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

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

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

I know that.  Unfortunately, I don't think most Kindle authors do.  As I already noted earlier, If an author is making 50 cents a sale through a traditional publisher, that is a NET profit, because the publisher has absorbed all of the costs associated with publishing (editing, proofing, marketing, administrative, etc).  If an author makes 70 cents on a self-published sale, that is not NET, because he or she needs to factor in the costs associated with producing the product.  And even if you aren't paying cash, writers should factor in the cost of their time.  If you are trading services for example...say, you're proofreading someone's book in exchange for them designing your cover, that is still a cost because you need to place a value on your time.  Because if you were going through a publisher these things would have been done for you.

Understand, I'm not saying people can't make money publishing (obviously, I run a botique press myself!).  But I think there is a lot of disinformation circulating and people aren't comparing apples to apples, but apples to cats.  People latch on to what makes them feel better, instead of looking at the entire process as a whole and really understanding how things work.  The exceptions don't disprove the rules, but rather reinforce them.  It's better to go into this clear eyed and knowing what to really expect than to cling to pipe dreams and then be disappointed when Simon and Schuster doesn't call. 

[scoutxx]

the Kindle sales are rumored to have aided in Boyd Morrison's recent multi-book deal with S&S.

I bet his deal also had something to do with the fact he writes Dan Brown-style action and adventure novels at a time when there's a new Dan Brown novel on the market.  Not that the books were awful.  I bought the Ark when it was for sale and thought it was pretty good, but I haven't heard of anyone else getting a book deal off their kindle sales even though a few people have had similar or better sales numbers.

[Eric C]

So I won't be getting an answer to what constitutes a "real" sale then, Bards? What the cut-off number is? I'll take that as an "I don't know." Which makes me wonder how you know 99 cents isn't a real sale.

And regarding Boyd Morrison, I mentioned his case only because it seems probable that S&S considered his sales to be significant. It's true, as Scoutxx points out, that Morrison's books may have sold this time around due partly to better market timing, but you say it's not the sales but good writing and marketing skills. Yet Boyd's writing hadn't changed from when the books had been rejected the first time around, so you're suggesting it's good marketing of books at prices so low they don't count as sales that impressed the publishers? Have I got that right?

[JimC1946]

I'm going to turn off tracking this thread before I bite my tongue off. I'm getting too depressed being told repeatedly that it's all about how much money a book makes. This is the only activity I've ever undertaken in my life where the professionals who were already on top were so discouraging to novices.

It doesn't always have to be about the money. Maybe some people just like to have a creative outlet.

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

So I won't be getting an answer to what constitutes a "real" sale then, Bards? What the cut-off number is? I'll take that as an "I don't know." Which makes me wonder how you know 99 cents isn't a real sale.

And regarding Boyd Morrison, I mentioned his case only because it seems probable that S&S considered his sales to be significant. It's true, as Scoutxx points out, that Morrison's books may have sold this time around due partly to better market timing, but you say it's not the sales but good writing and marketing skills. Yet Boyd's writing hadn't changed from when the books had been rejected the first time around, so you're suggesting it's good marketing of books at prices so low they don't count as sales that impressed the publishers? Have I got that right?

1. I have stated repeatedly in these forums my opinion about the notion of 99 cent books.  I think it undervalues the authors and depresses the entire market.

2. What constitutes a real sale is selling the book for an amount that actually reflects the amount of resources put into the work plus a little profit.  If a person correctly values the amount of time and effort they are putting into a work, even if it is not in actual money but 'in-kind' trade-offs, than you easily see that selling a book for 99 cents is not a real sale.  It is a giveaway or a promotional gimmick. 

