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

[LeeGoldberg]

Okay, I am now repeating myself over and over...and not adding anything new to the discussion. I've made the points I wanted to make...and then Joe came along made them even better than I did...or could. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion. If I hurt anybody's feelings, or created the impression that I do not support aspiring writers, that certainly was not my intent and I apologize if I did so.

Lee

[Lynn ODell]

And if you haven't learned anything from being rejected by agents and editors...what do you think you're going to learn by being rejected by readers??

This is actually a pretty easy question to answer. A lot of Reader Reviewers will give very specific reasons why they didn't like a book. I certainly do. So, if any author gets a lot of reviews stating one thing that is wrong with the book, well, then the author can learn from that.

Like I stated previously, no one should rely on one review, but if many are saying the same type of things, then it's something to look into, I would think.

However, you are correct in one respect, many authors won't learn a thing. As I have stated before and seen on many reviews, not just my own, authors will argue vehementlyand sometimes venemously, for the cause of their 'masterpiece' because those 10 people who gave it a critical review just didn't 'get it'.

[MariaESchneider]

Can't speak for Chris--and my collection probably isn't as polished or well-received as his--but I have made back what I've put into it so far.

Lee, it's nice that your brother is having such success, but I do think he is a rare exception in the short story world.  I've talked to a few midlist authors that have shorts in anthologies and I have yet to have one tell me that the antho sells as many copies as a novel.  So I do think that short stories is a hard row to hoe to get traditionally published.

While I know you guys have read a lot of "crap" -- since you're both so involved in this discussion, it might behoove either one of you (or both) to just read a sample or three of the people contributing to the discussion.  (No, I'm not suggesting you buy 40 novels from us.)  I have read a lot of slush.  I have also read some of the novels from this board--and I was more than pleasantly surprised to find that it was well-above slush levels in MOST cases--several were quite ready for publishing--very readable, very professional.  To name two:  Jim Chambers "Recollections"  -- well written, not an error to be found.  Marva Dasef, Quest for the Simurgh, not an error to be found (I'm not a very good judge of this particular age-group, but I had no problem with readability, storyline and so on.)   I've sampled several others.  They may not all be my thing, but again, I'd was surprised to find that many were quite probably publishable--except for a crowded market in the traditional world.  Would an editor and team of pros made the even better?  Probably.  But that isn't available to all of us due to stiff competition.  Is self-publishing the answer?  We're finding out.

I participated for years on Baen's board--and the last time was only a few short months ago.  I do not say this lightly.  The last two years--the slush has gotten better.  I don't know if that is because the people participating are returnees (like myself) or if writers are learning because of the opportunities around them. 

None of us has all the answers, but I for one, am enjoying the journey for a change.

Maria

Chris,

That simply isn't true. My brother Tod isn't a big-name author, he's no T.C. Boyle or Stephen King, but his second collection of short stories was just published and he's on a nationwide book tour right now. And publishers are already asking him for another collection. Publishers do buy short story collections. New ones come out every week. I know, because I see them reviewed in PW and the LA Times. I know because publishers have bought short story collections from some of Tod's students.

You know how Tod got his agent? By writing short stories. Agents read the top literary magazine and journals, looking for original voices and undiscovered talent. While it's true Tod's first sale was a novel, I have to take issue with your assertion that you can't get an agent from your short stories or sell a collection of short stories to a publisher...or the implication that self-publishing is the only avenue left for short story collections.
It sounds to me like you spent thousands of dollars to self-publish and promote your book. Now tell me, how much of that investment have you made back in book sales? My guess is that you haven't even come close...but I would love to be wrong.
Whether you earned back your investment or not, how many writers can afford to do that? And how many times? And what kind of business is that? Can you really say that the self-publishing with POD model is working better for writers -- creatively, financially and professionally -- than the "traditional" business model? I sure don't think so.
 
