JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: End of Publishing As We Know It, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 10 of 10
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: End of Publishing As We Know It in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
Unless you've been living deep in the Amazon (the rainforest, not the retail giant), you have probably heard... and heard... and heard... about Amazon vs. Hachette.
Let us all pray for an end to the Hachette/Amazon dispute before someone writes another blog post. — Evil Wylie (@EvilWylie) July 10, 2014
(But apparently, I do not agree enough to refrain from writing my own blog post about it.)
In case you need a primer, Amazon and Hachette are squaring off over e-book prices. In order to increase their negotiating leverage, Amazon is trying to squeeze Hachette by removing pre-orders for their books and otherwise making them more difficult to procure. This has dragged on for nearly two months, and in order to help quell complaints that it is harming authors, Amazon recently announced a plan to pay authors in full during the dispute, an offer the Authors Guild called "highly disingenuous." (Here's more background from David Streitfeld).
What I find most amazing about this dispute is the extent to which it is a Rorschach Test for your views on the publishing industry writ large. The predictable traditional publishing industry defenders have come out in force against Amazon, and the predictable anti-traditional publishing industry forces (especially certain vocal segments of the self-publishing community) have come out in full-throated Amazonian defense.
Call me crazy, (and yes, I'm not directly affected by this dispute), but I'm not endlessly titillated by the sharp-elbowed negotiations of two massive multinational corporations who are both fighting for their respective financial interests.
Nor do I see it as a referendum on the future of literary culture, which has been on the verge of the apocalypse for the past five hundred years without said apocalypse ever coming to pass.
Instead, I see this as a wakeup call for authors to think about what it is they're actually arguing about.
Here's the thing, authors. Amazon is not your best friend. Amazon is looking out for Amazon.
Hachette is not your best friend, either. Hachette is looking out for Hachette.
Inasmuch as your interests coincide with Amazon and Hachette, they are more than happy to be your friend. And there are great people who work at both companies. But when your interests diverge with theirs and they want to maximize revenue and are able to extract more from you because they've increased their leverage, whose side do you think they're going to choose? Yours or theirs?
Do you endlessly trust Amazon to protect author's interests after they've thoroughly cemented their position as the primary game in town? Are you really happy with the digital royalty traditional publishers are paying?
So where is the for-authors-by-authors publishing option? How about a partnership with the indie bookselling community to create the literary culture we really want instead of hoping that huge corporations are going to come to our rescue? How about instead of picking which intermediary we like better we disintermediate and build a J.K. Rowling-esque option that truly goes directly from author to readers?
Yes yes, easier said than done and someone has to pick up the mantle and do it. I'm, uh, busy with writing and stuff.
But at the very least, count me out of the letters and counter-letters and the flame wars and the bile. Rather than authors fighting it out we should be working together to create something better.
Art: Symposium by Akseli Gallen-Kallela
0 Comments on The real solution to Amazon vs. Hachette as of 7/14/2014 12:59:00 PM
It's rare that I disagree with or don't defer to the experience and wisdom of publishing industry sage Mike Shatzkin, who has been prescient about the transition to e-books and adept at explaining its effects and future effects on the industry.
But in a recent post, he expressed frustration at the failure of recognition on the part of legal experts about the special circumstances of the publishing industry and the potential effects of low e-book pricing:
But I’m afraid my major takeaway was, once again, that the legal experts applying their antitrust theories to the industry don’t understand what they’re monkeying with or what the consequences will be of what they see as their progressive thinking. Steamrollering those luddite denizens of legacy publishing, who just provoke eye-rolling disdain by suggesting there is anything “special” about the ecosystem they’re part of and are trying to preserve, is just part of a clear-eyed understanding of the transitions caused by technology.
The thing is, and I say this as someone who has a great deal of respect for publishers and agents and as a traditionally published author: There isn't anything special about the publishing industry. It is not deserving of special treatment, and we shouldn't fear its disruption by new technology.
Books occupy a very central and foundational part of our culture, and any society that stops producing them deserves to get sacked by the Visgoths. Publishers and bookstores have packaged and distributed books to us for several hundred years, and they have been great at their jobs.
But, again, I say this as someone who has tremendous respect for these institutions: They are a means to an end. They are a way of getting quality books to customers, just as stagecoaches transported people across the country before railroad before cars before airlines. Publishers and bookstores are a delivery system.
In order to call for special protection for the traditional publishing ecosystem, you would have to make the case that without that precise ecosystem, books would fail to be produced in the same quality and quantity as they were before. This is Mike Shatzkin's fear:
My argument and fear is that a restructured ecosystem will deny us books like Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs biography or Ron Chernow’s George Washington. Books that take years to write and require hundreds of thousands of dollars of financing to be written will never see the light of day if publishers can’t earn a profit by investing in their creation.
I simply don't share this fear.
People will still write books even with uncertain prospects for financial success (NaNoWriMo anyone??). There will still be tremendous competition, which will create pressure to make those books as good as possible. Those books will still be delivered to readers, only more cheaply and more efficiently than before. They will still be edited and some will still be great. And better yet, in case I didn't mention it twenty times before, they will be cheaper, which means customers will be able to buy more of them.
All of the mechanisms and expertise of traditional publishing, other than paper book distribution, are now available to any author. Want professional editors? Tons of great freelance editors are standing by. Need cover design? A graphic designer will be happy to help. Need money in advance to pay for all this? Take a gander at Kickstarter, or at the universities and nonprofits who currently support the publication of literary fiction and academia.
I mean, if Walter Isaacson came to me and said, "Nathan, I have secured exclusive access to Steve Jobs to write his bio, I just need $500,000 to write it in exchange for a share the profits," I would say, "I don't have $500,000." But I'm confident Isaacson would be able to find a member of the 1% willing to take the bet.
What are publishers fighting for? They're fighting for the ability to charge a premium for their products. To make customers pay more money for books.
It's a bit galling that the publishing industry would argue that books are more than just commodities, and their ecosystem therefore deserving of special protection, when they are increasingly treating books and authors as, well, commodities. When literary fiction is getting kicked to the curb, when millions of dollars chase the latest celebrity scandal as mid list authors get dumped, and when they're pulling e-books from libraries.
We have plenty to fear from an Amazonian monopoly, were that to ever come to pass. But there is competition in the marketplace already and there is also tremendous opportunity for upstarts to continue to shake up the landscape.
I have tons of sympathy for all of the great people who will get caught in the negative effects of the disruption. I don't think publishers will go away, but they will certainly be leaner, which means job losses. I also don't blame publishers for their actions or even think they're necessary misguided. They are all very intelligent and well-meaning people who are usually making rational decisions to protect their business in a rapidly shifting landscape.
But when you boil everything down and remove all the noise, the precise fear of publishers is that books will be cheaper. That's it.
Books. Cheaper.
Tell me again why we should fight that?
Art: 1628 version of Haarlem printing press from 1440 by Jan Van de Velde
39 Comments on The Publishing Industry Is Not Deserving of Special Protection, last added: 11/25/2012
Exactly. Reading a book should be something anyone can do. It shouldn't require a device, which means we ought to have both print and ebook available.
Publishers need to rethink their positions in the form of partnerships with authors, flexibility is what makes some industries survive and some die a slow death. Books will endure, regardless.
Oh, boy, do I ever agree! No business has any special right to exist. If they serve the customer (and their suppliers) well, they will thrive. If not, if they fail to adapt to a changing marketplace, that's just the free market system at work.
The irony is that if Publishers stopped treating authors and books as commodities, and they started understanding you can make more money pricing lower and selling at higher volumes, they would acheive their goals, and be much more likely to weather the storm of technological transition.
Wish you were still agenting, Nathan. You are fearless and wise. Agents are fearless (they have to be) but they aren't all as wise as you. As you so rightly point out, ONWARDS.
Funny. I posted this comment on a different blog today, and it is equally apt here, verbatim: Well argued. You always know an industry is at risk when they turn to protectionism to legislate or litigate success rather than adjust to market pressures.
You are 100% correct. Publishing is not special.
The example of "Book X might not be written in the hypothetical future" is specious. One might ask the converse hypothetical question: "What incredible books did not get published in the past because they did not fit in the channels that served the publishing industry?" The original argument presupposes that the publishing industry is perfect today, or at least that whatever harm it does is outweighed by the good it does. There is no way to prove that, and in fact there are solid arguments (made in this blog post!) that point to the opposite.
Noticed recently vs. the 'before times': the tone of agents and publishers to budding authors (me) in query/book proposal mode, is noticeably more generous and considerate of MY time and effort committed to not only years devoted to producing my best work possible, but also to dedicating and educating myself to the understandably competitive requirements of the literary world and profession. Said approach albeit necessary, could -at times- be said to resemble the court protocols of Louis the XIIII; Now thanks to the increasing legitimacy of online publishing and the recent P&RH merger, a much needed re-evaluation of the necessities of each side of the business can flower. To Quote Martha: "it's a good thing".
Ironically, your example of Walter Isaacson finding a wealthy patron to sponsor a Steve Jobs bio is the way publishing worked before there were publishing companies. Back then, an author would find one or more rich people to underwrite the production of some number of copies of the book he'd written, and in return they'd get copies.
