilliant. The whole Team Vampire/Team Werewolf thing got old after the first book, and the repressed desires were a little too teen-ish for me, but I could see why she appealed and had cleaned up financially. Books are entertainment, right? Good for her. She is entertaining all the way to the bank.
For the record, I read the first Potter very early and thought it was brilliant from the start. I had young kids at the time, and they glommed right on to those books, and awaited each new release with breathless anticipation.
By the way, my pal J.Carson Black just yesterday saw her suspense thriller, "The Shop" hit the TOP spot on Kindle. That is, the #1 paid best-selling book overall for Kindle. It has since slipped back to #3, behind two of the Hunger Games books, and above the third. Now it's the same book that it was when she was #1,234 (I made that up, but I figure the book was there and higher at some point). Suddenly she got just the right boost, or the magic luckfairy landed on her shoulder, and she is on top of the world and The Shop is on top of the list. The author herself is surprised! Another advantage with ebooks -- long tail, long availability, many chances to rise to the top and get the attention they deserve. Not so with physical books these days. A few months (or weeks!), and you're shipped back to the publisher.
We're all in the entertainment biz. Shakespeare wrote his plays to entertain the masses. I wrote RUNNING to entertain the masses. (Hey, I'm just like Shakespeare!)
Anon $1.5 mill is definitely entertaining masses all around the world. Some of us just strike a chord with more people. But you can't get to the readers to strike the chord until you get your work out.
Self-publishing lets more of us do it -- FASTER and AUTONOMOUSLY. So we get into the game.
I'm going to go work on my future "best seller." Thanks for all the kind words about that! ;-P
Well said, Patrice. I couldn't have said it better. Quality is in the eyes of the beholder. As Joe has said hundreds of times, "The readers are the new gatekeepers."
I meant to say ebooks AREN'T cars. Cars aren't fungible. Ebooks are.
Those few at the top will get to command higher prices, just maybe not as high as before.
It depends. Are they at the top because, like Hunger Games, they are a paper phenomenon? Would Hunger Games have hit #1 if it had only been a $12.99 ebook?
I think not. And I think a lot of bestsellers are in for a world of disappointment if they stick with their publishers.
Jude - If you're talking about a book with a character names Jack... She got the author's permission to do the book.
Interesting, isn't it? Didn't think they'd allow it to happen. I'd like to hear the discussion and reasons for saying Yes.
On topic still... saw an author's post who has been with an arm of a legacy pub for many years now it seems. Said author posted something about career going under or some such and being depressed. It made me wonder, but with the prices of this author's books being in the $7.00 and up range for kindle (for 95% of them), I have pity. I actually gave my two cents of advice about self pubbing. I mean if you already have a loyal audience, why not? It's working well for me when I do it, and my audience is still growing, and I'm not legacy pubbed. And you can set your own prices... and make more than with legacy pub. I figure, what's to lose, but then I wonder if some authors are just so stuck in the old model they can't see alternatives?
I think the established authors will continue to sell at the higher prices. People don't think twice about paying $12.99 or $14.99 for Grisham, King, Patterson, etc. But it will be interesting to see who fills the gap between $3.99 and $12.99. Right now there aren't a lot of books in the middle. I expect to see some good indie authors, as they build a name for themselves, climb up into the mid-range of $4.99 to $7.99.
Obviously the top sellers would sell lots of e-books at any price, but I wouldn't assume they will sell anywhere near what they are used to if they are priced at $12.99. Don't under-estimate how many they sell because there is a stack of their books three feet from the door at B&N.
Also, don't forget that the biggest selling, most heavily promoted authors also get a large share of the casual market. The "I need something to read on the beach on vacation next week" buyer is far likelier to grab a Grisham than scan the shelves for two hours seeking out a hidden gem. That doesn't mean they will buy it at any price.
Also, there is a tangible feeling to buying something in print that at least partially justifies paying more. You know the thing had a higher unit production cost, and even though the pricing is still out of whack. It's like buying a newspaper. I'll pick one up to read on the train. I understand they printed it and delivered it to the newsstand. But I'd be very unlikely to pay for online access, since there is a huge pool of similar content available there for free.
Amazon has broken the stranglehold on distribution. Period. Not only that, but they give authors the tools they need for their work to be seen. I know because I gave away 16,000 copies of my book on Tuesday. So do Legacy Publishers treat authors like shit? Maybe so. But you don't have to take it. Some numbers and how giving away books actually translates into sales are in my blog post here: http://www.larsguignard.com/?page_id=90
She got the author's permission to do the book.
I think it's kind of cool, then.
Anonymous 1.5 sounds like a Dave Chappelle skit. I was waiting for him/her to say "I'm rich, bitch!"
I love e publishing because it allows my book to find readers and to succeed or fail on its own merit. I don't mess around with false reviews etc. Readers like it or they don't. The future of my creative effort is no longer decided by the subjective opinion of an agent or publisher. The old 'if it's not picked up by a publisher it's not good enough' brainwashing is completely disproved, market forces rule!
Something along the lines of the original topic; publishers treatment of authors in a post by the might Mrs. Rusch.
First off, God bless her for everything she does. With her backlist and readership god knows she would benefit more, personally, from more promotion and writing than from her amazingly informative and helpful blog posts which, I'm sure, she spends more than five minutes a piece on don't.