Lee

[Eric C]

Incidentally, the days of being able to post your unpublished, rejected work on the Kindle for free may be coming to an end. I have heard from some of my publishing industry friends (so you have to take into account their biases) that Amazon's open policy was designed to inflate the number of book titles Amazon could say was available on the Kindle. They tell me that the Amazon Kindle store has become so clogged with self-published sludge that they are going to start putting limitations on what can be uploaded...and segregating the amateur stuff from the professionally published titles so that they aren't all mixed together. Again, I have NO IDEA if this is true...but I can attest that I have seen a tightening, at least as far as uploading out-of-print books is concerned (they now hold them for weeks and require reversion of rights letters).

"On a cold and gray Kindle morn'
A poor little baby book is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries ..."

Sounds like a lot of hassle leading to a lot of alienation and ill will. Do you ghettoize the small publishers too? And if not, then which ones? How small is too small? And how does Amazon get its competitors to follow suit? Will they?

[Christopher Meeks]

Lee, I'm only telling you what the agent said. He ended up signing me, thanks initially to my short stories, but he wouldn't represent the short stories because there wasn't enough money in it for him. If you think I was saying no one is publishing short fiction, you're wrong. There are many collections that get out each year. Jumpa Lahiri's short story collection "Unaccustomed Earth" has even been on the New York Times bestseller list for months this year, so there's at least one collection that's made good money. However, my agent wanted a novel, so I ended up writing a novel, which was a good push.

I celebrate anyone and any publisher publishing short fiction, so I can only cheer for Tod and his new book, "Other Resort Cities" (OV Books).  Joe Konrath in his blog (which started this all) was saying if he didn't get $30,000 in advance, he'd think long and hard about whether to publish it on his own. I can bet your brother didn't get $30,000 up front for his collection--no short story author does. That's why my agent didn't go for even mailing out my short story collection manuscript. Still, Tod is getting a tour, and that's wonderful. Tod is fun to be around. In any size crowd, he gets them laughing.

I sense you're debating that traditional publishing is the only real publishing and that self-published books, no matter the reason, are somehow inferior. Yet people here are saying they've found some gems from independent authors and enjoyed them. What's to debate? Even Jack was saying he pulled out his old manuscripts from the drawer--the drawer you say all manuscripts that are rejected should stay in--and he's finding success through Kindle sales. Maybe there's a book of yours in a drawer that's worth putting into the marketplace. To put it on Kindle won't cost a lot, though I urge you and anyone trying this route to hire an editor first. For self-publishing to work well, it's best to mimick what even small presses do.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of going the traditional route. I'm not trying to even tell people to do what I do, which is become a virtual small publisher with a freelance staff. I encourage my own students to go the traditional route. However, if one is talented and the traditional route doesn't work, there are options now.

--Chris

[Christopher Meeks]

Breaking News! Sorry, I'll have to gush a little, but this supports in another way how independent publishing can help. In 1997, my play "Who Lives?" was produced in L.A. The story is about the perfection of the first kidney dialysis machine in Seattle in the early sixties. To see if the machine would work on a long-term basis, the doctors created a committee of ordinary citizens to choose the ten people who might live thanks to the machine, if it worked. Which ten would live? What makes someone's life more valuable than other's?

After it's first production, to great reviews, it was set to be produced in a big theatre in Seattle. When the funding that was set up fell apart and the play wasn't produced, I was upset and put the play in the proverbial drawer. Two years ago, I thought this was silly, so I published it using my usual people, and a copy landed on the desk of Lori Hartwell, who runs the Renal Support Network. She had me on her radio show, "Kidney Talk," and that led to her becoming interested in producing the play, which happened in March of this year. I just heard that yesterday the production was nominated for five Ovation Awards. Ovations are the biggest theatre prizes in Los Angeles, equivalent to the Obies in New York.

Sometimes as an author you have to take a chance.

Now I'll have to bring "Who Lives?" to Kindle and see if there's anyone interested in reading a play.