3. I don't know Boyd from Adam.  There a thousands of publishers out there.  If his book was rejected by fifty publishers and finally picked up by the 51st, that doesn't mean a d*mn thing really.  YOU are the one that made the assumption that the publisher took Kindle sales into consideration.  You are the one that made that assumption.  He finally found a publisher that liked his work is all his publishing contract tells me.  Or maybe he started actually following submission guidelines.  I can tell you right now that half of the stories I reject for the journal I reject outright for failure to follow directions.  If he spent two years sending his manuscript to publishers that only work with agents, for example, then it would be no wonder he got rejected.  I rejected two novels this week, one for military espionage and one a romance.  Do you know why they were rejected?  Because we aren't accepting full-length manuscripts at this time.  And even if we were, we publish speculative fiction and roleplaying games.  Those authors got rejected not because I am looking for the next Harry Potter.  They got rejected because they were too lazy to familiarize themselves with the market.

So there are a million variables that come into play. 

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

I'm going to turn off tracking this thread before I bite my tongue off. I'm getting too depressed being told repeatedly that it's all about how much money a book makes. This is the only activity I've ever undertaken in my life where the professionals who were already on top were so discouraging to novices.

It doesn't always have to be about the money. Maybe some people just like to have a creative outlet.

How is it discouraging to tell you that you DESERVE to be paid and should not be expected to give away your hard work for free?  How is it discouraging to tell you that you have a right to place a value on your hard work? 

[MariaESchneider]

Shoot Bard, with as much as I've edited my work, I wouldn't make a penny an hour no matter how I priced the thing!  And for a lot of us, selling at 99 cents or a dollar nets us just as much as we would net with a publisher that printed paperbacks and sold it for 9 to 15 dollars.  Either way, with many publishing contracts, for a paperback sale, I'd make about 35 cents.  (I'm using my research into mass market paperbacks, although someone else can probably input for trade paperbacks.  I think an author makes slightly more for trade.)

I know we can quibble over the fact that the publisher has value add (did some of that hard editing, did the graphics) but in reality, I'd still be making 35 cents per copy, which any way you add it up, isn't good wages.  I'm not discounting that it would be NICE to have a publisher do that--it would. But 35 cents is 35 cents no matter how I earn it.

My end point is that 99 cents counts as a real sale given that it's quite possible it's the same cut I'd make with a traditional publisher.  And mind--I've nothing against traditional publishing with a large or a small company.  I'm just talking the raw numbers.  

People might not be as inclined to buy my book if I priced it at 5.99 because I'm an unknown--or because I don't have publisher backing.  But in the end, the book I put out is still published and 99 cents is still a real sale.  Am I legit?  Who knows?  

Maria

[MariaESchneider]

How is it discouraging to tell you that you DESERVE to be paid and should not be expected to give away your hard work for free?  How is it discouraging to tell you that you have a right to place a value on your hard work? 

I think because the message that is coming across is "You and your product don't count."  Not, "Don't give your work away for free or low price."

Just a guess.

[Eric C]

1. I have stated repeatedly in these forums my opinion about the notion of 99 cent books.  I think it undervalues the authors and depresses the entire market.

2. What constitutes a real sale is selling the book for an amount that actually reflects the amount of resources put into the work plus a little profit.  If a person correctly values the amount of time and effort they are putting into a work, even if it is not in actual money but 'in-kind' trade-offs, than you easily see that selling a book for 99 cents is not a real sale.  It is a giveaway or a promotional gimmick.  

3. I don't know Boyd from Adam.  There a thousands of publishers out there.  If his book was rejected by fifty publishers and finally picked up by the 51st, that doesn't mean a d*mn thing really.  YOU are the one that made the assumption that the publisher took Kindle sales into consideration.  You are the one that made that assumption.  He finally found a publisher that liked his work is all his publishing contract tells me.  Or maybe he started actually following submission guidelines.  I can tell you right now that half of the stories I reject for the journal I reject outright for failure to follow directions.  If he spent two years sending his manuscript to publishers that only work with agents, for example, then it would be no wonder he got rejected.  I rejected two novels this week, one for military espionage and one a romance.  Do you know why they were rejected?  Because we aren't accepting full-length manuscripts at this time.  And even if we were, we publish speculative fiction and roleplaying games.  Those authors got rejected not because I am looking for the next Harry Potter.  They got rejected because they were too lazy to familiarize themselves with the market.