Her latest post here discusses roughly a half dozen new and improved ways for traditionals to limit and punish authors, to their own benefit, through contact verbage and mechanics.
Just plain awful.
@David: It seems as though the link you posted might be broken.
I'm reposting the link here, thanks for providing the information!
http://kriswrites.com/2012/02/23/the-business-rusch-competition/
Anon
Thank you kindly, html dummer here.
Great comments. This is going to sound like a repeat of what's already been said a few times, but I am coming at this as a foreigner. And my experience is different. Distributing my first novel in the United States was a nightmare. I lost money that I couldn't afford to lose. Who can. But I was one of the lucky ones. I was able to sign with a distributor in Canada and have my books placed in independent bookstores. I still couldn't get them to the States, but hey, one step at a time, right.
Through my distributor I was able to sign with a legacy publisher. Experienced as I was, I had no great expectations and was pleasantly surprised by their input into getting my book out there. They're doing what they can as a small publishing house.
Never say never, and sure maybe I'll self-publish again one day. For now I'm too tired to put in those 18 hour days. Maybe for book number 4.
Great post. Lots of interesting comments.
Joylene Nowell Butler, Author
I believe that self publishing is a great way to go for those authors out there who have done their research, are good at what they do, have the self motivation and the know-how to keep going in the publishing industry even after things (such as sales and marketing) start to look bleak, and who are 100% willing to take all the pitfalls.
The problem isn’t those authors and never was. I believe the problem is really a mix of things. I mean, I know there are writers out there who are really GOOD at writing… but they have no self motivation when it comes to marketing. Or perhaps they are really good at writing, but they have no idea what to do after that or where to look and they are easily overwhelmed.
Now, I can’t really talk since I’m not published yet one way or the other, but I will tell you one solid piece of information; I am definitely one of the self motivated. I haven’t decided yet what I’m going to do with my book – go traditional through a small press or take on the publishing world by myself – but either way you can bet your booty I’m going to work hard at success.
What I like about the idea of a small publisher isn’t so much the branding of “quality” on a book that I wrote. I don’t mean to sound boastful or anything like that, but I already know I’m a good writer. I don’t need a publisher to tell me that. And, for what it’s worth, I’m not one of those self inflated doozies that has a whole group of people out there just waiting to tell me how awesome I am. I am so, so glad I have a critique group that gives it to me straight and points out all my flaws without mercy (that’s not sarcasm… I truly mean that.)
What I do like about the idea of a publisher (preferably small, for the moment) is the fact that I would have someone else there to double my efforts on marketing, or at the very least to grow my readership by introducing my book to their followers.
However, because of the risk involved with contracts and such, it would have to be a publisher that I absolutely trust. There are only a few that I know of who fit my harsh criteria. Since narrowing it down, I have studied those presses’ publishing models and followed them very closely for several years now, and I’ve also interviewed the owners, met them in person, and had several casual online conversations with them via email and facebook. (And I should probably also mention that having met several of these presses authors in person, and having asked them about the publisher, I’ve yet to hear any one of them really complain. One press in particular is doing extremely well and has picked up several large names, while its authors continue to blog regularly and speak of the publisher with enthusiasm.) I could see myself signing with these guys if it came down to it.
I could also see myself going the self publishing rout alone and succeeding. I have the guts for it, and while I don’t currently have “hands on” experience, I have the know-how. Neither way would be even remotely easy, I’m sure, though I do foresee a larger struggle to get on my feet at the beginning of self publishing my book. However, I have quite a few contacts in the niche publishing corner of my genre who I’m pretty sure would be willing to support and help promote me.
So for me as a writer who is considering the future of my books, I see the publishing industry balanced at 50/50 in my current state; I don’t know that one option outweighs the other at the moment, but I suppose that could change at a minute’s notice.
"I think the established authors will continue to sell at the higher prices. People don't think twice about paying $12.99 or $14.99 for Grisham, King, Patterson, etc. But it will be interesting to see who fills the gap between $3.99 and $12.99. Right now there aren't a lot of books in the middle. I expect to see some good indie authors, as they build a name for themselves, climb up into the mid-range of $4.99 to $7.99."
***
Personally, I wouldn't think twice about buying a book that I want for $19.00 in the bookstore, but I don't like prices over 2.99 on amazon no matter who the author is or how much I like reading their work. For something as intangible as an e-book, 2.99 seems like a reasonable price that makes everyone happy in the end.
Though I'm not overly fond of dragging this home yet again, it just feels to me like Physical books are worth more... and I hope no one takes offense at that statement, because I do own a kindle and I do buy books off of Amazon to read on it. I know the writing in a physical book verses an e-book (of the same novel) is basically the same, but that makes no difference to me; physical books still feel like they are worth more to me than ebooks. It might not always stay that way, but that's where I sit as of the moment.
I got a day to think about this and I think we overlooked or almost did one important aspect of this. I posted this on my blog but here is most of it:
An author signed in Anonymously and stated that the publishers treated her well and made her rich.
I don't know the age or the gender of the writer, but I will refer to this person as she and I picture her to be in her late fifties to early sixties.
I have no way of verifying that she was telling the truth. But what she said "rang true" and therefore was true, even if she was not who she said she was.
She said that while mid-listers, like Joe, are better off self-publishing, if you wanted to "reach for the stars," trade-pub was the only way and you had to go to the big publishing houses.