--Chris

[AnnaM]

Incidentally, the days of being able to post your unpublished, rejected work on the Kindle for free may be coming to an end. I have heard from some of my publishing industry friends (so you have to take into account their biases) that Amazon's open policy was designed to inflate the number of book titles Amazon could say was available on the Kindle. They tell me that the Amazon Kindle store has become so clogged with self-published sludge that they are going to start putting limitations on what can be uploaded...and segregating the amateur stuff from the professionally published titles so that they aren't all mixed together. Again, I have NO IDEA if this is true...but I can attest that I have seen a tightening, at least as far as uploading out-of-print books is concerned (they now hold them for weeks and require reversion of rights letters).

How much revenue do the independents bring to Amazon? How many additional customers?  How many Kindles have they sold to us and friends?  

Amazon can make whatever business decisions they want, but I think a better solution would be to mark independent titles more clearly on the page (next to the title -- insert a tag or logo to designate the title as independently published).

In fact, I'd like them to do that, because I think it would help the reader to make an informed decision.

I don't think Amazon invited independent publishers to Kindle Store just to boost the number of titles . . . I think it was a careful business decision made based on several factors, including a longer-term model which includes expansion of their hard copy publishing arm (Booksurge?). Eventually more authors, like Konrath, will insist on retaining their ebook rights, and eliminating the publisher middleman will save Amazon many millions of dollars in commission payments.  Bezos is smart as a fox, and there's more than just boosting a few numbers behind this strategy.  If they simply wanted to boost the number of titles they could have quickly dumped thousands of public domain books onto the Kindle Store.

[AnnaM]

After it's first production, to great reviews, it was set to be produced in a big theatre in Seattle. When the funding that was set up fell apart and the play wasn't produced, I was upset and put the play in the proverbial drawer. Two years ago, I thought this was silly, so I published it using my usual people, and a copy landed on the desk of Lori Hartwell, who runs the Renal Support Network. She had me on her radio show, "Kidney Talk," and that led to her becoming interested in producing the play, which happened in March of this year. I just heard that yesterday the production was nominated for five Ovation Awards. Ovations are the biggest theatre prizes in Los Angeles, equivalent to the Obies in New York.

Sometimes as an author you have to take a chance.

Now I'll have to bring "Who Lives?" to Kindle and see if there's anyone interested in reading a play.

--Chris

Congratulations Chris!  I'd love to see that play, as we have had organ recipients in my family, and the ethical dilemmas continue vis a vis organ transplants.

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

I'd like to offer up one issue that I think gets left out of the discussion far too much in regards to whether or not an author should self-publish.

There is a HUGE difference between being an author and a publisher.  These are two different skill sets, and being good at one does not automatically equate with being good at the other.

Authors tend to be very self-focused, in that they are focused on their writing and telling their story the way they want to tell it.  That's what makes writers writers, of course, is that desire to tell the tale. 

Publishers, on the other hand, are consumer-focused, in that they are focused on how to make consumers aware of a book and how to convince consumers to buy the book.  That is what makes a publisher a publisher, is the ability to package a book in a way that is appealing to the consumer.

The problem comes when an author tries to be a publisher, but refuses to THINK like a publisher.

The publisher says "If we put a little money into designing an appealing cover, it will attract more buyers."

The self-publisher says "Readers should give me a chance and not judge my book on the cover."

The publisher says "If we format the book this way it will be more visually appealing and easier for the buyer to read."

The self-publisher says "Well, that is the way I wrote it and the reader should be able to understand it."

The publisher says "We need to clean up some of this grammar and edit some of these sections for better clarity."

The self-publisher says "Readers shouldn't be grammar nazis!  So what if I can't spell?  What about my story?"

I have read some decent self-published books that would have been exceptional if handled by a good publisher.  Because the publisher would have focused on MY perspective as the reader.  Unfortunately, self-publishers often hold the opinion that readers "owe them a chance" and should make allowances for them.  This, not a lack of talent, is often what gets them in the most trouble.

The act of writing is a personal process.  The act of publishing is a very public one.  Where most authors shoot themselves in the foot is not in bad writing, but bad publishing.  An author that is capable of thinking like a publisher can potentially make a nice income selling his or her own books.  But an author that is trying to circumvent the system and expects readers to just give them a chance will generally find they don't sell a thing beyond friends and family.