Read the fawning introductions in some 18th-Century non-fiction books singing the praises of someone long lost to history, and you're probably reading an author's suck-up tribute to his "publisher."
This is a good post. Books do need to be cheaper. I buy my books on Kindle mostly but when I do decide to purchase a physical book, I'm usually bothered by the high price.
Now that I think about it—I guess I'm like the inverse of the people who think ebook pricing is too high.
yes, but it's not just about money -- it's also about culture, and the dumbing down of the collective unconscious by removing the "gatekeepers", the agents and the editors and the publishers, who, whilst making money, also have, hopefully, an eye for quality and who would, I suspect, not accept a majority of self-published books because they are rubbish. I don't want to read badly written books -- I don't care how cheap it was to download. Books should be expensive; not prohibitively expensive, but I think they should cost enough for one to consider them a luxury item, to revere them, and treasure them, to acknowledge the toil invested within those pages. I don't want books to become acrylic -- I want my books to be cashmere.
Sam, you might notice that some products today are acrylic yet cashmere is still accessible to those who prefer it.
Last I looked, the textile industry was not given special protections to ensure the availability of cashmere.
Just sayin'.
Anonymous said, on 11/5/2012 3:46:00 PM
There are some well reasoned arguments here... but also a huge loss of credibility by comparing the vomiting onto the page that is NaNoWriMo with actual books. It's nice for self published "authors" that they can come to your blog, and so many others, and know they'll get to hear all the things they want to hear. The fact that so many people type words then say they wrote a book and describe themselves as authors is undoubtedly driving down the quality of books in general, and the only people who disagree are those who are doing that, or gaining something from it.
Excellent post, Nathan, and I like your comment Peter Dudley. Nathan, I'm glad you pointed out how the publishing industry is increasingly treating the work produced by writers as a commodity. I've seen quite a few writer friends produce fabulous manuscripts, but they can't get them published b/c there are no vampires, werewolves or zombies (I'm talking about YA). These well-crafted "quiet" books are unable to find a home. As you pointed out, in the age of the celebrity book, the arguments set forth in favor of special treatment are disingenuous. If J.K.Rowling decided to write another Harry Potter book, we'd all buy it and likely I'd pay $20+ for it. Why? Because we want it. Just like with all products, some are worth more than others. Cashmere and nylon. Mercedes and Ford. A coffee from Starbucks versus the swill at your local Circle K. I see no reason for books to be any different. But here's the rub. If publishers want to continue to obtain $15, $20 or more for a book, they are going to have to make that book worth the price and give a reader reason to spend that versus downloading a book for 99 cents (or free) from an Indie author. That $15+ hardcover better have great editing, a fabulous cover, quality pages inside - the whole package better be top notch. I'm not seeing this. I'm seeing quality -overall - going way down, while the prices are the same or going up. Big publishing should focus on what they can do best - when they set their mind to it: Produce quality books and charge a fair price.
Anonymous said, on 11/5/2012 4:00:00 PM
Do books really need to be cheaper? There are so many books already available for free (at libraries, or online) or for pennies (rummage sales, used bookstores, or online).
One unintended consequence of books being cheaper could be that they'll lose their value. (Sam Albion touched on this, though Peter Dudley has a nice counter; maybe there will still be a range of prices for a range of books.)
The publishing industry doesn't deserve special protections, but like any business, they will try everything to save themselves. This is an industry that never had a high profit margin to begin with, and they're threatened with having products that they used to sell for $20 now having a price point of $2.
They've all seen what has happened to the music industry, and I'm sure it's their biggest nightmare.
I think the publishers are just working our emotions and the historical attachment we, as humans, have to books. They're milking that for all it's worth and saying, "Don't you want to preserve thousands of years of historical significance? Do you want to be the cause of the collapse of something so venerated?" But in reality, anything we humans truly value has proven remarkably tenacious and capable in whatever form is best its survival. We love books. Books won't die just because there is a new way to get them to market. Maybe those traditionally responsible for delivery will die, but not the product itself. That's what the publishers fear, at least the big ones. The new pubs are much more nimble and quick to evolve.
"...but like any business, they will try everything to save themselves"
Yes, but what they did was commit a felony criminal action to try to keep prices low. And the article Nathan references defends that felony. It calls for 'Special Protection' for Publishers, saying they should be allowed to break the law, because they perform a necessary and important function.
If I can paraphrase him - hopefully correctly - Nathan's point is that the function Publishers provide is necessary, but others can and do provide it. Publishers do not deserve exemption from the law because they are not irreplacable. The reality is that they are replaceable.
When people are in competition to provide a service, the market should decide who wins.
Very well said, Nathan. For any industry, if your business model no longer works, change it or go out of business. Only those who adapt to a changing environment deserve to survive.
Well, as a reader, I wouldn't, but as a writer, I have some concerns. Within the current publishing system, a smaller cover price means the author makes less money.
Unless, of course, the author goes indie and snags a higher percentage of a smaller cover price, which can preserve income. But if indies lose their price advantage because the traditional publishers are charging less, the indies may sell fewer copies, reinforcing the problem for authors to make a living.
Great post, Nathan. I also agree with you. This past weekend I attend and spoke at the Avondale Writers Conference (just outside Phoenix,) and the keynote speech was given by Gordon Warnock, senior agent for the Andrea Hurst Literary Agency. In his speech he said that those who viewed change in publishing with pessimism did so because they're focusing on how things used to be. Those who are excited about the current state of the publishing industry feel that way because they're looking at how things are now and how they could be in the future. I think your post tonight falls right in line with that same line of thought, and traditional publishers are just going to have to get used to it.
I applaud your take on the publishing industry and its future - that it should be prepared to adapt rather than continue down well-worn paths of yore. I wonder, though, if in the push to price commodity cheaply as possible, will less risks be taken with publishing choices. Will publishers choose more often to go with trends and low-risk publishing options like celebrity books and biographies than risk publishing dollars on a worthy work that's left of field and which might, or might not, sell well.
I agree, too, that people will still write books even though decades pass in the journey to their completion. It's the journey that, in retrospect, is the most pleasurable for the author. I believe Tolkien took twelve years to write his saga, and I've taken longer to write mine.
On reflection, though, I suppose mainstream publishers have always tried to stick to the tried and true to one degree or another, and the big break-throughs have come when those with risky literary ventures have self-published like Lord Byron his work of epic poetry which, I guess, wasn't expected to become as popular as it did. I wonder if the work was helped by the charisma of the author who probaby held many public readings in order to make his public aware of both his work and his name.
I really can't see why publishing should have special protections (just like I still can't understand why baseball has their special protection as well). Survival of the fittest.
If you can't change with the times to make yourself leaner and meanter, and more importantly, relevant (see the newspaper industry on how not to make yourself relevant), then you have no one to blame for your own obtuseness except yourself.
One argument that traditional publishers keep bringing up is this idea that the publishers were ‘gatekeepers’ or guardians of literary quality, that the reader needs them to be protected from bad books. The question is actually asked, “with the wave of indie publishing, how will we know what’s good?” Ironically, most submissions editors have told me that they know within the first paragraph if a book is good. Big six publishers have access to high dollar editors, top graphic talent, massive distribution infrastructure, sales reps, years of experience, etc. but it is all wasted when they use their resources to publish books by empty-headed, vacuous, reality TV stars that have nothing intelligent to say. I don’t know that they have done anything more for America’s intellect that TV, radio or any other medium of pop culture.
I totally agree with this... with respect to fiction. Fiction can be written for free, and excellent fiction produced at no (substantial) cost to the author. But certain non-fiction (the research required to write it) does usually cost money.
It's why I got into fiction. I wanted to write narrative non-fiction, along the lines of Bill Bryson (as a familiar example) or Pete Dunne (a favourite author of mine) - studies of a subject that were part informative, part memoir/travelogue. The problem? I don't make much. I can pay my bills every month but there's pretty much nothing left over to be able to spend - especially with no guarantee of publication/return! - on travel.
Without that advance up front, there's no way for me to write these books. I don't actually have the platform/pub record to get the advance anyway (learning this was what prompted me to try writing fiction - serendipity, as I love it), but for people who do, it may be their only means of covering their costs.
I think we'd suffer a great decline in both the quantity and quality of such non-fiction books if the authors were left to fend for themselves. Not everyone (possibly very few) would be able to secure wealthy sponsors to take a chance on them.
Anonymous said, on 11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM
The one thing that always bothered me was that when people spend hundreds of dollars on tablets or dedicated e-readers they expect e-books to be less expensive. And it's a plain and simple fact that e-books are less expensive to release. I've done it and I know from personal experience. So why they think they can get away with charging these ridiculous prices is something I don't get.
But I also think that as long as the big publishers charge these prices they only make it easier for smaller e-presses and indie authors who are pricing their e-books competitively. I have passed on more than one e-book by large publishers just because they are over the line and I've purchased quality books from small presses instead.
As for the Steve Jobs book. Of course that would have been published. I've read that book, and it was practically put together by Jobs and his wife before he died. It was a great book, but there were no surprises.
You're right, of course. But my question is: Why does it take hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop any book? Writers who demand those kinds of advances will find themselves left out of a competitive, realistic industry.