I'm not here to argue those points. There were over two hundred comments on the post, some of them were mine.
I wanted to talk about the public debate and about another sideeffect that might be coming out of the desintegration of the current publishing system.
Let's assume that this writer is worth several dozen million dollars, has hundreds of thousands of books in print, and is published in many countries by fifty different publishers.
If true, this is a person of serious influence. This is a person who shaped thousands of lives, a person who changed the course of human culture.
This is a pilllar of society.
How come she is afraid to put her own name to her thoughts?
The reason is simple, she is a slave to those fifty publishers. She knows that a whiff of scandal and those publishers will start deserting her in throves.
She has to be politicaly correct all the time. Even a private word can be quickly turned into a sensation.
This must be very isolating. Watching your every move. Being terrified that the society will discover that you are...human.
One might say, "Wait, it's not about the publishers. It's about the reading public that will shun this writer and publishers will simply follow the readers."
To that I say, "excrements of the male of Bos Taurus", bullshit in other words.
Some people complain about the loss of civility, sensation seeking media, gossippy, celebrity driven culture we have become, yadda, yadda, yadda.
To that I say - we were always like that. It's part of our nature. We love a good brawl. We love spirited debates. We love the scandal.
If we were always this way, why do we expect the leaders of our culture to be any different?
We don't.
Our artists always spoke the truth, no matter what the consequences, and behaved badly too, if they wanted to. They couldn't care less about what a bunch of suits thought of as "proper behavior."
Corporations that took to running our culture have corrupted our cultural leaders. First, they manapolized access to the public, then they gave crumbs from their tables to the artists. Then they told them how to behave.
What I hope to see is that with gatekeeprs gone, more people like Anonymous will be saying what they really think and once again participate in the public debate.
<a href="http://patanvil.com>-Pat</a>
Argh! Why is everyone trying to "out" the Anon author? Joe invited Anon challenges and someone actually took him up on it. I personally was fascinated to read the back and forth, and watching everyone jump in and spew their personal feelings just ruins it and might prevent this sort of dialogue from happening in the future - come on people!! Both sides had interesting points and you didn't need to get all upset just because someone was challenging Joe.
I will say though, I am totally cool with anyone crapping on Stephanie Meyer, after all, I am sure she couldn't care less. If I had her success, I certainly wouldn't care. But to claim she's anything but lucky is a joke. And as Joe said, this whole writing thing is mostly a lottery. Sure there are some amazingly talented folks who make it big, but Ms. Meyers is most certainly not one of those.
I don't think I was trying to out the Anon. I really would love to continue the conversation though. And it's not happening. Why? If you look back at the comments. I suggested that it would be easy to find our friend out and s/he signed off. Why? S/he got scared. Initially I took it as a given. Big name, doesn't want to be caught doing this. Then I started thinking and it got my quite upset for her/him that she has to do that despite being who s/he is...
Re: Stephenie Meyer. Every cultural phenomenon goes from being ridiculed to being taught in school. I don't even want to come up with examples, we all know them.
I don't believe she just got lucky. She got lucky that the current publishing system let her through.
I don't think "just anyone" could have written those books.
But that's my private opinion...
I think this is a matter of taste and you cannot argue about those things. My neighbor only wears purple clothes - year round. It's her choice.
Joe said:
The fact is, there has always been crap out there. I've disliked many legacy pubbed books, wondering how they made the cut. I've also found some good self-pubbed stuff to read.
THIS is a pertinent point. When I go to a bookstore and browse, I always sample before I buy. And the truth is, I RARELY buy, because I rarely find a book that I can get past the first paragraph. And these are TRADITIONALLY published books. Books that the legacy publishers have vetted. And they're still crap.
Lord knows the bestseller list is not always full of great books. Sometimes they're downright terrible.
But I think more often than not, the cream rises. And I think this is also true for self-pubbed books. If a book looks interesting to a reader, they'll sample then decide. Just as they did when they went into a bookstore.
Pat Anvil,
I tried to leave a comment on your blog on several of your postings - not just the one related to this posting to no avail. When I logged in under my goggle account, it said you wanted to control my contacts, you wanted to view my email address (that I have no problem with) and that you wanted to do something else and do all this while I'm not in the function or whatever - I clicked on no thanks to all that and it gave me an error message - that is unethical to me - for a blogger to want to control my contacts -
So here is my response to one statement you made on your posting about the Anon 1.5mil poster - You are right in that had Anon 1.5mil identified hisself the publishing world would be in a tizzy since their bread and butter is coming from this person (obviously if that author is "earning 1.5 mil" in a month and that is the 15 or 18% take from all the sales of the books that the author has available, then the publishers are making many more millions/billions/trillions on this author alone). This would be scandalous in the least bit by identifying oneself and posting something like what was posted.
Anyway - I'm a traditionally published and self pubbed author just trying to make my way in this world of writing. I admit I'm a nobody and none of my stories are all that and I would never compare myself to someone like Joe, J.K, Stephen, Dean or any number of others who have made or are making big bucks in the industry but my stories are good and that isn't my own ego saying that. If they weren't good and pretty good, they wouldn't have won contests they were entered in (my story "The Tulip Kiss" was a 1st place winner in a contest for publication; my story "The Proposal" won third place in a fan fiction contest and my story "Bride-and-Seek" was one of the selected few in a local writing group's annual anthology; I also have a couple of more stories that will be published that have taken 2nd place and runner up in other contests), and that speaks for my writing - if the judges of those contests didn't feel my writing was good, I wouldn't have won any awards.