So there are a million variables that come into play.  

Okay, I get it, Bards, there will be no number identifying the cut-off number for a "real" sale from you, and I think Maria has provided a good rationale as to why 99 cents ought to be considered a real sale.

I think you're dancing around the evidence (against your argument) that a major publisher considered Boyd Morrison's sales at 99 cents to be of significance. It's not simply me assuming S&S was influenced by the Kindle sales, it's many people as well as Boyd Morrison himself.

See: http://www.teleread.org/2009/07/11/self-published-kindle-author-gets-contract-with-simon-schuster/

Back to that 99 cents one last time. I don't price my book quite that low, but I've read that some indie authors do it in order to build an audience for their next one or to use it as a loss leader for other books by the same author. It's a common practice in business to lower prices to gain market share. Who knows what other motivations there might be, but the factors that go into selecting a price that low don't merely reflect "an amount that actually reflects the amount of resources put into the work plus a little profit." I suspect there are even some authors willing to give up potential revenue in exchange for the satisfaction of a wider readership.

[LeeGoldberg]

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!

That list is FULL of falsehoods and misrepresentations (John Grisham is a good example, it repeats the lie that his first book was self-published). Here's a post, from http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2004/08/autobibliophilia.html, that demonstrates how dishonest and disingenuous some of those examples really are:

I have had it with boosterism of self-publishing. I can't honestly call it fraud, because it doesn't meet the legal definition: Stealing a writer's dreams does not count as depriving him or her of a property interest. I can call it "intellectually dishonest" at best… and much nastier things, too. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

You could stock a superb college library or an incredible bookstore just from the books written by the some of the authors who have chosen to self-publish: Margaret Atwood, L. Frank Baum, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Thomas Hardy, E. Lynn Harris, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Robinson Jeffers, Spencer Johnson, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Rod McKuen, Marlo Morgan, John Muir, Anais Nin, Thomas Paine, Tom Peters, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Beatrix Potter, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, Irma Rombauer, Carl Sandburg, Robert Service, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, William Strunk, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoi, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf.

Notice the most obvious logical problem with this listing: It implicitly extends the cachet of an author's complete oeuvre to one or two works. For example, the cachet of the Oz books (L. Frank Baum) seems to be extended to his chicken-farming manuals, which he did indeed self-publish.

Let's step through this list of fifty-two examples and see what happens, though; keep in mind that we've been provided only with the authors' names. Many of these efforts have more than one logical or factual disjuncture with reality, so adding up the numbers won't be all that meaningful.

For a number of these authors, publication of their works in "commercial" form would have been illegal, usually because those works met the definition of "obscene." Lawrence, Nin, Stein, and Woolf fall in this class; perhaps a couple of others do, too, but because the works in question were not specified, we can't determine that definitively. 8%

Far more significantly, it's not fair to laud "self-publication" when there is literally no chance at anything comparable to commercial publication because, at that time, commercial publication as we know it didn't exist. Blake, Browning, Byron, Crane, DuBois, Dumas, Franklin, Hardy, Hawthorne, Kipling, Paine, Poe, Pope, Service, Shaw, Shelley, Tennyson, Thoreau, Tolstoi, and Whitman definitely fall in this class; several of the others may also do so, because their books may not have been of the nature handled by their contemporary commercial presses. 40%

Neither is it fair to laud "self-publication" when the publication "event" was a corollary to another profit-making activity. If a book is created as an adjunct to or course materials for a thousand-dollar-a-day management seminar, or for academic purposes, calling that book "self-published" is a bit disingenuous. Strike that; more than a bit disingenuous. Blanchard, Peters, and Strunk absolutely fall in this class; depending upon exactly what works are at issue, so may Bly and a couple of others; because that's not certain, though, I'll be generous and pretend that objection doesn't apply. 6%