[Lynn ODell]

This site includes a list of authors who self-published at some point:  http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html

Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!

[JimC1946]

Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!

Thanks for that! 

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

This site includes a list of authors who self-published at some point:  http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html

Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!

Um, take a good HARD look at that list.  It is disingenuous.  Half the names are ancient history...authors that lived in a completely different universe than ours where publishing was a far different animal.  Many of them that allegedly self-published were people that had been involved in the traditional publishing process for years, decades, before releasing their own work.  A handful that "self-published" were traditionally published first and only later worked outside of the industry, but they were not "self-published" in the sense the site is implying.  For example, Stephen King did not SELF-PUBLISH.  This is a modern urban myth.  He serialized a novel on his blog in 2000 as part of a marketing campaign in cooperation with his publisher. 

I've seen variants of this "list" a thousand times, mostly on vanity press and POD sites trying to encourage people to self-publish.  Go through the names and you will find the declarations of them being "self-publishers" is a stretch.

[Christopher Meeks]

Julie Ann--

Your post above about what publishers do and what some authors miss in being self-publishers highlights the problems of poorly delivered books. I've taught in USC's Master of Professional Writing program, and one of the things I try to remind these talented and serious graduate students is that they have to come across professionally every step of the way. While story and believablility is important, so is adding enough care to each sentence so that it's grammatical and clear. For self-publishers, it's worth knowing the process that real publishers go through, including having an editor and proofreaders (plural). Don't rush to print, but rather, make sure what you publish matches the intention for your book.

The same is true, by the way, of sending manuscripts to agents or traditional publishers. Don't assume some editor will fix things down the line and all that counts is the story. Editors are overwhelmed by manuscripts, and those manuscripts that look hastily thrown together become an easy "No." Editors are looking to find the best of the best. All the rants here against many self-published books could well be rants by agents and editors about manuscripts that come to them.

In fact, for those interested in what real agents do and feel, check out agent Kristin Nelson's blog, PubRants, at http://pubrants.blogspot.com/.

--Chris

[Kristen Tsetsi]

I just heard that yesterday the production was nominated for five Ovation Awards. Ovations are the biggest theatre prizes in Los Angeles, equivalent to the Obies in New York.

Sometimes as an author you have to take a chance.

Now I'll have to bring "Who Lives?" to Kindle and see if there's anyone interested in reading a play.

--Chris

Congratulations, Chris!

[mfstewart]

This is a great discussion. I can only offer up why I self pubbed The Caliphate (pseudonym Jack Stewart). Time. It is an economic thriller that dealt with a hedge fund manager using his knowledge to take down the US economy. When the US economy started to falter, I had to self pub it. It will be dated within a year, and I didn't have two years to wait, even if I could have found a publisher. I think it was the right decision. I've had decent reviews and it's a fun book and I've sold over a thousand copies so far without any platform to speak of. Was it worth the trip to Sumatra to write it? Not financially!

I would be jumping up for joy to have a major publisher approach me about publishing it. Why? Distribution. And I think the process would make me a better writer. But I'm still writing, not publishing.

[MariaESchneider]

Way to go Chris!!! Congrats!

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

This is a great discussion. I can only offer up why I self pubbed The Caliphate (pseudonym Jack Stewart). Time. It is an economic thriller that dealt with a hedge fund manager using his knowledge to take down the US economy. When the US economy started to falter, I had to self pub it. It will be dated within a year, and I didn't have two years to wait, even if I could have found a publisher. I think it was the right decision. I've had decent reviews and it's a fun book and I've sold over a thousand copies so far without any platform to speak of. Was it worth the trip to Sumatra to write it? Not financially!

I would be jumping up for joy to have a major publisher approach me about publishing it. Why? Distribution. And I think the process would make me a better writer. But I'm still writing, not publishing.

You underestimate how quickly a big publisher can turn over a book if there is motivation to do so.