On the other hand, my traditional published experience was practically handed to me without one rejection but I have had to go through several of the items described in this original posting - the low royalties, the nonexistent royalties, no advance whatsoever, my royalty on my children's state books was 10% with 5% going to my illustrator and 5% coming to me and to top that off, in order for me to purchase author copies whatever was sold I was supposed to split the royalties with my illustrator even though she contributed nothing to buying those copies. That ended abruptly but on that note, the publisher decided since I wasn't sending my illustrator royalties from my in-person event sales that she was going to figure up the illustrator's part of royalties on my books and include that in the cost of my author copy purchases. It was explained to me that it cost my publisher over $1500 to print one title to include the printing cost (she uses LSI for printing), the setup fees, the ISBN, et cetera. I am printing through createspace for 1/3 the cost of my author copy purchases through the publisher, and I get a free ISBN and for only $25 to go expanded distribution I get the same listings as she does with LSI - through Ingrams (for bookstores and any store that uses them to get books), Baker & Taylor (for schools and libraries) and through createspace's own distribution program.
(to be continued)
(continuation)
If my publisher were going to ask for electronic rights on my stories, the royalty might have been a 30 or 40% take but because I have an illustratory, I still wouldn't see that full amount - it would have been a split - I can list my short stories for 99 cents each and make 35 cents on the dollar which is perfectly fine with me since each sale over 150 is 35 cents more than what is invested in the book (cover costs me around $50 for an ebook), but once those sales are made - then I'm making a pretty decent little pot (after running one of my stories in the KDP select program and running it for free for 2 days, with 360 or so downloads during those 2 days) - I've already made quite a bit more on that story than if I had it with a trad. pub who would force me to only take 15% of royalties and probably wouldn't have listed it for free.
Having been on both sides of the fence, I do feel the points are very valid in Joe's posting - yes the large publishing houses do tend to stick it to the midlist and small publishers and force them to follow suit and thereby stick it to the authors; so for my hard earned money, once my two books come out of contract, I will self-pub all of my stories - either in print or as ebooks or both if warranted (some books are just not ebook worthy yet (my state books are such, but there is a plan to change that). I will stick to being the responsible one for my books and if I fail, it will be of my own merit. One of these days, I do hope to follow in the footsteps of the Amanda Hockings/Joa Konraths and whoever else is in that top listing by being able to make a living from my writing, and I only care that I cover expenses for my books plus be able to live comfortably and have my bills paid, but for now I must continue working my day job to support my hobby as someone called it and to work on putting more stories out there that hopefully will be the break I'm looking for (yes luck needs to find me). E :)
Elysabeth Eldering
Author of Finally Home, a YA paranormal mystery
"The Proposal" (an April Fools Day story), a humorous romance ebook
"The Tulip Kiss", a paranormal romance ebook
"Bride-and-Seek", a paranormal romance ebook
http://elysabethsstories.blogspot.com
http://eeldering.weebly.com
Quality is a prevalent problem in the world of self-publishing. We're diluting the art.
Quality is a prevalent problem in ALL OF THE ARTS whether it's self-pubbed/produced or sponsored by a corporation. In fact, more often than not, the corporation is producing utter crap. Just take a look at the pop music scene for the last decade. Or, for that matter, for MOST decades.
The only thing that has really changed is that the power to distribute is now in the artist's hands in a way that it has never been before.
People are constantly crowing about the gatekeeping, and how legacy publishers weed out the crap, but that's not only largely false, but they also weed out a lot of GREAT books.
So doesn't it benefit the reader that HE or SHE now has the ability to decide what he/she wants to read without having to rely on someone else's taste?
I've been putting my grandmothers books up as ebooks and I have made more cash in a month than her previous well-known publisher made for her in a year, though the books are published in the same place, amazon, B&N, ect. Why? Better covers, better promotion, maybe better at being not having outrageous overhead and an expense clause . . . ? I've only got half the backlog up so far and I'm still lapping her previous pubber. Obviously there's something to say about doing it yourself . . . or having an awesome grandson.
Good luck to you, Anon. As far as I'm concerned, there's enough money and success for all of us. More people are reading every day with these new devices, and the advent of ebooks means that eventually the entire world will be able to read me, too.
Joe, is this you getting bitch slapped? http://bit.ly/zaggbA
Not sure, since the "whiny bitches" quote isn't perfect, but it sure does remind me of this post. And it came out the same day.
hehe...Love to see your reply. And I love to instigate.
Just my .02c,
I don't think Anon 1.5 is necessarily a woman. Men are, if anything, more competitive than women. That's just straight evolution: male competition, female choice.
But whether s/he is male or female, I'll bet dollars to donuts that s/he's a TROLL.
@ Anon 1.5: I disbelieve! And you disappear in a puff of your own sour boasts.
BTW, "You bet your sweet bippy" is from Laugh-In. Either Anon was watching TV in the 70's, or s/he's a hipster who thinks it's cool to watch old stuff.
TK Kenyon
@anon:" b) despite your wishing-it-were-so cheerleading, 80% of the reading public doesn't really like e-reading yet."