A considerable number of these authors are poets. Poetry is not now, never has been, and probably never will be a commercial subject, with the occasional unpredictable exception to keep up the hopes of poets everywhere. Blake, Browning, Byron, cummings, Eliot, Kipling, McKuen, Sandburg, Shelley, Tennyson, Thoreau, and Whitman absolutely fall in this group; several others probably do, but again I'll be generous. 24%

Other "success stories" include highly specialized works that are (or were) outside of commercial publishing's perception. Atwood (if it's the book I'm thinking of), Baum, Cather, Ferlinghetti, Jeffers, Muir, Potter, and Rombauer all fall in this group. 16%

That's enough for now. Absent greater specificity of what books are "success stories"—and keep in mind, too, that some of the "self-publishing" efforts may not have been at all successful, despite the authors' fame for other efforts—note that five minutes' thought has struck 78% (after allowing for the overlaps) of the "success stories" alluded to in this list, without looking up anything in any reference work at all. Fifteen sounds a lot less impressive than fifty-two, doesn't it? And that's without having the opportunity to examine the books for other, obvious reasons that they cannot be considered comparable to that unpublished author with a mystery novel that just hasn't sold to a commercial publisher.

This last point is the most important one. Perhaps self-publishing has been successful, for some authors. It does not follow, though, that it therefore holds out any reasonable possibility of success for authors who are competing against seasoned commercial publishers for the same market niche. And the less said about "vanity press" success stories the better.

[scoutxx]

I don't see any problems with self-publishing as long as you know exactly what you're getting into before you do it.  Unfortunately, a lot of people see self publishing as a stepping stone to traditional publishing, but in reality, self publishing will most likely kill any chance you have of a traditional publishing career.  If that's okay, and you're that impatient to see your words in print, go ahead and pay someone to print up your manuscript and bind it into a book. 

Just don't kid yourself into thinking this makes you a published author, because it doesn't.

But you all know that already, even if you won't admit it.

[Jack Kilborn]

If an author is making 50 cents a sale through a traditional publisher, that is a NET profit, because the publisher has absorbed all of the costs associated with publishing (editing, proofing, marketing, administrative, etc).  If an author makes 70 cents on a self-published sale, that is not NET, because he or she needs to factor in the costs associated with producing the product.  And even if you aren't paying cash, writers should factor in the cost of their time. 

This year, I was on tour for thirty days, and I visited over 200 bookstores.

My publisher paid for the tour.

The time I spent on the road, however, was time I spent away from writing. And being pretty prolific, I can write a book in a month. This loss of writing time, according to your logic, lost me anywhere from twenty to fifty thousand dollars, which is what I'm paid on average by the print industry. It certainly didn't justify the sales I made for AFRAID, which were numerous, but didn't total more than $10k.

Plus, if you've ever toured, there is nothing more exhausting, depressing, and overwhelming. I can't think of anything I've done in my life that's harder.

I've gone on several publisher-financed tours. But the money my publisher has spent on promoting my print work pales next to the amount of time and money I've spent promoting it. I'm a fulltime writer. For the past 7 years, 80% of my professional time has been spent self-promoting.

For my ebooks, the amount of self promotion I've done for them comes down to hours. I've linked to them here, and a few other places online. That's all. As for costs, I hired a cover artist to do professional covers AFTER I'd already earned several thousand dollars on Kindle.

It's no contest to compare the two. The best return I've ever had on a time/money investment has been Kindle.

Now, I've earned a lot more money on print than on Kindle. And very few print authors promote their books as much as I do. But when I consider the shelf-life of an average print novel, compared to the long tail of an ebook, I'm leaning toward the belief that an ebook can ultimately earn more, for far less work on the part of the author. And as for money, I spent more last weekend at a single writing conference, promoting my print books, than I spent on all of my Kindle expenses combined.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

I don't see any problems with self-publishing as long as you know exactly what you're getting into before you do it.  Unfortunately, a lot of people see self publishing as a stepping stone to traditional publishing, but in reality, self publishing will most likely kill any chance you have of a traditional publishing career.  If that's okay, and you're that impatient to see your words in print, go ahead and pay someone to print up your manuscript and bind it into a book. 