Anonymous said, on 11/6/2012 10:41:00 AM
Bravo! No industry is any more deserving of protection than another! If we "rescue" the traditional publishing houses, then who or what is next? And who bails them out? Government (taxpayers)? The government is in worse shape than publishers.
The free market, with a minimum of regulations, always tends to produce the best product at an affordable price.
The publishers need to learn to adapt like all other industries. Years ago color TV's, cell phones, VCR's (remember those?) cost hundreds of dollars more but now are far more affordable for the average American...
"There's a moment when Jacob goes inside to warm up some corndogs (natch), and the narrative stays with the kids outside." Great example to the approach.
If anything, when it comes to any kind of protection, real publishing companies - as opposed to accounting entries for multi-media conglomerates might POSSIBLY be in the running.
Companies who actually pay taxes for the streets they use, hire locally and support their host communities, and don't allow their executives to have offshore accounts... MAYBE.
Tariffs, protective legislation, and financial assistance should only apply to the health of the company regarding maintenance of community integrity.
@Seabrooke - maybe it's time to rein in some of ridiculous litigation around defamation and libel.
I don't want to comment on the issue as a whole, rather leave some thoughts about what Nathan envisions as alternative futures/realities for the evolution of publishing (or rather, the adaptations in its absence). I think it's important to consider that there could be such a thing as devolution--that not everything will be advanced as evolution of an industry.
"All of the mechanisms and expertise of traditional publishing, other than paper book distribution, are now available to any author. Want professional editors? Tons of great freelance editors are standing by. Need cover design? A graphic designer will be happy to help. Need money in advance to pay for all this? Take a gander at Kickstarter, or at the universities and nonprofits who currently support the publication of literary fiction and academia."
This paragraph in particular made me think of this. While freelance offers lots of people the autonomy it desires, it heaps a lot more costs on the back of the worker him/herself. In other industries, you would hear the decrying of the rise of contractual labor, in which companies are restructuring their workforce so they are free of responsibility. A freelance editor has to hustle jobs, pay for their own benefits (which often means less of them), and live paycheck to paycheck. A freelancer, is in effect, a single business and in seeking business success, every project can be a career-effecting. Will freelance editors shy away from literary risks in order to take safer projects? Also, where do successful editors come from? I would wager many of them gained their experience through traditional publishing. If becoming an editor means taking on increasing costs to oneself (along with increasing risk), then we should consider how the demographic of would-be editors will narrow socially and economically as a result.
Kickstarter? Academic Presses? Do you think people are going to kickstarter intellectual literary classics? Or Zombie/Vampire/pop-lit? (No preference for either, but you're surrendering to the whim of the masses--if you can stand out of an already saturated kickstarter pool, to appeal to increasingly cash-strapped, donation-weary clientele. As for academic presses--where do you think their money comes from, and what is the mission statement of the presses? Do academic presses have extra room on their lists they've been reserving all this time? I'm not saying these are bad ideas, but as the only systems to prop up an industry--are we going from stage-coach to train? Is that the most proper metaphor? Or would this be more like going train to plane, or train to bus? I don't think it's very clear that these mechanisms (by themselves at least), are necessarily positive, effective, or anymore sustainable than the publishing industry in its current form...
As for this: "I mean, if Walter Isaacson came to me and said, "Nathan, I have secured exclusive access to Steve Jobs to write his bio, I just need $500,000 to write it in exchange for a share the profits," I would say, "I don't have $500,000." But I'm confident Isaacson would be able to find a member of the 1% willing to take the bet."
This seems like an endorsement of feudal-era patronage. Is this really advisable? Does this adhere to journalistic principles? What if the member of the 1% is an enemy of the biographee? Etc. etc.
At face value, I don't disagree that "publishing is not special," but I just wanted to raise some concerns about some of the mentioned alternatives. I don't believe the freelancification/guerrilization of industry is necessarily a good thing for ALL parties. Sure, the consumer will likely benefit in cost, as they do from all cheapening products, but let's consider the true cost of that cheapening: labor, benefits, wealth stratification. Perhaps the analyst is right: Publishing is NOT special, and perhaps lots of industries need protection from the extreme pursuit of the bottom line.
It's been a while since I've done a link roundup, but I'm starting to get settled in New York and hope to begin moving to a slightly more normal schedule. Famous last words! These links may stretch back a while.
Random Penguin? Penguin House? People have long speculated that there would be consolidation in the publishing industry, and now Pearson has confirmed that they are talking consolidation. It will be very interesting to see whether this comes to pass and how it plays out.
There have been a few articles lately about how the publishingpocalypse has not exactly come to pass, no matter what breathless doomsday predictions you may have heard in the past few years. In The Atlantic, Peter Osnos writes that the industry is adapting well to the e-reader era, and Mike Shatzkin writes that Amazon's publishing wing is not yet a threat to publishers.
Book Riot has a great take on Gillian Flynn and Gone Girl, one of my favorite books of the year, writing about how genre fiction sometimes doesn't get the same social commentary cred as more "serious" literary fiction.
Butterfly in the sky, Reading Rainbow is back! This time in app form.
You've probably already read this, tweeted it and had a flame war, but there was quite the controversy a few months back about sockpuppet Amazon reviews and the authors who have used them.
And finally, for all you cooking fans out there, one of my friends has started a really cool site, Cook Smarts, devoted to recipes and learning new techniques in the kitchen. I highly, highly recommend her newsletter, which delivers some awesome recipes straight to your inbox every week.
And finally, finally, Apple released another big player in the e-reader world with the iPad Mini. Here's CNET's first look at the new game-changer (disclosure: CNET is where I work):
Have a great weekend!
13 Comments on This Week in Books 10/25/12, last added: 11/2/2012
I totally forgot it was Friday until I saw this post. "This Week in Books...wait, it's not Fri--oh, it is!"
Good for Book Riot. This has often been a rant of mine. I love genre fiction because I feel that its use of alternate worlds (whether they're ours with a tweak or completely different) provides a great opportunity for social commentary. When the world is different, the things that remain the same make a bigger impact, especially the social issues!
Anonymous said, on 10/26/2012 1:36:00 PM
Re Penguin suing authors: The authors were paid advances and didn't deliver the books. Wouldn't it be better if the books were written before pitching them to the editor and being paid on them?
"You've probably already read this, tweeted it and had a flame war"
Ha, ha! Classic. :)
So, it's I think it's just plain mean for Penguin to be suing authors years after Penguin let the projects drop. Because they did let these projects drop. Editors left, etc. It's not unusual for publishers to write off small advances like this, and why should the authors in this case think any differently?
Penguin is being a big bully. Now, the authors have to pony up interest, legal fees, etc. (Obviously Penguin is doing this to get the money back, otherwise, they'd just go through the agent and work with the client to finish the book). If Penguin lost interest in the project, they should have asked for the money at deadline.
Makes me mad.
Maybe I'll go start a flame war. ;)
Thanks for the links, Nathan - Glad you're settling into New York!
Publishers aren't running a charity. If they have signed contracts with writers that are not delivering products, it makes sense for them to take action.
Of course, putting on my business hat, this really hurts relationships. Now, if the author had already provided good product in the past, I can see the publisher waiting a little bit longer. But if this is the first work by a writer, then I can see the publisher launching a missile in the writer's direction.
Why do folks fail to see that publishing is a business? This boggles my mind.
Meanwhile... I guess there was some teeny tiny publishing news this week.
Let's get the disclaimer out of the way first: I work for CNET, which is owned by CBS, which is the parent company of Simon & Schuster, one of the companies named in the lawsuit. All opinion here is entirely my own, does not necessarily reflect the opinion of CBS and/or Simon & Schuster and/or CNET, and is based mainly on my time in publishing as a literary agent where I was not privy to the inside discussions at publishers, and it doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of my old agency Curtis Brown Ltd. either. Cool?
Here's the elevator pitch summary of what happened:
In the beginning of the e-book era, publishers sold e-books according to the "wholesale" model. Every e-book had a retail price, publisher got roughly half the retail price, bookseller got half, bookseller could sell the e-book for whatever they want. Amazon discounted deeply, taking a loss on some titles, built early market share, made publishers nervous as they were running away with the e-book market.
Along came Apple and the "agency" model: They gave publishers the ability to set their own prices and receive 70%. Publishers jumped at this and raised prices, but actually received less money per copy sold than in the wholesale model. (The difference between agency and wholesale also is the reason behind why some e-books cost more than their print counterparts)
What the DOJ alleges is that some of the publishing executives met around this time and explicitly discussed moving to the agency model and raising prices. This, the DOJ says, amounted to illegal collusion.
Three of the publishers, HarperCollins, S&S, and Hachette, have already settled without admitting wrongdoing, and will allow variable pricing. Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Apple have not settled and apparently will fight the charges in court. The case against Apple in particular, my colleagues Declan McCullaugh and Greg Sandoval write, is unlikely to stick.
Way to go, Steve Jobs. While people are playing Angry Birds on a $500 piece of silicon and glass, they'll probably not know how he helped destroy the book industry.
While I certainly don't have enough experience in the industry to understand all of this, I can thank you, Nathan, as usual, for laying it out in a way that I at least understand it better.