And growing and growing... Its not that they do not like ereading, they haven't been exposed.
Large form factor cell phones are the 'starter drug' into the e-book world. Do you think those will become less popular?
I see it more as people wishing ebooks weren't gaining popularity as fast as they are. To think, we're having this discussion with such a low fraction of readers ereading. What happens when it is the majority of readers?
Neil
@Paul...are you certain you can self publish novels when you've got a contract for your memoirs? I wouldn't bet on it. Your publisher will want to own those too. Better read the fine print....
I think I want to drive one last nail into this coffin. It seemed quite obvious to me from the beginning but everyone keeps repeating this mantra about 1.5 mil and how it's impossible to know how much you earn in January.
The Anon didn't say that s/he earned it January. S/he said "Anon here made $1.5m in January."
Even with one publisher it's not possible to ever now how much one earns in royalties in January or any other month.
The $1.5m Anon got paid in January is one or the combination of royalties earned in the previous six month and an advance for the future book.
Don't you think that Anon makes this money every month. S/he would have said, Anon here makes 1.5m a month. S/he said in January.
A lot of agencies deffer payments till January for tax purposes. Not only the tax will be due next year, it allows business expresses to accumulate for a full year and offset some of the income.
Having said that, $1.5m, even if Anon gets checks like this twice a year, is a lot of dough.
I'm very happy for her/him! Hopefully this will give her/him some security in those insecure times.
Has anyone noticed a problem with Amazon's Top-Ranking List? (Not Bestselling List) Both my books have been ranked in the top 10 of Police Procedurals Top-Ranking List for the past 6 months, then yesterday they both disapeared from the top 100 without ever having a review for the past couple of weeks. Anyone else notice this?
Hey Konrath--Even though you ignore my posts, I just wanted to let you know that I'm sitting at #9 overall in the Free Kindle Store. This is the second time I've cracked the Top 10 this year (last time I hit #2 and wound up breaking into the Top 100 paid for a few days).
It was about a year ago that I read this blog for the first time and decided to dedicate myself to authoring e-books and never bothered with the traditional route for the reasons you've outlined. I've seen authors get screwed over firsthand (my mother, of all people).
Though you probably won't see this or don't care, thanks anyways, Joe. It was your sales data that got me started. And yes, I sell well over 1,000 e-books a month.
I came upon your blog through a link about ebooks and self publishing. I read through a number of posts and your guide for newbies. If I were a writer for adults I would definitely follow your advice, but I just finished writing a book for young adults. Do you think the same advice is applicable to teen books? I would think not for children's books since they don't have ereaders, but do you know anything about the teen market or can you refer me to a site that addresses publishing for young adults?
"What's with all these authors calling themselves best sellers?"
For the month of January, I sold almost 12,000 books and currently my memoir, Silent Tears, has been in the Top 100 Paid Kindle Titles for 25 days. I'm not sure what constitutes the seal of 'best seller' but I feel okay calling myself a best selling author at this point.
PS.I gave Joe kudos in a review for helping me get to where I am, since I started following his blog/advice when I first published back in 2008.
Is this a buddy of yours, Joe?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/beer-fast-ends-with-bacon-smoothie/
Although I had to give up some $'s, I found some very useful tools at...http://books.marketizeit.com
About anonymous:
- maybe it's... Nora Roberts...?
Just a thought... :p
The post seems to be stuck at 200. Can't load the second page. Anyone else having this problem?
I think it's nature's way of telling us the conversation is over.
Why is it I can only see the first 200 comments?
To see past 200 click on 'Do Legacy Publishers Treat Authors Badly' instead of 'comments' on the main page, then scroll to the bottom and click 'newest'.
And yes, I know most will miss this after it scrolls out of 'recent comments'.
Ahhhh, that old chestnut popularity = quality! How that brings back memories! Suffice it to say I like Blake and Barry's takes. Ditto on the importance of luck (which can sometimes be called "timing"). Still, late as I come to this discussion, I can't help but weigh in.
One thing that gets lost in this, I think, is that not every writer dreams of being Nora Roberts or James Patterson or Stephen King. I never have. I simply set out to write stories like the ones I enjoy and I hoped, if I worked hard and got lucky, that I could maybe make a living at it one day. It just so happens that the stories I like best are kind of quirky and funny. In other words: not surefire bestseller material. Because some other writers do gravitate toward more popular material and approaches, does that make me inferior to them? I don't think so. Is Nora Roberts a better writer than Cormac McCarthy because she outsells him by a gazillion times? I doubt it. (I haven't gotten around to reading either of them yet. Oh, and to be clear: I'm not comparing myself to Cormac McCarthy!)
The Phantom Bestseller says that Stephanie Meyer is smarter/better/more worthy than her(?) because she's sold more books. Well, gosh -- that's just silly. We should all tip our hat to Ms. Meyer for her success, but I don't think writers owe her anything beyond that. Business acumen and the ability to please a broad audience are both fine things. But good writing is -- I hope -- something we can discuss without using "units moved" as our ultimate rubric.
This is f*cking amazing!
Joe,
Just last week received my Oct. 31st royalty statement from my "traditional" publisher Macmillan on my MLK book: 109 bucks, though a) still no check for the 90 bucks net from my agent and b) it would've been 400% higher if they'd remembered they sold second serial rights to the freakin' Washington Post (I had to remind them).