Just don't kid yourself into thinking this makes you a published author, because it doesn't.

But you all know that already, even if you won't admit it.

I find this repeated sort of refrain in conversations like this, and it goes, "You're not actually published, even if you think you are."

But I have yet to see, read, or hear a self-published author refer to themselves as a "published author." (Unless they're talking about writing that has been published by someone other than themselves, that is.)

And I wonder, why? why this refrain? It comes out of thin air, out of no place real. It comes with a curious attitude from the person saying it, and again I wonder, why?

There are far more important things to be excited about and irritated by than people who self-publish. If they're ruining their lives and destroying their careers and committing the greatest of all Writer Sins according to the Gods of Writing, so be it. The question is, why do you care so much that you find it necessary to pop in with snide (and irrelevant) remarks?

Instead, why not buy a coffee, enjoy your day, revel in the glory that is your life and leave others to theirs?

Just curious.

[Brendan Carroll]

I concur with your findings, Miss Tsetsi.  The question is why even make the distinction?  I read everything including the dictionary:

pub·lish (pblsh)
v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es
v.tr.
1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.
v.intr.
1. To issue a publication.
2. To be the writer or author of published works or a work.

So what are my books if not published on Kindle, on Createspace, on Smashwords, on... etc.  Being published has nothing to do with WHO published it, does it?  Profit is in the eye of the beholder.  Is it profitable to me to have someone read my work (perfect strangers) and then comment favorably on them?  Yes, it is profitable in ways that money cannot buy.  So it's all a matter of perspective:

Do you write from the heart or do you write from your pocketbook?  Are you looking for acceptance from the status quo or are you looking for self-satisfaction?  You decide.   

Personally, I think that the publishers who passed up my books for whatever reason, made bad decisions like people who are in prison made bad decisions.  A bad decision is a bad decision, right?  And saying "Ooops, my bad!" after you've just wiped out an entire continent with your laser beam weapon just doesn't cut it.  And if they now discover that they made a mistake in not publishing me, but are too elitist (sp?) to publish me now because I'm... I'm... I'm... AN INDIE PUBLISHER/WRITER... then too bad for them. 

If I never become rich and famous on the Stephen King level, at least I made some people smile in the process and by that measuring stick, I am happy. And if I sell my book for one penny or a thousand pennies, it is my decision and I'm not really good at numbers, but by my guestimate $1 X 1,000,000 still equals $1,000,000 in sales... right? And if I can sell a million books in a hundred years, then I'll still be a million-seller!   Besides I'm on the LottoTexas Retirement Plan so who cares?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Do you write from the heart or do you write from your pocketbook?  Are you looking for acceptance from the status quo or are you looking for self-satisfaction?  You decide.   

I think this is an important question. For as long as I can remember, I've loved writing and have known I wanted to write - but lots of money was never my (primary) goal. (good thing, too!)

Success is defined in different ways by different people.

If I never become rich and famous on the Stephen King level, at least I made some people smile in the process and by that measuring stick, I am happy. And if I sell my book for one penny or a thousand pennies, it is my decision and I'm not really good at numbers, but by my guestimate $1 X 1,000,000 still equals $1,000,000 in sales... right? And if I can sell a million books in a hundred years, then I'll still be a million-seller!   Besides I'm on the LottoTexas Retirement Plan so who cares?

 I wouldn't mind being on that plan...to the lotto ticket counter with me!

[AnnaM]

"But in reality, self publishing will most likely kill any chance you have of a traditional publishing career.  If that's okay, and you're that impatient to see your words in print, go ahead and pay someone to print up your manuscript and bind it into a book."

Quite frankly, an industry that would "kill a chance at a career", just because a person showed the initiative and courage (yes, it takes a great deal of courage to show your writing to the world) to independently market their work, is not, to my way of thinking, open-minded or progressive. If what you say is true, they harbor a narrow and arrogant attitude -- one that will ultimately implode their business.