If I'm mad at anyone, and I'm not really mad at anyone, but if I was, I would be made at anyone who sells any book for %0.99. I just think it's unfair to everyone to dilute the value of literature that way.
I suppose for people who like to read pulp, paying $0.99 for something that's really worth $0.99 must be nice, but in my opinion, good books are worth a lot more than that. And now the problem is that the average consumer expects e-books to be extremely cheap, and doesn't see any reasoning behind paying much more for them.
Anonymous said, on 4/13/2012 8:25:00 AM
As a writer and a librarian I have never understood why the hard copy and the ebook aren't packaged. Buy a hard copy--meaning actual object int he world--and for a built in extra amount--automatically receive a digital version. It's a matter of repackaging not repricing. also solves the"I can't share this or get it signed by the author" complaint --both very valid ebook downsides.
In an effort to maintain business as usual publishers aren't adapting--and those who don't adapt die.
Recently John Green was marveling on Twitter that people would email him to tell him they were pirating his books. I checked the price of THE FAULT IN OUR STARS on Amazon... $11. More expensive than the hardcover??!?
And he doesn't understand why people are emailing him? We're not flaunting the fact that we pirate. We're making him aware that we want to support amazing authors like him but we find it difficult when we just can't afford to. It sucks. Going to the library isn't an answer: we're still not paying. And people like me want to own stuff.
But it must be nice to be a rich, talented author and have a snobby attitude about the whole thing. "They're pirating my e-books? Whatever for!"
People like John Green are people publishers will listen to, but they don't listen or they don't care. It's sad.
(And for the record, I have never pirated a John Green book or emailed him about it.)
As someone who has switched entirely to self-publishing, I hope that the long-term result will be the elevation of indie publishing and the death of the publishing industry's death grip on literature.
Thanks so much for the breakdown here. I shudder when I think about how much I've spent on e-books since getting my Nook last year, especially considering I was always an I'll-wait-till-the-library-carries-it kind of girl. But at the end of the day, it's about convenience. People will always pay for it.
Anonymous said, on 4/13/2012 9:01:00 AM
If people read the Steve Jobs bio they'll understand more about what he was trying to do with e-books. Which, basically, is the fundamental thought behind Apple: control over everything, from books to the entire web. Jobs, admittedly, wanted censorship, apps instead of links, and control over all pricing. The entire empire was based on a great deal of hype about nothing that couldn't be done or reproduced just as well. And the e-book issue is just something that's finally come to a head. It's been brewing for the last twenty years.
Anonymous said, on 4/13/2012 9:05:00 AM
The publishers are gasping for air so hard that they have completely forgotten both commonsense and the need to innovate. Look at JK Rowling's new book - $19.99 is the Kindle list price. All that does is push people into a much easier rationalization of piracy.
I'm curious as to how the holdouts will play this. With the publishers that settled, their prices are going to come down. So, do the holdouts lower their prices - the very thing they were trying to avoid - or keep their prices high and blatantly alienate readers?
As for the "bundle an ebook with a hardcopy" idea that is often floated - there are too many of us that have no interest in the hardcopy. We need real innovation.
I've followed your blog for several years now, and have to thank you for this very clear and concise explanation of the events and circumstances surrounding the issue of agency model pricing. Personally, I am indebted to both Amazon and Apple for brewing the perfect ebook storm (Amazon for allowing authors to self-publish easily to Kindle and Apple for convincing trad publishers to keep ebook prices high) that provided me the opportunity to publish, to find readers, and to actually make a living doing what I love. At this new turn in the road, I am very interested to see how things will shake out.
John Green (like all traditionally published authors) has no control over what publishers charge for his e-books. I would be flabbergasted too if people wrote to me and were like, "Oh hey! Stole your book!"
The transition period could be a mess. E-book stores can't sell e-books without a contract. If those three publishers have to cancel their contracts with all of the e-book stores, it's going to be mid-2010 all over again, when only a few sellers had Agency titles, most of them didn't have all of the publishers, and it took even Amazon six months to get a Penguin contract in place.
Random House wasn't sued, and their Agency Model will continue on as before. The DoJ wasn't concerned about the Agency Model but rather how it came about.
The settling publishers are permitted to continue using Agency Model, but for two years they can't control retail prices other than having a contract clause forbidding sustained sales below cost. (And no Most Favored Nation clause for five years.)
The "no sustained sales below cost" clause could be bad news for mid-list authors. It says that the total discounts offered by the seller on the publisher's titles over the course of a year cannot exceed the seller's commissions on that publisher's titles over the course of the same year. So if Amazon chooses to lose $2 on each of the bazillion e-book copies of JK Rowling's The Casual Vacancy that they sell, they're going to have to make up that $2 bazillion with increased prices on Hachette's other e-book titles. And I can pretty much guarantee you that it won't be on other front-list titles.
I was speaking of influence not control. And as a writer and aspiring author, I would not be flabbergasted if someone wrote to me to say they stole my $11 e-book in this climate. I recognize there are valid opinions both ways though, and levels of empathy.
(Although it would be great if the world believed as I did, and I were running the world for that matter.)
Going off topic a bit, but it seems to me the answer to this problem would be to release ebooks with paperbacks instead of hardcovers. Hardcover sales stick, bookstores stay alive, and ebook prices drop. Customers would have to go through an adjustment period, of course, but considering there are millions of ebooks already available, I think even the most avid reader could manage to keep busy while waiting the few extra months for the latest Rowling, or whatever.
I don't want paperbacks or hardcovers or anything physical at all. I just want a blasted e-book at an affordable price since I kicked out $180 for an e-reader without ads. And I don't think I'm alone, although I can't say I'm in the majority either.
The problem is everybody else wants something, too
Authors want to keep the power on in their homes and put food on their tables
Publishers want to add new wings to their Hamptons mansions
Jeff Bezos wants to sit behind his desk and laugh maniacally
Readers want affordable books.
Obviously there's some clashing going on.
Anonymous said, on 4/13/2012 9:58:00 AM
The thing that bothers me about ebooks, that was not an issue with traditional books is the fact that they lock you into a device. This was an issue, with the ipod, until itunes plus.
I would prefer that they made all books available in all places for both devices, and the sales strategy became about the books rather than the device. The reason I have not adopted ebooks yet is because this big obnoxious rift.
Of course I realize this won't happen with the major players, and that it hasn't happened in the past, ie: apple ipad/iphone, etc. Fortunately the other devices have a foothold because of the agency model, maybe the market has been established enough that this is no longer an issue, especially if there is a limit to the amount of time a book can be sold at cost (For this to work, it can't be a balancing act with another book)
For DRMed e-books, two simple rules: 1) don't buy a Kindle 2) don't buy e-books from Amazon, B&N, or Apple
Adobe EPUB e-books, from e-book stores other than those three, can be read on just about anything except a Kindle.
I have DRMed e-books on my NOOK from Sony, Kobo, Google, Copia, and a number of other e-book stores.
Adobe EPUB is the universal DRMed format. Universal, that is, except for Kindle — Amazon went to some trouble to block that.
www.infinitewordpress.com said, on 4/13/2012 11:56:00 AM
I think the two spectrums of this clash are the main problem. This is indicative of our culture: politics, socio-economics, education, I could go on.
The middle ground would suit most folks fine, all things being equal. $3-$5 ebooks (depending on length, quality, genre, author brand). $10-$15 trade paperbacks (of course, the mass paperbacks should be priced close to the ebook price), and $12-$20 for harbacks (coffe table/monstrous tomes/textbooks could be higher).
That hierarchal tier would seem to be reasonable, whichever pricing model is in place. At 50% ebook royalties and 18% print, the money would still flow to authors and publishers because people would have better choices. Better choices = more revenue. More revenue = a bigger pie to divide and an escalated economic.
Publishers need to see the light: the audience drives and determines price/value determination, not publishers, not authors. If they aren't careful, Amazon, Smashwords and the entire lot of self publishers (of which I am a part) will bury the industry in a 99 cent market by creating in the majority of customer's minds that that is the total worth of a book. Sad, I know. But it is the truth.
As a friend said, "who needs soap operas when we have the publishing world to keep us entertained!" Just reading about this gives me a headache, but you're succinct analysis makes it easier to understand. Thanks!
This sounds like a game of "Spin the Wheel for a Winner"
Seems things from the DOJ came about, not because of outrageous prices, though some politically savvy up and comer will use that to tout their "I'm with the people" facade. But it seems they were upset that the following happened (dramatized for effect):
Steve Jobs: Look here see, there's money to be made in this e-book-o-lution, see. Big 6: Yeah, yeah, Jobsy. Yeah. SJ: So here's the plan, see. Change from that wholesale model. I got a plan that has a better name, the Agency Model, see. ***Jobsy explains the workings of the Agency Model, distracting the Big 6 with a sexy half dressed vixen and a bare chested male model *** Intern of one of the Big 6 holding a calculator: Uh, Jobsy, we're getting more money - ***Jobsy snaps his finger, grunt sporting black shades grabs intern to have a talk outside*** SJ: Any questions, see? ***vixen and male model strut back and forth, the Big 6 heads moving back and forth as if answering "No"*** SJ: Good. Yeah. All good, see.