You underestimate the importance of good writing, not timing, to make a book "timely."  Did you pick up a few sales because of the timing?  Probably.  Would you have sold thousands of more copies if you had been patient and allowed a good publisher to market your work?  I don't doubt it.  Frankly, people are going to be talking about the financial meltdown for years to come.  If you have written a good book, whether it was released six months ago or next year is less important than if you have the marketing weight behind it to make people aware of it.  I was just reading through Bookpages and there are still books being released regarding 9/11.  They are still timely and relevant.  Nobody would accuse these titles of being "dated."

[ASparrow]

One nice thing I've found about self-publishing an ebook is that it turns manuscript improvement into a community-based iterative process.

Of course, I had to polish my manuscript through many drafts first before making it public (minimum three, more than ten drafts for certain chapters) but even now I'm getting copy-edit and structural feedback from readers that I never would have gotten had I submitted to agents (form letters, maybe). And I can post revised corrected versions of the manuscript that readers have access to. Thus, my manuscript can continue to evolve in a way that it wouldn't if it had solidified into print.

And as for criticial reviews, I love them. The more critical the better. Knowing where writing doesn't work is valuable information for an author to have and provides a pathway towards improvement. Of course, you have to disregard some of it, because sometimes the advice one gets from one person is diametrically opposed to someone else's take. Tastes span 180 degrees and someone is always going to be disappointed.

Now I have great respect for those who go through the traditional publishing route and succeed. I've just decided not to bother with all that. I'd rather spend my time creating (or procrastinating on blogs).

[mfstewart]

Oh, I marketed it, Bardsandsages. There is of course a secondary reason to not having it traditionally published and that is no one wanted it. One of the reasons I received multiple times was that the material would date. I have to defer to them. Others issues included - not 'big' enough of a thriller. Not 'believeable' enough. Couldn't wrap their heads around the financial aspects, etc. And quite likely, not quite up to their standards. I did get the usual - 'splendid' and 'talented' and 'fast paced' too, but I think I need to take those with a grain of salt. In the absence of people saying it was crap, however, I felt it deserved to be published in a timely manner. I hired an editor, cover designer, an expert on Islam (to ensure I got my research right) and a typesetter, etc. and I think it turned out pretty well. And you can get it for 99 cents!

I don't think I can be faulted for not trying hard enough.

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

I'm late to the discussion, but I'll add one point.  If you do decide to self-publish (or vanity or indy or whatever the kids are calling it these days) and you think you might want to try traditional publishing someday, I'd advise against getting an ISBN number for your book.  Once you have one, publishers and buyers will be able to track you and see how many copies you've sold.  This takes away one of the few weapons a newly signed writer has, and that's potential.  Once there are concrete numbers attached to an author, there are expectations both good and bad.  If you self published and only managed to sell a few thousand copies, you're hurting yourself by limiting your potential in the eyes of the publisher and book buyers.  

Considering that statistically the average self-published book sells less than 100 copies, an author that is able to sell a few thousand all on his own is doing quite well in the eyes of many publishers!

Of course, this assumes we are talking real 'sales' of a meaningful price and not free downloads or .99 cent copies.  Think of it like a painter.  If you sell 1000 pieces of your art for $1 each at yard sales over a year, you haven't really done a lot.  If you sell 1000 pieces of your art at $100 through art shows and art venues, people take notice.

[Eric C]

Considering that statistically the average self-published book sells less than 100 copies, an author that is able to sell a few thousand all on his own is doing quite well in the eyes of many publishers!

Of course, this assumes we are talking real 'sales' of a meaningful price and not free downloads or .99 cent copies.  Think of it like a painter.  If you sell 1000 pieces of your art for $1 each at yard sales over a year, you haven't really done a lot.  If you sell 1000 pieces of your art at $100 through art shows and art venues, people take notice.

I'm not sure you can dismiss a 99 cent book as not a real sale. (It's my understanding that Boyd Morrison sold all of his books on the Kindle at 99 cents, all 7,000 plus units, and the Kindle sales are rumored to have aided in his recent multi-book deal with S&S. At any rate the same books had struck out with major publishers two years earlier, or pre- all those 99 cent sales.) Where is the cut-off for a "real" sale then?