If I worked in the "traditional" publishing business I'd be taking a hard look at the authors who are aggressive marketers and especially those who have achieved success on the Kindle platform. It is a real bookstore, and they are selling to a real audience of discriminating readers.

“Skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it’s been.”   -- Wayne Gretzky (and Steve Jobs)

[Carolyn Kephart]

If I worked in the "traditional" publishing business I'd be taking a hard look at the authors who are aggressive marketers and especially those who have achieved success on the Kindle platform. It is a real bookstore, and they are selling to a real audience of discriminating readers.

“Skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it’s been.”   -- Wayne Gretzky (and Steve Jobs)

I love that Gretzky quote.

And I've always been a realist when it comes to my books. I write fantasy, and I know people in my genre with forty traditionally-published big-press books (forty!) who still have to hold down a day job to get the bills paid. For every Pratchett or Martin, there's legions of strugglers. The wonderful thing is, most of them don't seem to mind.

Why? Because the fantasy community is so close-knit and vibrant. It's supportive and generous. It welcomes newcomers, as I can attest firsthand. As soon as my books came out and got some good reviews, I was able to attend any con I chose as a guest professional with my reg fee comped. No one asked or cared about my publisher. The writing was the only thing they looked at.

Since then, it's only gotten better. Ebooks have leveled the playing field, at long last. We all have a chance to write from our hearts and be heard. I never felt right about killing trees, anyway.

I try hard to harbor as few delusions as possible, and the rich-'n'-famous one got jettisoned early. I can't write for a huge audience--that's a gift alloted to a very few, and more power to them. My personal slogan comes from Ben Jonson, the Elizabethan playwright: "A man should seek great glory, and not broad." I well understand that seeking and finding are two different things. I just want to write something that matters. I'm counting on those discriminating readers you mention.

On that note, my Kindle sales just now (meaning this present hour) are fabulous, in the top 100 for the entire Fantasy category, and I couldn't be happier. We'll see how well they do next month, when the price gets hiked from 99 cents to a buck more.

This is a great thread. Good luck to everyone here.

CK

[AnnaM]

Carolyn

Congrats on making the triple digit ranking with Wysard! I love the book cover (earth tones and landscapes turn my crank). Yeah, I clicked the buy button . . . heck, for 99 cents why not?

Thanks for offering your book, at a great price, on Kindle!

Anna

[Carolyn Kephart]

Carolyn

Congrats on making the triple digit ranking with Wysard! I love the book cover (earth tones and landscapes turn my crank). Yeah, I clicked the buy button . . . heck, for 99 cents why not?

Thanks for offering your book, at a great price, on Kindle!

Anna

Anna, thank you! I hope you enjoy it.

Wysard and Lord Brother together form a duology, but the first volume can stand on its own.

[Karen_McQ]

I agree with Anna--Wysard has one beautiful cover! Her comment led me to check out the book and it sounded so great, I just bought it.  

(Sorry for getting off topic. I got in trouble for doing that on an altogether different site...)

[Kristen Tsetsi]

I agree with Anna--Wysard has one beautiful cover!

Ditto.

[Carolyn Kephart]

I agree with Anna--Wysard has one beautiful cover! Her comment led me to check out the book and it sounded so great, I just bought it. 

(Sorry for getting off topic. I got in trouble for doing that on an altogether different site...)

I hope it's not off-topic to thank you, Karen.

[Jack Kilborn]

I thought it was worthwhile to resurrect this thread, just to show how much the self-publishing world has changed in 14 months, and how my attitude has changed with it.

I now believe EVERYONE should self-publish their ebooks, and NO ONE should take a traditional publishing deal.

What a wild year it has been...

[Glen Krisch]

I'm swiftly coming to the conclusion that to get a print deal (if that is a goal of yours), you should first 1. write a kick *ss book 2. sell the hell out of it 3. wait for the offers to come.
Print publishers will soon use indie success to vet not only a writer's work, but also their determination and involvement in promotion.  If a p.r. infrastruction is already in place, so much the better for them!