So the Big 6 go from nail-biting cost competition because of low, low pricing by Amazon to higher pricing making less money while the readers end up having to pay more...uh who's the winner in the game of "Spin the Wheel for a Winner" in this situation?
Even after the DOJ suit is settled, fought, won or lost, who, in the end, will be the winner?
They gave publishers the ability to set their own prices and receive 70%. Publishers jumped at this and raised prices, but actually received less money per copy sold than in the wholesale model.
And this is where I get stuck. I don't understand how going from 50% (wholesale) to 70% (agency) royalty AND raising prices results in less money per copy under agency vs. wholesale. The math just doesn't add up for me - which, looking at your post, shows that the above description is a bit misleading.
Your example compares apple to oranges prices - i.e. wholesale is 50% of the hardcover price whereas agency is 70% of the ebook price. If you're going with that, then the price those percentages are based on doesn't increase, it drops dramatically (from the hardcover $24.99 to the ebook $12.99 in your example). I understand that the price is raised for the consumer, but effectively the publishers were getting paid off the hardcover price not the ebook price, which seems kinda wack-a-doodle no matter which way you look at it.
So the question for me becomes what does the new settlement actually do? If they have agency (70% of ebook price - same as now), but Amazon is allowed to discount ... um ... publishers make the same money they do now, right? The cut comes from Amazon's pocket. The only thing that changes is that Amazon decides where to cut prices to gain market share, consumer happiness and other things.
This is good for consumers, publisher's bottom line is not hurt. The only thing is the fear that it will hasten the adoption of ebooks over print, the side of the business that publishers (as you note) are trying to preserve. But isn't that genie already out of the bottle? I'm just saying, I think we've passed that tipping point a while back.
Who's the winner? The winners were the e-bookstores, who started making money on e-books instead of losing it. Amazon was fine with losing money on e-books because they can make it up on batteries and TV sets. Most e-bookstores, including B&N, didn't have that option.
Amazon was threatening to drive B&N out of the e-book business, because B&N already was sucking its bookstore business dry to pay for NOOK device development. B&N has still been losing money (and personally I think that's their own fault), but at least they're still in the game.
See my posting just above; who gets hurt by changing back is the bookstores who aren't Amazon, and can't withstand selling e-books at zero or negative profit for years at a time.
When the Agency Model went into effect, it was estimated that Amazon had 90% of the e-book market. Now it's estimated they've "only" got 60%. If Amazon is allowed to pound B&N and Kobo into the ground by making them run continuous losses, Amazon will be back at 90% and climbing.
As for publishers having charged e-book wholesale based on the hardcover, it's not that crazy. From the publisher's point of view, they're not selling paper, they're selling content. And the content in an e-book is the same as in a hardcover (for narrative works like novels).
Those two points were exactly what brought the publishers to institute the Agency Model in the first place: to give non-Amazon e-bookstores a chance, and to restore what they thought was a reasonable price level for book content (*cough* big royalty advances *cough*).
Since then, the price level for book content has been seriously undermined by independents selling e-books at $0.99 to $2.99, so that part didn't work out so well.
The agency deal was not the best way to combat Amazon, and it's not the solution that a real conspiracy would have developed. It was Apple's solution, and the publishers jumped on it like drowning people lunging for a life preserver.
There are a number of possible responses publishers could have taken to Amazon's behavior in 2010. They could have raised their wholesale prices on e-book licenses, which would have forced Amazon to either lose more money or raise e-book prices. Alternatively, they could have refused to release e-books of top titles, or delayed e-book release until months after the hardcover release.
The problem was that antitrust law prohibits publishers from coordinating to come up with a solution to the problem. If one publisher raised prices, and the other publishers did not follow suit, and Amazon quit discounting that publisher's titles, it would be at a disadvantage.
Similarly, if one publisher took its frontlist titles off of the Kindle, and the other publishers did not, that publisher would have deprived itself and its authors of access to the Kindle audience, and opened itself up to further retaliation from Amazon. The publishers were facing a sort of prisoner's dilemma.
Apple's deal wasn't great, but publishers who were considering it had reason to believe the rest of the industry would follow suit (which is why the government believes the adoption of agency was illegal collusion). If the Apple deal hadn't happened, Amazon would have pushed BN out of the e-book market.
The wholesale price of a book is about half of the suggested retail price. That means that a hardcover book with an SRP of $25 will sell for $12.50 at wholesale.
Booksellers buy the book at wholesale and discount it to whatever price they want. In the pre-ebook days, Amazon, BN and Borders would discount new hardcovers 40% across the board, and a lot of indies who couldn't operate at those margins went out of business.
With e-books, Amazon bought the e-licenses for the same wholesale price it paid for hardcovers: $12-13, but then it marked them down to $9.99 and ate the difference as a loss.
Publishers were concerned because this kind of pricing could kill off all the bookstores who need to sell books at some kind of profit to stay solvent.
Under the agency model, publishers sell books for $11.99-$14.99, and pay a commission of 30% to Amazon. So instead of getting $12 for a wholesale e-book license, they get $9 for a $12.99 e-book after Amazon takes its 30%.
Something nobody has mentioned, probably because it really won't amount to anything...
If the proposed settlement is approved, the first things to die are the contracts with Apple (7 days after approval). This is interesting because Apple's contracts with the publishers reputedly contain a maximum e-book pricing table for titles that are also available in print.
The table is a bit complex, but for most titles available in hardcover but not softcover, e-book pricing is limited to around 1/2 of the hardcover price. You might have noticed that most hardcover fiction has gone up from $25.99 to $27.99... might that have been related to the e-book price cap being $12.99 and $14.99 at those respective hardcover prices?
Conceivably, the settling publishers could raise their e-book prices as soon as the Apple contracts are dead, even before voiding the Most Favored Nation clauses with other e-book sellers. Remember that before the Agency Model hit, e-books were list-priced the same as hardcovers. It could happen again. I doubt it, but it could.
It's also possible that freed of Apple's pricing tyranny, hardcovers could slip back down to $25.99. I'll be on the lookout for flying pigs.
The other thing nobody's talked about: prior to the Agency Model, all three of the settling publishing houses, plus Macmillan, had announced plans to "window" e-book releases to be later than the hardcover releases (probably about six months later, but they didn't say). Now that could happen.
Susan - I'm not sure, but I think publishers were originally selling their e-books to retailers for the same price as hardcover. They dropped their price for Apple, which meant they made less overall.
Nathan - this is a great summary! I could be wrong, but when I see the confusing settlement, I see a lobbiest war. A tug of war between the Amazon and Apple/publisher lobbies.
It's interesting that anyone opposes this DOJ lawsuit. I know they think they are supporting the publishing industry, but they are supporting a "solution" which is unethical and illegal.
There were other solutions that were legal and didn't bilk readers (collectively) out of millions.
There is a reason several States are also suing these publishers.
Why I support the DOJ suit:
1. Collusion is ILLEGAL. And for good reason. It is opening a very dangerous door to give a pass on corporate collusion just because you happen to agree with their goals.
2. Amazon cornered the market not because it has deep pockets, and can discount, but because it's innovative and came out with things first. An innovative creative company should not be punished in a capitalistic society.
I wonder if Amazon is considering suing the publishers. It lost millions over this.
3. Do you know who has really deep pockets? APPLE. Apple could easily compete with discounting. It choose to go another route, because it didn't have the customer base. Imho, that is cheating.
There were other solutions, other paths that could have been explored.
4. In order to create fake conditions that would hamper Amazon so that other companies could catch up, this collusion cost customers (collectively) millions.
5. It also cost writers money. Publishers, in choosing to make less money, also made their authors less money, something that has never been mentioned in any article I've read about this. Certainly Turow from the Author's guild never mentioned it.
I think writers should consider sueing publishers over their losses.
Okay, so those are my thoughts. Thanks Nathan for the great summary and the interesting discussion!
Oh, also, Nathan, the book launch last night was terrific! Great food spread, lots of really nice people and a fun discussion. The chapters you read were really funny, too. It was great fun - thanks! :)
Anonymous said, on 4/14/2012 10:57:00 AM
Joe Konrath and Barry Eisler had some great points about the DOJ lawsuit:
Thanks for your hardwork at keeping us informed, Nathan.
Perhaps a bit of poetic justice and self-correction is upon the publishing industry. I think we can all agree its needed for several reasons.
As a constant reader, I will never give up my hard-print books - electronics devices and the sand & pool don't mix. I can read for hours at a stretch but holding a device isn't as comfortable as a paperback, not to mention my eyes prefer to read on paper over the screen. I buy 80 paper/20 E and don't see it changing.
As an emerging writer, super low cost books (.99) are disheartening. Several months of time, heart and soul go into writing great stories.
But, at the same time, how much does it cost to produce an Ebook? I think the net profit ratios for hard-print should apply to Ebooks, with a bare minimum of $2.99.
Thanks for your hardwork at keeping us informed, Nathan.
Perhaps a bit of poetic justice and self-correction is upon the publishing industry. I think we can all agree its needed for several reasons.
As a constant reader, I will never give up my hard-print books - electronics devices and the sand & pool don't mix. I can read for hours at a stretch but holding a device isn't as comfortable as a paperback, not to mention my eyes prefer to read on paper over the screen. I buy 80 paper/20 E and don't see it changing.
