Kindle #s: Traditional Vs. Self Publishing -- Blog posting by JA Konrath

[Betsy the Quilter]

I realize that this is a passionate discussion by people who care deeply about this subject, and appreciate the civility that has been going on. I will request, however, that posters continue to direct their post on the topic of traditional vs self publishing and not direct them at the posters themselves.  Please.  We're starting to get close to the line here. 

Betsy, wearing her moderator's hat

[JimC1946]

Since I was getting too "close to the line," I deleted my comments to Lee.

[Betsy the Quilter]

Your choice, Jim, but I wasn't talking about any one particular post and not requesting anything be pulled, just trying to keep things from getting too personal.  Things can start to go downhill very fast online. 

Betsy

[RedAdept]

When I first started my blog, I began having several people, authors and readers alike, refer to me as a "professional reviewer." I told my boyfriend, who is neither a reader nor an author, that people were calling me 'professional' and laughed. He said, "What are you laughing for?  You make some money at it, don't you?"  I said, "Well, yeah, but it's not like I can quit my job. Heck, it really just helps with my book buying habit." 

His answer, "If you are making money at it due to people being willing to read what you have to say, you are a professional."

Now, in my case, I honestly feel that there is no way I will get hired by some newspaper or whatever to review books professionally. My format and the terseness of my reviews preclude that. I read 'professional reviews' and they are just..well...better. They write whole books about the books. LOL

However, I do feel that my boyfriend's definition applies to 'most' Indie Authors. If people are putting out money to read their work, an author is a professional and can consider themselves 'published'.

I also believe that any popularity I have garnered as a reviewer is due to the fact that I review Indie books with the same critical eye I use for commercial books. Of course, all reviews are subject to taste, but if an Indie book gets 5 stars from me, that means that I considered it to be on a par with commercial books I have read.

[plumboz]

Please.  We're starting to get close to the line here. 

Betsy, wearing her moderator's hat

Thanks, Betsy.

Snappy looking hat, by the way.

[Betsy the Quilter]

Thanks, Plumboz, wish I did own it!  

To me, the whole issue of what constitutes a professional in any field is not as clear cut as getting paid for it or not.  So I sort of agree with Red Adept's boyfriend, with caveats.  As a professional quilter, I sell my quilts, I get paid to teach and lecture.  I don't make enough to support myself but I'm a professional.  I present myself as a professional, I maintain a website, I file a tax return as a quilter.  I'm a professional.  I know other people who have sold a quilt on occasion, almost by accident.  They are hobbyists, but have sold at least one quilt.  I'm not sure I would consider them professional quilters, even though they've received money for a quilt on occasion.  I'm not sure THEY consider themselves professionals. 

This is, of course, somewhat different than the original premise of this thread which was concerning Traditional vs Self Publishing.  It seems that "self publishing' and "vanity publishing" have been used interchangeably at times in this thread, and I'm thinking they are not necessarily the same thing.  Or are they?  Is self publishing through Amazon's process really the same as vanity publishing?

Betsy

[plumboz]

Here's my very brief take on it (I have to go to the job that pays most of the bills at this time).

What we call traditional publishing really hasn't been the norm for all that long. It has simply been the biggest player in the house for the past century or so. To say that operating outside of that particular system in some way diminishes a writer's credentials is, I think, like saying that a wonderful musician performing at a local nightspot is a lesser artist because he or she has not been signed to a recording contract. Or a painter is not good because a major gallery is not displaying his or her work.

If you were making a selling five times the number of quilts you are now, but had not been accepted (or bothered applying to) The United Federation of Quilting Professionals, what does that say about your status as a quilter?

Have a great day everybody. Lunch time will be writing time for me. Even if an editor at Whatever Books isn't waiting for the ms.

Best,
Alan 

[Kristen Tsetsi]

This still confuses me:

Why the acceptance of indie musicians, indie painters, indie sculptors, indie filmmakers - all of whom are judged by the recipients of the work rather than a Big Industry Decider - but, still, the quick prejudice against indie (yes, indie - which is a word used to mean those who do it independently and is in no way a euphemism but a fact) writers?

If the book is read by readers and critics and is judged to be "good," why still the opinion that only a publisher can TRULY decide if it's good?

(Of course, it could be that people who make movies with the big production companies resent those who do it on their own w/o going through the "proper" channels, as well. I've never known anyone in that industry, so I'm not aware of the dynamic.)

[Betsy the Quilter]

There's clearly a kind of validation when a mainstream distributor picks up an indie's work, no matter the field.  Look at the excitement for member Boyd Morrison when his work was picked up by S&S?  Same work, but it had been validated.  Perhaps because of the potential for more money?    