Meanwhile, my KDP genre title Haven House has been selling double digits every day of this year and I'm actually getting paid.
No comparison.
Keep preaching...
Stuart Connelly
My December money for RUNNING just landed in my bank account. Double my mortgage payment -- pretty exciting.
And that book just keeps selling.
It's a great time to be a writer!
This may be a random and unrelated question but what (if any) legal documents need to be signed if I want to purchase cover art from a designer? My novel will be complete soon and the cover artists have been contacted. Once the deal is made...is there anything to have us both sign or is it just a simple transaction of paying for the art and then owning it. I would rather not face royalty or legal problems down the road with an artist.
I basically have a simple contract - which most graphic designers/artists should have in their cache of documents - but if you want a copy of the one I use, you can email me at eeldering (at) gmail (dot) com - and I'll send you the blank document - but basically I own the rights to covers but my cover designer has the right to use in her portfolio and cannot resell my covers but she is also my illustrator and my illustrations are state specific so not many folks would have use for my interior illustrations or my covers either.
She also keeps a form in her paperwork that asks things like what you would like on your cover, what is absolutely not supposed to go on the cover and a short blurb, et cetera. I think the general rule of thumb is if you pay for the work it is yours (I was given that option to purchase my covers and interior illustrations for one of my stories that went out of contract last year but I tuned it down - figured I needed the books to all be the same from here on out and personally I think my covers are much better now.
Either way every artist should have standard contracts available to use for authors. E :)
Elysabeth Eldering
Author of Finally Home, a YA paranormal mystery
"The Proposal" (an April fools Day story), a humorous romance ebook
"The Tulip Kiss", a paranormal romance ebook
"Bride-and-Seek", a paranormal romance ebook
http://elysabethsstories.blogspot.com
http://eeldering.weebly.com
I am a mid-list writer whose series was dropped by a Big 6 publisher; I will be launching the next book in the series on my own. I do think most new writers would benefit by going the legacy route first, to learn the ropes and build an audience (however small). After publishing through a legacy publisher, they will have a greater likelihood of success through self-publishing. The nice thing now is that we have options and are no longer at the mercy of the legacies. Hooray!
Sorry to throw in this off topic comment but I'm interested in hiring a graphic designer for my cover. Before hiring one, what, if any, legal documents need to be signed so that royalty payments or other legal issues aren't raised later on after publication on Amazon/online? Thank you for your time.
The publishing industry is a dinosaur. It takes too long and costs too much money. If they don't change, they are doomed to extinction. http://kfordk.com/
This is a great blog, usually i don't post comments on blogs but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so!
I sold almost 12,000 books and currently my memoir, Silent Tears, has been in the Top 100 Paid Kindle Titles for 25 days. I'm not sure what constitutes the seal of 'best seller' but I feel okay calling myself a best selling author at this point.
I'm glad you feel okay with it, but that doesn't make it true. I think once you crack the top ten paid, or hit the NYT, WSJ, or USA Today list, then you'd be a bestseller. 12,000 copies doesn't do it. Maybe if you sold that many in a day.
...12,000 copies doesn't do it. Maybe if you sold that many in a day
Anon
Not to takeaway from anyone's accomplishments, but I share some of your cynicism, and of others, when it comes to the "bestseller" tag being thrown around as much as it is now in the digital arena.
I have to agree with Joe's earlier post (go read it if you haven't BTW) about bestsellers not meaning anything (or much) in the new realm. I think the "scale" of what sales are required to hit a top tier (as huge as that is for any writer) moves too much.
But, according to the experienced folks, the NYT and USAT-day have always been about as skewed and slanted as they could be in regards to actual sales.
My E-TBR is so long now that I generally don't spend anymore $$$ w/o really great reviews, an old fav' going digital or word of mouth.
I really don't pay attention to the "Bestseller" tag when I look at a new writer. Everyone seems to be one these days, plus all those years of paying full cover price on TPB and hardback "bestseller's", that blew, kinda desensitized me too.
That's just me.
I just self-pubbed my first short story, after years of publishing shorts in the magazines based on your inspiration.
I have to say I really enjoyed how quick and easy the process was. Whether or not I'll make any money is anybody's guess... but I didn't really make any money in the slicks either. Ebooks are forever - that's the clincher.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write this blog. A lot of us out there appreciate it.
@anonymous. You wrote: "I'm glad you feel okay with it, but that doesn't make it true. I think once you crack the top ten paid, or hit the NYT, WSJ, or USA Today list, then you'd be a bestseller. 12,000 copies doesn't do it. Maybe if you sold that many in a day."
am nyt bestselling writer/ pw, lj, usa today, etc. I just would like to say my two cents worth. I consider anyone who has done any number of things a 'bestseller.'
I see that some authors judge their 'sellingness best' by the amount of money they make monthly, yearly, as compared to those who make less on a book or in aggregate. Others by how many 'units' are sold. That's fine, I think. Best seller is a word that I think can be far far more broadly applied way beyond AMZ rankings, USA-T, NYT or any of the others who sort of at least say, they have their finger on the pulse of it all.
I like AMZ rankings in one way, and that is, there will be a "best selling" book in the genre say of crit lit or communication or mythology, that outsells others in the same pack. In that I believe a litcrit or other author can rightfully claim bestsellerdom... in comparison to others in the genre.