As an emerging writer, super low cost books (.99) are disheartening. Several months of time, heart and soul go into writing great stories.
But, at the same time, how much does it cost to produce an Ebook? I think the net profit ratios for hard-print should apply to Ebooks, with a bare minimum of $2.99.
Napster changed the music industry. Those music tycoons refused to change and therfore bled millions. Then Itunes came along and the bleeding stopped. Well, it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Books are not going to go away, but ebooks are here to stay and they're going to become more popular and soon easier to create and therefore should become cheaper.
If publishers do not adapt quick enough, they will get hit harder than the music industry.
You cannot sit by and a act like nothing should change. Change will happen either with you guiding it your way or without you.
In many ways the ebook pricing allegations of the DOJ against the big publishing houses is very indicative and a representation of the traditional publishing houses unwillingness to change. Since the advent of ebooks, the big publishing houses have, in my opinion, chosen an ostrich like position. What the DOJ and many fail to mention is that the big publishing houses are doing very little in the way of increasing author royalties when it comes to ebooks. Publishers do make more on ebooks with very little overhead. Ebooks for their most successful authors are cash cows in many respects. There's been a significant amount of discourse in RWA circles as many big name authors chose to publish their backlists in ebook format without the big publishers. Very interesting time in the publishing world to bare witness to as power shifts more and more into the hands of authors.
The Department of Justice actually told the publishing houses that they don’t have to lower their eBook prices. They simply are not allowed to break the law by colluding together to set the same high prices. There was quite a bit of evidence that representatives of the publishing houses named in the lawsuit met together to decide on the prices and that Apple agreed to sell eBooks at those prices. In telling the publishing houses that they do not have to sell books at low prices, the DOJ warned them that, if they set high prices, it better not involve any collusion.
There is a myth that Amazon’s average eBook price is extremely low. That’s not true. The average price of Amazon’s eBooks turns out to be $6.49, according to one study. In addition, Amazon originally wanted to sell the eBooks from the big publishing houses at $9.99 each, but the big publishing houses refused such “low” prices. Also, there’s a law that, when retailers discount items, they must pay a certain overall amount to the companies whose items they’re discounting. Amazon went above and beyound that – they offered to make up the difference on every single $9.99 eBook and give that difference to the publishers.
Amazon understands the digital age really well. They know how to utilize algorithms to figure out what readers want, what books are selling, what passages readers are highlighting in their Kindle books, etc. While traditional publishers are trying to defend the old-fashioned way of doing things, Amazon’s using modern technology. In addition to successfully selling eBooks, Amazon has also opened up a program for movie scripts with short-term options and generous payments to authors. While the publishing industry expends an awful lot of energy bashing Amazon, Amazon’s just moving ahead changing the way in which things are done. Every publishing house is welcome to hire tech experts to develop a more modern way of selling eBooks – that’s not against the law. Eventually, they probably will do that, but only after fighting change tooth and nail and blaming Amazon for their failures and frustrations.
Jeff Bezos has also started a company for space exploration; and that company, “Blue Origin,” has already located the Apollo 11 rocket engines on the ocean floor: Jeff Bezos Plans to Recover Apollo 11 Rocket Engines from Ocean Floor. He’s an innovator, and that is very threatening to businesses that don’t want to modernize but want to continue making the huge amounts of money they made in an earlier era of technology. I doubt the horse and buggy businesses welcomed the automobile industry with open arms.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the last tome of a hardcover that I lugged around on vacation. It took up seemingly half my suitcase and weighed a ton, but because it wasn't available in e-book form and because I don't believe in piracy, I carried that thing across the country.
Now I'm thrilled to have the entire Harry Potter series resting weightlessly within my iPad.
As you have likely heard, Harry Potter is available in e-book form. And not just in e-book form, but available only through Pottermore, the digital extension of the Harry Potter brand. No other e-book vendor has it for sale, including the e-book behemoths like Amazon, B&N and iBooks. And the e-books are published by Rowling herself.
Yeah, wow.
Why This is a Big Deal
J.K. Rowling just did an entire end-around on the entire publishing world in many, many ways.
Most of the focus has been on how these are for sale only from the author, and rightly so. Even Amazon is playing ball, listing the books for sale but referring people to Pottermore to make the purchase.
And the manner in which these e-books are being distributed is revolutionary. They're being sold without DRM but with digital watermarks to guard against piracy. Each purchaser has 8 digital copies they can download in various formats, and it's very easy to convert to the most popular devices. I had the e-books on my iPad within minutes.
The approach to DRM is, ironically enough, extremely similar to my earlier post on what good a good approach to DRM would look like - you can convert the files to any device and you have a sufficient number of copies for yourself and others... Only there's no DRM. Ha! 10 points for Gryffindor.
So let's talk about this. No publisher. The author as e-distributor. No DRM.
Rowling has certainly woken people up to this possibility. After all, in a Google world do you really have to have a central vendor? If people go looking for a book can't they get it just as easily from going to the author's site as they do from Amazon or iBooks?
Did the game just change for everyone?
Why This Isn't a Big Deal
My opinion? Yeah... not so much.
There is basically one author in the world who can pull this off. And she's the one who is doing it.
Okay, there may be a few more. But in order for this to work in 2012, an author has to build an entire distribution platform themselves that is compatible with different e-book formats. They have to draw people to that site and handle financial transactions and customer service and all the other million things that go along with selling stuff. It takes massive scale.
If I were to try to pull this off as a self-publisher, even on a smaller scale, I'd still miss out on being discovered by people who hadn't heard of me but were recommended within the e-book stores, where the majority of people will be looking
27 Comments on Why the Harry Potter E-books Are and Aren't a Really Big Deal, last added: 4/2/2012
I agree. I sell my eBooks direct from my own web site in all formats, but most people click on the Amazon or B&N link to buy them from the known entity.
You're totally right. As wonderful as it sounds in theory, it's not for the average Joe. It's hard enough self-publishing as it is, but to put the extra pressure on yourself to draw customers to your own website would mean having to give up your day job. And we all know we can't afford to do that! JK is great though, for making this leap. I'm definitely cheering her on!
The thing is, publishers developed naturally in the marketplace for a reason. Booksellers developed naturally in the marketplace for a reason. "Power to the author" is a thrilling message to a certain extent, and there are certainly times and places that the publishing and distribution process could be improved, but do away with traditional publishers AND booksellers completely?
I just don't see it happening. People LIKE having others take care of business for them, and will happy exchange part of their revenue for the overall increase in sales numbers that come with traditional publishers and distributors.
You'll notice that, while Rowling is distributing Potter independently, she's still going 100% traditional with her adult book. I'm just saying.
What Rowling has done is super cool, but it was lightening in a bottle. First, she still held digital rights. No one else had the right to publish Harry Potter eBooks. That was a function of timing because publishers weren't negotiating for those rights when she started out so she had the ability to refuse them later.
A debut author won't have that kind of clout in traditional publishing. And a self-pub is very unlikely to have the kind of success that the Harry Potter books generated.
I'm sure it will happen, somebody else will pull it off, but it will be a ton of work and require some luck, too.
Anonymous said, on 3/29/2012 7:58:00 AM
Oh, a vendor that makes it easy and cheap will emerge. It may take a couple years, but there will be a platform.
" and it's very easy to convert to the most popular devices."
And that's why this venture will fail. Rowling is an anomaly with a built in fanbase who may go to the trouble of converting.
(Pretty much) any other author won't. Nor should customers have to jump through any hoops whatsoever to make a purchase. Converting from one format to another? And put up with the inevitable formatting errors just so you can enjoy your purchase? 99% of people won't.
If you want to sell to people make it cheap, make it good quality and make it EASY.
Harry Potter is a life of its own so isn't a great example. No-one else will be able to sell a book and say "convert it to work on device X"
Tiffany said, on 3/29/2012 8:03:00 AM
JK should open up her pub house and help other YA authors with same plan.
Stephen King should take on the horror and mystery genre with a pub house of his own... And so on!
The authors with enough money and manpower to do create a world where authors get more percentage back...wow. It would really change things.
Amazon's boots would be dust from so much shaking.
But actually, Craig, it isn't just "easy to convert" the Potter e-books; it's seamless. I didn't have to jump through any hoops. I just hit "download Kindle book" and I was good to go.
But JKR has the money and clout to hire people to handle this enterprise for her. That's what I see as the big difference between her and the rest of us. I barely have time to do the promotion that I should for my novel, and I'm signed with a traditional publisher (Simon & Schuster). The last thing I want is to branch into this end of the business--though I think it's fabulous that some writers can!
I think your post is spot on. The few people in the world who could sell their books completely on their own are Stephen King, Stephanie Meyer and J.K. Rowing. The list excludes even lots of people that have made the best seller list. I was at an indie store for the tour of Maggie Stiefvater's Linger which debuted on the bestsellers list. A guy at the store asked me why there were so many people here. I told him and he asked who Maggie was. So I told him. He hadn't heard of the book either. I recommended he check out another book she'd written. The point is if someone in the YA section of a bookstore hadn't heard of Maggie until this conversation, there is no way a mid-lister could survive without centralized vending.