An interesting question, Kristen!

Betsy

[Kristen Tsetsi]

There's clearly a kind of validation when a mainstream distributor picks up an indie's work, no matter the field.  Look at the excitement for member Boyd Morrison when his work was picked up by S&S?  Same work, but it had been validated.  Perhaps because of the potential for more money?   

An interesting question, Kristen!

Betsy

Well, I know even writers will feel "Ah-ha! I've made it!" if they're picked up by a traditional publisher, but I don't think they feel "Ah-ha! Now I KNOW my writing is good/worthy!" It was good the whole time - the publisher is just a wall that's been knocked down, really. "Making it" means achieving the accepted standard of "success." It doesn't mean one suddenly becomes better at what they'd been doing the whole time.

[RedAdept]

There's clearly a kind of validation when a mainstream distributor picks up an indie's work, no matter the field.  Look at the excitement for member Boyd Morrison when his work was picked up by S&S?  Same work, but it had been validated.  Perhaps because of the potential for more money?    

Betsy, while this is a wonderful observation, I think my biggest question would be:

Did having his books published on the Kindle and getting such great reviews help Boyd get that publishing contract?

I would think that publishing agents would look into the popularity of a book in this relatively small market to see how the book might fare in the National or International market.

I don't necessarily see Indie publishing as a substitute for commercial publishing, so much as it is perhaps a step toward getting commercially published.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Betsy, while this is a wonderful observation, I think my biggest question would be:

Did having his books published on the Kindle and getting such great reviews help Boyd get that publishing contract?

I would think that publishing agents would look into the popularity of a book in this relatively small market to see how the book might fare in the National or International market.

I don't necessarily see Indie publishing as a substitute for commercial publishing, so much as it is perhaps a step toward getting commercially published.

It's also, quite simply, a way to have your book read. Why else write? Certainly not to stick your novel in a drawer. Writers write so readers can read.

[pidgeon92]

"Independent authors?" Is that the aspirational, PC term for self-published authors now? (The equivalent, I suppose, of aspiring writers who insist on calling themselves "pre-published"). Sorry, I'm not buying in.

I'm going to have to take exception to this. Never, ever have I fallen into the camp of the politically correct. Betsy will certainly back me up on this.

Social networking is quickly becoming the most influential form of advertising out there. I stand by my statement that self-published authors who have good, well-written stories can easily sell tens of thousands of copies a year, if they are written about in blogs, their books are talked about on Facebook, Library Thing, Good Reads or Shelfari, get tweeted about, etc. The viral nature of social networking can keep finding new consumers indefinitely.

Heck, some of the self-published authors here have mentioned that just being on KindleBoards, with only 6,000 members, has gotten them hundreds of sales. I don't think they are all making it up.

[Betsy the Quilter]

I'm going to have to take exception to this. Never, ever have I fallen into the camp of the politically correct.

Soooooooo true. 

Betsy

[Kristen Tsetsi]

I've never heard the term "pre-published." Hm.

[MariaESchneider]

I've heard the term "pre-published" before.  It is generally used by authors that are merely trying to help people understand that they self-published a few copies to get some visibility.  It is generally not meant to be a derogatory term. 

I think it should also be said that many--nay most--traditionally published authors do NOT make a living from their published fiction.  Very, very few do.  I follow a lot of author blogs, as I'm sure many of you do.  J.A. Konrath started his blog to answer the question of whether it was possible for a midlist author to make a living from fiction.  He has published his earnings over the years and while he says he "sort of" makes a living, he'll be the first to tell you that he is not living high on the hog.  Lots of authors work full time stints outside of their fiction writing--be they self-published or not.  Working a separate job is not a distinguishing factor between the two.

 The line between self-published and traditional is blurring; the quality of self-published is getting better, and in some ways because of over-worked editors and publishers being less willing to spend on artwork, it could be said that the quality of traditional publishing is in danger of going down.  Yes, there is a lot of self-published work that is not well-edited and so on.  But the tools of the trade are such that I think we can compete--and enhance the field.  Should any of us quit our day-job?     I kind of doubt it.  So whether or not we get that traditional publishing contract, we'll still be marketing our own stuff, working hard and putting out the best product possible.  That's what makes a professional in any field, be it quilting, computers or writing. 

[Christopher Meeks]

Maria, you make great points. It's difficult for all writers--and actors, musicians, filmmakers, fine artists and everyone in the arts. In looking at the spectrum of writers, too, one has to consider how to define "real" or "professional." I know a screenwriter who made fabulous money for 25 years and has a house on top of a mountain from it, yet he's only ever had one script filmed. It was his first one. Because he made a lot of money--a living--does that make him a bigger or better writer than other kinds of writers? No one outside of a small few in the film industry even knows who he is. (Do many screenwriters get much recognition?)