Many kinds of bestsellers. There are also 'bestseller' remaindered books and best-seller special edition books like Jurassic Park in HB just issued in a beautiful hardbound by B&N's imprint, I think.
I'm not sure about every author who is says they are a 'bestseller,' but I'd say the ones who truly are--via various measures, some of which have not existed in the old Big Pub world-- have most often worked their rear ends off in order to be contendahs in that area.
I do see that AMZ and ebooks and POD too have greatly expanded the field of 'bestsellerdom" ...and that that allows many many more to have that aegis justly worn. But I also like what Joe says. Bestseller Shcmestseller, go write.
That's the ticket to ride, I think.
THanks,
drcpe
Pocket-47 is back to regular price this morning, but it's still ranked #290 overall, and it's still on some of the bestseller lists.
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #290 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#32 in Books > Mystery, Thriller & Suspense > Mystery
#58 in Books > Mystery, Thriller & Suspense > Thrillers
#62 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Fiction > Genre Fiction > Mystery & Thrillers
Does that make me a "bestselling author"? I'm going to say it does. Why not? Right now my book is outselling titles by Lee Child, Janet Evanovich, Elmore Leonard, Robert Crais...
But being a bestselling author is meaningful only in that it might help to get you noticed, and getting noticed might help to generate more sales. It doesn't necessarily mean that your book is better than the million or so others it is outselling at the moment.
I’ve just spent an hour enjoying some of these great comments and wd like to thank all posters for their contributions.
There’s one thing I’d like to pick up on – sales vs quality. One book I’ve always liked is E.M.Forster’s great novel of Commerce & Culture - Howard’s End, published in 1910.
Now, take a look at the best-seller lists for that year:
1. The Rosary Florence L. Barclay
2. A Modern Chronicle Winston Churchill
3. The Wild Olive Anonymous (Basil King)
4. Max Katherine Cecil Thurston
One thing’s for certain – if Churchill had to rely on his fiction for his posthumous reputation, he’d be sunk!
Sales do not denote quality; what they do denote is success. I’m going to aim for success in this life and leave posterity to worry about quality…
"Does that make me a "bestselling author"? I'm going to say it does."
LMAO!
Blake Crouch: "Then something happened. His longtime editor, Albert Erskine, retired and McCarthy moved from Random House to Knopf. With a new editor and a new publishing house, his next book, All the Pretty Horses, became a phenomenon. McCarthy didn't get any better between Blood Meridian and Horses. Blood Meridian is the better book, hands down. He suddenly got a legion of readers, because of good fortune, good timing, and forces beyond his control."
This is pretty much a statement in support of legacy publishing. It could be argued, the reason for McCarthy's belated success was due the work of his new publisher, who got out there and got reviewers and those that make waves read it. The book went on to win awards, but only because those doing the awarding got to see it, something no amount of pushing a newly self-pubbed author could do. It is similar to the situation here in the UK. Many of the books short-listed (and long listed) for the Booker Prize, have sold only a few thousand copies before nomination. Once they get nominated, sales climb to bestseller level, but these prizes are not open to self-pubbed titles, and never will be, there just isn't enough hours in the day for reviewers and judges to read every book published, legacy or self-pubbed. It's the work of the legacy publishers who push titles they think are worthy that gets them on the right people's desk.
The same is true of being a bestseller. It's not the writer that is responsible, it's the publisher. Bestsellers are the bread and butter for the big six, so when they get something that looks like it has mass-market appeal, they go to town with the promotion, sticking the book on billboards and the like. Without the promotion, no matter how good the work, it will never reach the same status. Sure, you get the occasional word of mouth success story (before anyone mentions Amanda Hocking), but they are the exception. Social networking and self-promotion sells books, no doubt, but nowhere near as many as radio ads, TV interviews and billboards next to airport bookstands. This is where the fortunes are made and is the sort of promotion a self-pubbed author could never do.
I love it: when a Steven King hits it big via the Big 6 its a lesson to us all how powerful traditional publishing is and how indies can never duplicate that feat.
But when Amanda Hocking hits it big, she's called an outlier and a fluke by guys like Robert above.
@Robert F wrote"The same is true of being a bestseller. It's not the writer that is responsible, it's the publisher. Bestsellers are the bread and butter for the big six, so when they get something that looks like it has mass-market appeal, they go to town with the promotion, sticking the book on billboards and the like. Without the promotion, no matter how good the work, it will never reach the same status. Sure, you get the occasional word of mouth success story (before anyone mentions Amanda Hocking), but they are the exception. Social networking and self-promotion sells books, no doubt, but nowhere near as many as radio ads, TV interviews and billboards next to airport bookstands. This is where the fortunes are made and is the sort of promotion a self-pubbed author could never do."