10 points to Gryffindor? You know it was a Ravenclaw who came up with this! :D
Maya said, on 3/29/2012 9:25:00 AM
Agree with Claire!
Wouldn't it be cool if JK decided to share her platform, and enter the publishing business as a more open competitor to Amazon? As an author herself, you'd think she would run her business differently, with a greater emphasis on helping authors and less on cornering the market.
Good, interesting post, fascinating topic, and I think you raise some really good points, Nathan.
I both agree and semi-disagree with you. I think in the near future, what you're saying makes sense. The infrastructure doesn't exist that would support authors striking out on their own unless they have a strong following and financial backing/support or personal funds.
But that doesn't mean such an infrastructure couldn't develop. Right now, sales are centralized, but that doesn't have to be the norm.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that authors selling from their own website could become the standard, with referral sites and other services to support it.
Referral sites are developing. Readers want to find good books, and places like Goodreads will continue to thrive in the digital enviornment, helping direct readers to books they want to read.
It's not that big of a step to then direct readers to the author's website to buy the book.
Whether it will happen or not is a very big question, and one I've wondered about. The internet is incredibly powerful. It gives authors much more autonomy than I think many people may be taking in, including those authors themselves.
If Amazon or others began treating authors in a shabby fashion, authors could choose to find other sales platforms, or even unite through the internet and create sales platforms of their own.
Someone above mentioned Amazon shaking in their boots. I not so sure. Amazon sells many items other than books. But also, Amazon appears to be smart enough to stop a trend like this by making their services too attractive to authors to pass up, if it happens.
But you never know! I could be wrong about all of the above. It truly is fascinating to watch this all unfold!
I really could have used this a month-and-a-half ago when I finished The Order of the Phoenix and had to wait a whole day to go to a local indie bookstore and buy Half-Blood Prince.
Not that I mind supporting the indie store, who stocks my book THE MAN IN THE CINDER CLOUDS, but I didn't want to wait a whole 14 hours to keep reading....
You know, I have wondered many times why, if the Big 6 don't like the way Amazon prices their book, they don't simply stop selling books through Amazon? Yes, I know, the answer is "Because Amazon is the biggest book-mover in the world." But it's rather a self-fulfilling prophecy, because they wouldn't be the biggest if the publishers stopped sending them books to sell. If someone wants James Patterson, and Amazon doesn't have it, they will go to whoever does have it. As Nathan pointed out, with the internet it's easy to find the products you want, wherever they may be sold.
So I could easily envision a book world where the Big 6 and maybe even other indie presses, create their own distribution system, bypassing Amazon (and anyone else they choose), and Amazon becomes the bastion of the self-published and other indie press authors.
But I do agree that most authors will not have the time, money, or inclination to be creator, publisher, seller, and everything else that comes along with it. Most of us already are stretched thin juggling the writing and marketing we are supposed to do now--oh, yeah, and the demands of our non-writing life, too. I know it's not what I would want to do!
This may not be the answer, but I bet it started a few wheels and gears turning. I can see this pushing new ideas and new innovations. People will riff on this and find new forms and models, I'm guessing. A really big butterfly just flapped its wings.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the effect of this on MG e-books in particular. Of course, there are lots of MG kids reading ebooks already. Will this boost e-reader usage amongst MG readers? Will that have a salutary effect on the bottom line for traditional publishers of MG e-books? What about self-pub MG e-books? My feeling is that yes, it will boost e-reader ownership amongst the kidlets, but that was coming anyway. And I don't think it will have much impact on self-pub MG ebooks until the kidlets themselves start browsing and discovering e-books on Amazon (vs. through parents, teachers, librarians, and other gatekeepers).
In my opinion, we authors are overlooking the most important key to selling books independently on a massive scale. Like Nathan said, we need to find Time Turners.
I think we're overlooking two fundamentals. One, Laurel has mentioned: JKR holds the digital rights to all of her books. And, two, which is the more important thing, she wrote a story that has inspired and captivated the imagination of nearly half a billion readers; with new readers are on the way.
It will just be time before this series is pirated, unfortunately. I visited a relative this last weekend and he's an intelligent man who loves his iPad and couldn't wait to tell me his latest find, 5000 full text contemporary books of his favorite authors...he's a spy thriller guy.. on one CD to upload to his iPad, pirated! I expressed my displeasure in defense of all those authors whose royalties were also pirated and told him to keep the CD because I wasn't interested in defense of writers. And anyways, I still like paperback books to highlight, write in, dog ear, and share with someone else.
Anonymous said, on 3/30/2012 12:52:00 AM
I think the big deal is when all the best selling authors walk away from their publishers and do this.
What will publishers think if James Patterson does this next? Stephen King has already played in this pool. Will he go back and try again?
If the big publishers bread and butter authors walk out the door because they have name recognition, what will the big publishers do? Will they start appreciating their mid-list authors? Oh, wait, they have moved onto self-publishing.
The dominoes can topple pretty fast.
Of course, authors can also do print on demand to create print copies to go along with their eBook distribution channel.
To be picky, Rowling didn't "build an entire distribution platform ... that is compatible with different e-book formats." She wrote a check to OverDrive to have her e-bookstore hosted on their MIDAS system.
The point still stands, though. Few authors are in the position to do that, and they'd still need to pull readers in to their personal sites.
Heck, even the big publishing houses don't bother to have dedicated e-book stores. There are few titles that have enough pull to get readers to bounce around the Web to buy them. The e-book stores still provide a useful intermediary service.
I'm new to the writing business, having yet to be published, but I was an active stock investor and trader back in the 1990s during the internet bubble. I see direct parallels between the internet stocks then and the publishing world now.
Back in the day, it seemed like a new technology and/or a new company was bursting onto the scene on a weekly basis. Some of those "great idea, can't miss" ideas and companies survived. Google, Amazon.com, Yahoo! and the like survived. But for every success story I estimate there were 100 great ideas that sizzled, then fizzled.
It became almost comical to watch investors scramble from one great idea to the next, to the next, to the next, convinced that each one was a sure thing.
The publishing business seems to be shaking out in the same way. One week it's Amanda Hocking going straight to self-publishing, the next it's authors giving away ebooks for free in order to generate sales of other books. The next week it's a race to zero with ebook prices to see if there is a reasonable minimum price that can be established. Etc., etc.
Now JK Rowling is doing an end run around Amazon.com. Will she prevail? Will other authors follow her lead? Will book buyers stay with Amazon.com? Or will something else come along even better?
Maybe ebooks and ereaders aren't even the end of the continuum. Who knows, some tech genius might invent reading glasses that actually project text onto special lenses so one won't even need a Nook or Kindle. You might turn pages by voice command or looking from far right to far left.
All the new developments are interesting and exciting to consider, but I for one won't be in a rush to decide which technology, sales method, platforms, or marketing schemes will still be around in 10 years. After all, didn't everyone use to think that MySpace would revolutionize social media? Where are they now?
For decades time stood still in publishing, nothing changing. Then the quantum shift in the industry opened the exciting potential for writers to become publishers. I was so excited to be involved in a fledgling indie press but found out quickly how much it sucks to be a publisher. Now, after doing it for a few years, I realized that it really, really, really sucks. Managing websites, email mailing lists, formatting, editing, it all sucks. I would love to be just a writer again with a pen and a yellow legal pad. Unfortunately, this is what it takes to be a writer now.
I often wondered why we hadn't seen more big name authors bail on publishers and do it all themselves. Even in the old school printing press technology, someone with the resources of Stephen King could easily be their own publisher. I think it comes back to the universal truth, being a publisher sucks more than being a writer. Even indy star, Amanda Hocking, went the big pub route citing the luxury of having people to do all the publishing BS for her.
There is a great reward to finding a manuscript, making it into a book and bringing to the people. I know there are publishers who enjoy the work. I don't. I just want to write.
I know a commercially publisher writer who is leaving her publisher to self publish. It was not just a money issue but a service issue. Royalty payments were chronically late, the pub had more books than they could effectively promote and support. The author had built up some name recognition so she was already on the shelves of the stores. Despite the extra work, she made the decision to strike out on her own. Like so many choices in life, it comes down to what sucks less.
I agree with you. Personally, I find all the changes and brand new choices in publishing quite exciting. And I'm delighted that there are now HARRY POTTER eBooks!
Hey, so I just went to Pottermore and bought the first three books. I wanted to share my reaction.
I noticed that I loved buying the books from J.K herself. It made me feel close to her. I was totally willing to give her my money. And I usually worry alittle about my credit card, but I found myself thinking, J.K. would NEVER mess me over and steal my card.
Huh.
That's not usually how I feel when I buy on Amazon. Just thought I'd share that.
I think this is a wise approach. Business is business, if I were JR, I'd go exactly the same way. I appreciate her crative work because these are only her books and free crossword puzzle maker that can make my kids sit still
In order to understand why this is a big deal, here's a brief recap of what led us here (this summary is described in greater detail in my post Why Some E-Books Cost More Than the Hardcover).
Wholesale vs. Agency
At the time Amazon kicked off the modern e-book market with the introduction of the Kindle, e-books were sold according to the traditional wholesale model. Essentially, publishers set a cover price and they got half, the bookseller got half. If a book was listed at $25, publishers got $12.50 on an e-book sale, the bookseller got $12.50.