Contrast him with some of the incredible poets I've seen over the years--Derek Walcott, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Carolyn Forche, Mark Strand, Gwendowlyn Brooks, W.S. Merwin, and more--and their publishing royalties may not have been able to build a wing on the screenwriter's house. They've won major awards, and have even been poet laureates. However, because of the money thing and making their own chapbooks, are poets and short story writers not professional enough?

There are plenty of writers who are self-publishing who take what they do seriously to the point of hiring editors, proofreaders, graphic designers and publicists to be professional. What Konrath's numbers are starting to show is that digital publishing is contributing to the ability of these writers and midlist writers to make a living.

Speaking of terms, "midlist" has always seemed so, well, middling. It's as if one isn't bestselling then midlist is somehow not important or big enough--yet there are writers like Charles Bukowski and John Fante, to bring up two Los Angeles writers, who may have never sold copies in huge numbers, but people continue to study and write dissertations on them.

[Jack Kilborn]

First, is he subtracting the cost of his marketing, sales, etc from his Kindle revenues?  The $803 per year on the Hyperion books is a "true net".  Authors don't pay for proofreaders, editors, cover art, marketing, sales support, distribution, etc, etc, etc.  Whereas a self-publishing author foots all of those costs himself.  And even if he is performing all of these jobs himself (which I doubt) there is the cost of his time, which if these numbers are going to be truely compatible should be accounted for.

The only cost I've incurred is for cover art--I paid a friend $200 each. As for the cost of my time, it only took a few hours to get these books onto Kindle and other platforms.

I haven't paid for any marketing, because I haven't done any marketing, other than making announcements on a few Kindle forums and my own website. Contrast this to the tens of thousands of dollars I've spent marketing my print books.

Second, would his four self-pubbed books be doing as well were it not for the established reputation he earned by first going through a traditional publisher? 

Several people have mentioned this. I don't believe it's the case. All of these ebooks are available on my website, many of them for free. If it were people seeking my name, wouldn't they start at my website? Yet my Kindle downloads are much bigger than my website downloads. Also, my print books are about a character named Jack Daniels. Three of my Kindle ebooks feature Jack Daniels--the brand I'm known for--yet my biggest sellers are two non-Jack Daniels novels. If my sales were based on my brand or reputation, you'd think the opposite would be true.

[Jack Kilborn]

I read the comments at Backwords and I agree with my friend Joe. It's cringe-inducing to read the embarrassing and often idiotic responses to his intelligent,  honest remarks. Most of those commenters are deluding themselves.

LOL, Lee. I left that discussion because I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. It very much reminded me of arguing with religious zealots, and no good ever comes from doing that.

[Jack Kilborn]

Lee, I could understand your attitude if you were a president of a publishing company, but I'm surprised you're so hot-and-bothered against other writers. Perhaps you've spent time on Kindleboards and you've had it with Pollyanna nincompoop writers who think they're going to get a Golden Ticket from Willy Wonka. I'm glad you're trotting out statistics because that shows them. How dare Jim be happy selling a couple books a day. That's not what Real Writers do.

I won't speak for Lee. I will say he's a friend, and his blog, A WRITER'S LIFE, is d*mn helpful. It contains a great deal of hard-earned information about making a living as a writer, and Lee is more generous with his advice than any writer on the planet I can think of. His viewpoint isn't based on resentment, envy, or superiority. Lee really hates scammers, and many self-publishing companies fall into that category. He also doesn't understand why writers fall for these scams while there is so much information out there--including his blog--which explains the difference between traditional and vanity publishing.

Delusion is dangerous, because it pacifies but doesn't inform. I think it's better to set realistic expectations upfront--even if it bursts someone's bubble. No one wants to be in the Emperor's New Clothes. I'd much rather be the kid that says, "Hey buddy, you're naked."

Perhaps it irks you to see people trying to be one of the fourteen to show up on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

What irks me is people using a long shot like that as their business model. A much smarter business model--and one with much better odds--is to go the traditional publishing route.

[Jack Kilborn]

If the book is read by readers and critics and is judged to be "good," why still the opinion that only a publisher can TRULY decide if it's good?

There is nothing inherently "good" in a book, no matter how it is published.

But the overwhelming majority of self-published books do not meet certain minimum standards in regard to narrative, editing, and overall quality. I know this because I've been forced to read a lot of them, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Once a traditional publisher is involved, it's a pretty good assurance a minimum standard is met.