I'd agree and disagree. I and many others had no billboards, et al, we did damn hard work going to over a hundred bookstores, some paid expenses, most not. Word of mouth is THE most powerful in my opinion, as are readers' groups, and as 'have been' hand selling. There are no doubt as you say, especially in genre fiction, those who have billboards, etc. But/and many of us didnt write for 'mass market' appeal, or even close. We wrote because we felt called, and did the work, in my case, for twenty years, to complete a long book, with 42 rejections, including rejected 2x by the big six co that finally pub'd it. In those days, word of mouth was queen. Still is. Now via blogs and facebook and online interviews. Most of us never have had our books reviewed by NYT book mag. I feel certain that you are right, the Booker awards will only go to those pub'd in print by old guard guys, same for the USA Nat'l Book awards. You're right. But also, I note with great pleasure that younger authors arent very swayed by Booker and national book awards cliques. They are plowing their own way, and on new ground, and many many will with luck and more than a song, rather a well written book, will make it. They will. We are only on the first day of creation in the ebook world, with long and long and long to go yet to see what's what. I say, onward, with everything in us, laying new road. The tolls on the old crumbling roads, whether old awards or old definitions of bestsellerdom, are often too narror a grade for this new endeavor. I take huge heart in the fact that author can at last speak to reader without two or ten other bodies stuffed in the middle occluding the conversation. Thanks.
drcpe
I agree with you 100% Joe.
@Anon (the rich one):
Joe says "Legacy publishers ... spend millions of dollars advertising bestselling authors who don't need the advertising ..."
He doesn't say legacy publishers treat "all" authors like crap. Apparently you're one of the reasons some of the authors from your legacy publisher can't make any money.
I am not so sure about good intentions. I think some enjoy treating writers badly.
I can relate to almost all of this--except my main (non-fiction) publisher doesn't pay twice a year.
They used to--now they pay only once a year. And about 1.5 months late every year, at that. Their royalties can be as much as a third of my annual income. It's agonizing to wait a year for that.
Hey J. A.
Since you talk to Amazon, could you ask them why they messed up my Kindle ebook? It is taking a long time to fix and I sent it out to book reviewers that way. Yikes! K.
"He doesn't say legacy publishers treat "all" authors like crap. Apparently you're one of the reasons some of the authors from your legacy publisher can't make any money."
This is as contrary to the truth as you can possible get. The fact is, that bestselling authors are supporting other authors. Most books (in some publishing houses it's as high as 90%) lose money. Even if a book has earned out it's advance, the costs of production, editing, marketing and keeping the lights on in the publisher house still may not have been covered. It's the best sellers who produce nearly all the money, enabling legacy houses to take a shot on no-names. Often, these authors don't make money, but they are not always dropped (as Archangel example of Cormac McCarthy shows), some authors are kept on because the publisher believes they may make money in the future; in the meantime, the cost of publishing these authors is being paid for by the royalties from their bestsellers. This is actually altruistic when you think about it. While many authors moan about lousy royalties, the chances are they are being subsidised by somebody else's work.
So if it is really true that the traditional publishing companies are "altruistic" and have been "subsidizing" the non-best-selling authors all these times; then they should be ecstatic about the current self-pub phenomenon; because they no longer need to lose money big time subsidizing all the non-performers and can use their super power "best-selling authors spotting abilities" to only produce and promote best sellers.
I do have one concern with self-publishing (even though my book has sold more copies than I anticipated--and more than the 'average' )
One thing I can't do with self-publishing is see my title on a Wal-Mart shelf.
Print is, of course, available on Amazon, and I priced it at $3.99--but I'd kill too see it in a store.
For me, that's the only drawback with self-publishing.
I do love your Blog, by the way.
Most legacy published authors I've read Blogs by seem to be saying self-publishing is not a good thing--PC Cast is one example. She calls it 'self-printing' actually.
Me? I've sold to e-publishers and done the self-thing. It's actually kind of funny that I've made more with one I e-published myself than I did with the one with the publisher--and they've had it almost 3 years.
Still--I'd love to see my books in stores--and that's just something an self-publisher can't do.
The one issue with self-publishing is it's nearly impossible to be in a bookstore. That's the one thing I miss.
Still, I do much better in sales, overall, with the titles I've sold myself.
I like having full control over my work, though.
If people worry about a 'bad' book--check the reviewers--and check the sample chapter.
For me, I might do one title again traditionally--but I doubt it.
Amazon will treat author's fairly and pay a decent percentage only until it has destroyed traditional publishers and bookstores. When it's the only kid on the block, Amazon will screw writers into the ground because there'll be nowhere else to go.
Think I'm wrong?
When Amazon doesn't get the discount it demands from traditional publishers it takes the 'buy' button off that company's authors.
Don't get too cosy, Joe. You're dancing with the devil.
Some of the 99 cent indies do well because the network and self promote like Amanda Hocking and John Locke. I enjoy reading their books and they're smiling all the way to the bank! http://mhlnk.com/96123952
As Blake Crouch said in a recent Tweet: Where are all the longtime authors jumping to the defense of legacy publishing?
Here's a good one: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/03/reminder-why-theres-no-tipjar.html
At some point I want to read through all these comments, it should be interesting, but I want to thank you for this. I've done amazingly well in self-publishing, but have my manuscript at harlequin offices. I've tried to decide what I'd do if they actually accepted me. I won't do it for sure after this. There's no way I'm giving up 70& commission with over 2000 sales a day to drop to 17%. I figured they do nothing with ebooks, so they'd only take 10% of those and you'd get good promotion. Thanks.
Thanks for this post, man. I'm glad I didn't go the traditional route. Only had to suffer through one rejection, and did not get hooked in. Your article seems right all the way through. I have heard of popular authors who have no say about exclamation points, if you can believe it! I would rather risk my own poor editing than be at the mercy of an editor who has all my rights in his hand!
Post a Comment