[JimC1946]

I agree with Eric. And his novel "Crack-Up" is a great example of an Indie producing work every bit as good as an established big-name author.

[mfstewart]

I agree as well that the cutoff for 'real' sales is difficult to evaluate - I don't consider '1' cent or free sales to be real - those are marketing brochures of a kind. I bet 1.99 is considered a real sale by Konrath - he's certainly making real money with it. So why not 99 cents?

The investment by a buyer is not just in the money but the time to read it. That's what you're balancing.

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

I agree as well that the cutoff for 'real' sales is difficult to evaluate - I don't consider '1' cent or free sales to be real - those are marketing brochures of a kind. I bet 1.99 is considered a real sale by Konrath - he's certainly making real money with it. So why not 99 cents?

The investment by a buyer is not just in the money but the time to read it. That's what you're balancing.

The point is that it isn't just sales that matter, but profitability.

If I have a widget that costs me $1 to make and I sell 100 widgets at $2 each, I make $100 profit.

If I decide I want more sales because I want people to be familiar with my widgets, I start selling my widget at cost for $1.  If I sell 500 widgets not, I still break even, but I have made no profit.

Now lets say I start selling my widgets at 50 cents each and sell 2,000 of them.  I've increased by sales substantially, but I'm going bankrupt in the process.

Now for a self-publisher, you can conceiveably "publish" with no investment.  Get a friend to proofread for you.  Use a generic cover.  Do no marketing other than spam the forums and your blog.  Now we know there is a certain subset of the reading public that will sample just about anything for 99 cents, so you price your book at 99 cents.  After Amazon's cut, you make 35 cents a sale.  You sell 5,000 copies.  WOOT!  You made $1750. 

Now a potential publisher looks at those numbers and cringes, because they would lose money.  Assuming the big publishers are on better margins that Kindle authors, they would be looking at maybe 50 cents to 60 cents a sale on your book at 99 cents.  But you've already eaten the audience that would consider your book for 99 cents, after all, which means they need to repackage your book...effectively start from scratch, and get it prepared for real distro.  Which means an actually advertising plan to get the book in front of more buyers that exist beyond the fishbowl of Kindleboards (there are what, 10,000 Kindleboard members?  I believe Amazon has sold over a million kindles.)

Now let's say you are a self-publisher who is selling your book for $3.99 each.  But you only sell 500 copies.  You made $695.  But you are generating more money per sale, indicating to a publisher that people are willing to actually take a chance on your work and have placed an actual value on it.  So now a publisher thinks, "Hmm, if he can generate profitable sales in a fishbowl, with a little marketing behind him he can generate profits on a bigger scale."

Think of a dollar store.  Show of hands...how many of us have picked up something useless in a Dollar store on impulse just because it was a buck?  We get it home and we...lose it, break it, throw it away, ask outselves why we wasted a buck on it.  Think about the last thing you bought in a dollar store for a buck?  Do you remember the brand name?  Would you recognize it if it was sitting on the shelf at Shoprite next to the other name brand stuff?  Research says the answer is no.

Every day I see people promoting their books for 99 cents.  Ask me how many of their names I remember?  I couldn't even tell you what their books were about.  But what I DO remember are people that present an interesting synopsis, have nice covers, demonstrate some writing talent. 

What I would say is that if an author got a book contract after publishing on Kindle, it was because the author demonstrated solid writing and marketing skills. The price of the book was most likely a secondary matter.  If the author's only selling point was that he sold 5,000 at 99 cents, a publisher would not have considered it. 

[Jack Kilborn]

The point is that it isn't just sales that matter, but profitability.

Remember that profitability has little to do with the retail price.

I earn 56 cents every time I sell a $6.99 paperback.

I earn 70 cents selling a $1.99 Kindle ebook.

So far I've sold over 12,000 ebooks on Kindle. And, strangely enough, lately I've been getting more fan email from my Kindle titles than my traditionally published titles.

Is this enough to interest a major print publisher?

Honestly, I don't care. I'm happy paying my mortgage with books I'm still giving away for free on my website. Signing a print deal for these novels doesn't make a lot of sense.