As writers, it is difficult to judge the merits of our own work. Usually, there's a learning curve, the same as painters, musicians, and other artists. But self-publishing allows any writer to print their work, even if the learning curve hasn't met minimum standards. This is the reason self-publishing has such a bad rap--because so much of it is sub-par.

But no self-pubbed writer believes their work is sub-par. They all believe they are part of that exceptional minority, and that their work was overlooked by major publishers because major publishers are stupid.

So a self-pubber many not only be deluding themselves by putting work out there that isn't very good, but they're also fighting an uphill battle for distribution, marketing, and acceptance by the mainstream. So it's much harder to sell books which probably should have remained in the drawer in the first place.

Are these generalizations? Yes. Are there some self-pubbed books that are terrific? Sure. But printing and publishing aren't the same thing, and don't carry the same weight.

I'm having a nice run of success putting my early work up for sale on Kindle and other platforms. I still consider this work unpublished, and say so in the introductions to these novels.

[pidgeon92]

Are these generalizations? Yes. Are there some self-pubbed books that are terrific? Sure. But printing and publishing aren't the same thing, and don't carry the same weight.

They carry the same weight with me, and I doubt I am in the minority. Schlock is schlock, a good read is good read. As a reader, I:

(a) will judge a book by its cover.
(b) will reject a book if the sample is junk.
(c) will read (purchase) anything reasonably priced if the is the sample is appealing.

I have never thought "ooh, that Harper Collins always prints good books." The publisher is not even on my radar.

[Jack Kilborn]

They carry the same weight with me, and I doubt I am in the minority. Schlock is schlock, a good read is good read. As a reader, I:
(a) will judge a book by its cover.
(b) will reject a book if the sample is junk.
(c) will read (purchase) anything reasonably priced if the is the sample is appealing.
I have never thought "ooh, that Harper Collins always prints good books." The publisher is not even on my radar.

I'm not referring to "weight" as the relative merits of a book. In the past, self-pubbed books have been more expensive, less-professional, and harder to find on bookstore shelves. It doesn't matter if Harper Collins is on your radar--if you go into any bookstore, you'll find a lot of Harper Collins titles, and very few iUniverse titles. That's the weight I mean.

But with the Kindle, things have changed. Now self-pubbed can share virtual shelf space with traditional pubbed. Now there is an even playing field.

Does that change things?

I'd certainly be interested if you posted your own buying habits. How many of your recent purchases were self-pubbed vs. traditional pubbed? If you judge covers and read samples, are you finding that the self-pubbed are just as good as traditional pubbed? And how big a factor is price, since self-pubbed on Kindle seems to have a lower price than traditional published books? How much of it is based on recommendations, reviews, or blurbs posted on forums?

I too will pick up Kindle books if they look interesting, regardless of who publishes them. But I notice my buying habits, and the better books tend to be the traditionally published ones.

[LeeGoldberg]

Social networking is quickly becoming the most influential form of advertising out there. I stand by my statement that self-published authors who have good, well-written stories can easily sell tens of thousands of copies a year, if they are written about in blogs, their books are talked about on Facebook, Library Thing, Good Reads or Shelfari, get tweeted about, etc. The viral nature of social networking can keep finding new consumers indefinitely.

It's a nice dream...but, unfortunately, it is not a reality. Self-publishing simply isn't a viable way to achieve publishing success, financially or creatively, for unpublished novelists yet. There are a handful of exceptions...but they are very rare and of those, most were truly self-published (I'm talking off-set, not print-on-demand or ebooks) at massive, upfront cost.  

Self-publishing non-fiction is an entirely different situation. If you are writing a self-help book, or something like that, and have a platform, such as seminars, a class, a radio show, etc. where you can sell and promote it, then you can make money at it and have a much better shot at success.

Lee

[LeeGoldberg]

Lee, I could understand your attitude if you were a president of a publishing company, but I'm surprised you're so hot-and-bothered against other writers.

I am not against writers -- far from it. I encourage writers to never give up and to continue honing their craft. That doesn't mean flushing your money down the toilet, and harming your career, by self-publishing your work. What it DOES mean is that you need to learn to accept that some of your stuff might be clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable or utter crap...and to learn from it and move on. It means learning how the business works, what the professional standards are, and accepting the reality that there are no shortcuts to publishing success.

I am trying to warn writers away from vanity press vultures who prey on the desperation and gullibility of aspiring authors by conning them with lies and false hope. And I am trying to stop unpublished novelist from making an expensive and embarrassing mistake that, in most cases, will do them far more harm than good.

Lee