Problem was from publishers' perspective, Amazon was selling some e-books at $9.99 and taking a loss on those sales, all the while locking readers into their proprietary format. Not only did this devalue what consumers felt a book "should" cost, publishers were worried that competitors wouldn't be able to enter the e-book space because they wouldn't be able to compete with Amazon's prices. No competitors would mean a virtual monopoly for Amazon, and publishers were presumably concerned about Amazon's ability to then dictate terms.
Along comes Apple and the iPad. Steve Jobs talked the publishers into the agency model - publishers set their own prices and they get 70% of the proceeds.
The irony is that the agency model actually meant publishers received less money per copy sold. Napkin math for wholesale: $25 cover price, they got $12.50. Agency: Price that e-book at $14.99 and they get $10.50.
Publishers then turned around and imposed that agency deal on Amazon, which is the subject of the DOJ investigation. The end result: There really is more competition in the e-book world, but prices are higher than they likely would be if Amazon and others were able to discount as they saw fit.
Competing on Price
I don't presume to know what the end result of the current discussions will be and it appears that there are a range of possible outcomes. But if it ends up meaning the end of the agency model this will have massive, massive repercussions across the book business.
Up until now, conscious or not, consumers have grown accustomed to the idea that e-books cost what they cost. The decision of what e-reader to buy or which app to read on has largely been driven by user experience preferences.
Do you like the feel of the nook? The ease of the Kindle app? The pretty iBooks page animation? Those are the decisions people have been basing their decisions on - the reading and buying experience.
But if the agency model is dismantled in whole or in part and Amazon and others can go back to pricing as they see fit, suddenly price is going to be at the forefront of consumer choice.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Amazon and their deep pockets are going to have a big advantage in that environment.
Who wins?
The irony of returning to the wholesale model is that publishers may actually make more money per e-book copy sold even as prices go down for consumers.
This sounds like a win win for publishers, but it ignores the big losers: traditional bookstores, wh
55 Comments on Why the DOJ's Potential Lawsuit Over the Agency Model is a Really Big Deal, last added: 3/19/2012
I so appreciate being educated on how all of this works by this post and your previous one about the agency model.
I also think the decline of print is inevitable, and while it makes me sad in some ways (who doesn't love an indy bookstore?), I'm optimistic that the benefits of ebooks (esp to the environment) will make up for the loss of print.
One of the things that's been fun for me about ebooks (and, I admit, Amazon in particular) is the rise of the self-pubbed author.
Don't get me wrong, I still LOVE traditional publishing. There's no doubt there are many, many advantages to it, for the reader and the author. But I also love that someone can write a book--especially one with a niche market--get it out there, and make some money.
Any ideas on how this decision will impact self-pubs?
I prefer Publishers stick with their Agency pricing because, as Mike Shatzkin notes, as an indie author it gives me great leverage to price my eBooks between $2.99 and $4.99.
The reality is, print will continue to shrink and Turow does not represent the majority of authors, but rather those privileged few that are treated like royalty by publishers. That is why the term "authors guild" is an oxymoron. The Authors Guild no more looks out for the majority of authors than publishers do.
Personally, I think good books are worth more than what they often cost (as e-books) right now. For example, I would always be willing to pay more for a good book than I would for the price of admission to a good movie.
The trouble is, how do you know for sure if a book is good before you pay? That's part of why the 0.99 and 2.99s are so tempting.
Anonymous said, on 3/15/2012 7:40:00 AM
Let this retarded agency model die. Readers pay more. Writers make less. And publishers get to gloat over messing with Amazon's pricing. Cut the agency model's head freakin' head off.
Yesterday, I went looking for a Neal Stephenson book to buy for my Kindle. They were all priced way too high, around $10 a book.
Tomorrow, I'm going to a used book store to buy one of his books. I really have a hard time spending $10 on an eBook.
They've colluded for decades. They seem to think they can fix prices, royalty percentages and all be HQ'd in one town and somehow it's not collusion. I don't mind paying $9.99 for an e-book, when it rises above that, it begins to chafe. I can lend a book. I can donate it to my library, or sell it at a used bookstore. When I buy an e-book I am licensing the content and due to DRM and I can rarely lend it. And the majority of books will be read once. So the e-book, in exchange for convenience, gives you less than a physical book. It should be priced lower than a physical book.
The mass market paperback is being phased out so they can charge $12-18 vs. $8-10, when the books (according to a friend who works for Macmillan) cost the same to make, whether it is hardcover, trade or mass paper. There is a cost savings with e-books, even though they do cost money to properly design. This should be reflected in the price.
I want the big publishers to survive and thrive. To do that, they will have to enter the 20th century, maybe the 21st. They are fighting change tooth and nail.
Example- I'd buy more hardcovers if I got an unlock code for the e-book with it. Even if it had DRM. (As long as it's not that Adobe Digital Editions crap, and I can read it on my e-reader.) That's one easy way to get me to pay $15-30 for a book, publishers.
Vinyl records often come with a CD or a link to a free digital download. Wise up.
This may be the first post where someone has claimed that readers will be the winners. Most arguments for or against [agency model|self publishing|Amazon|etc] start off with, "Who's going to suffer? Readers!" No one ever really explains how readers will suffer, beyond vague claims of decrease in product quality.
Regardless, from what little I understand of how publishers pushed the "agency model" on Amazon, it's essentially price fixing. Which, as I understand it, is illegal.
I think I agree with most of your analysis and conclusions. It seems we both believe that, ultimately, innovation-friendly markets lead to better consumer experience.
I think my biggest worry is the future for authors. If authors make less and less per book, at what point do we start losing authors who decide that spending years on a book, only to receive pennies on every sale, is no longer worth the effort?
Certianly, most authors already have a day job as well as write. I don't see this changing as the prices fall. Falling ebook prices will also favor those authors who have the time, money, and talent to be tremendous marketers.
I worry that economic pressure will push those authors who today are midlist authors but not natural marketers out of the market altogether, leaving us with the powerhouse marketers/authors and those publishing for "fun" who don't really care how much money they make.
I guess I'm in the minority as someone who is deeply concerned about the potential monopoly developing with Amazon, and who thinks that consumers - and readers - should define "choice" as more than just "cheap." What is going on now is a truly disturbing consolidation of power in our literary culture, and I'm disappointed at how many in the tech press seem to think this is no big deal.
Well, I never accepted an e-book should cost more than a paperback. They cost the publisher less, I cant get them signed, & I cant donate them when Im done. I wont pay more than $10
Competition is not the same as low prices. And tactics aren't the same as strategy.
Using low prices as a tactic in order to destroy competition is a powerful strategy. Do we really want to have Amazon be the only e-publisher and the only e-bookseller? What do you think will happen to prices once that happens?
For the traditionally-published mid-list writer, Amazon's "$9.99 bestseller" pricing was a big problem. Who's going to buy a $15.99 e-book written by a relative unknown when they can pick up a Big Name bestseller for $9.99?
There are way more aspects to this issue than "publishers raising prices". And there is, of course, no solution that optimizes everything.
Fascinating topic, and I completely agree that this is a big deal!
Thanks for pointing out the benefit to the reader! That's so true! Great point.
However, I disagree with the point about writers, Nathan.
I guess I think indie writers will be able to continue their pricing strategies. Indies are giving books away for free or discounting them to a dollar as a marketing tactic. Legacy publishers would be smart to consider doing the same thing, but their pockets aren't deep enough to compete on the same level, so I believe indie authors will still be able to stand out.
In terms of authors being impacted by the shrinking pie, it's true that authors who are locked in with traditional legacy publishers at low royalty rates will suffer, but - this is an intense thing to say, but I think it's true - they are suffering anyway.
Honestly, I'm frustrated with authors who sign up with traditional publishers and just take the terms offered to them. Where is our backbone as writers? We need to advocate for ourselves, and instead we just sort of roll over and let publishers run all over us. Enough already.
So yes, legacy authors will lose if publishers lose, but from my perspective they're not getting much to begin with, so they're not going to lose much more. Writers need to stop turning over their power, and if they continue to do so, they will get breadcrumbs no matter what system there is.
That's what I believe anyway.
In terms of publishers, it is simply not okay that they are trying to slow down the transition to e-books by these tactics. It's understandable that they are trying, but it's illegal for good reason. Corporations should not be allowed to tell the consumer what the consumer can and can not buy.
Finally, in terms of deep pockets, Apple has much deeper pockets than Amazon, and I really see Apple as Amazon's primary competitor.
I don't usually say this when the DOAnything has to get involved, but -- Yaay.
Yaay because if the media does its job, Publishers and Booksellers both, will have to respond to other matters of the public's confusion and dissatisfaction.
If and when (closer to the latter) I buy a reader, I want to be able to shop any bookseller -- there's a lawsuit I'd like to see.
I'm not for anything that helps Amazon with its monopoly attempt, but I'm also not for big companies price fixing. I'm for free market and consumer choice.
As an indie author, I'm a bit concerned about price lowering for the 'big' guys that could make indies less competitive. On the other hand, if they price lower, it makes us look more on the same scale when we price low. There's a little chip in the human brain that says cheap equals lower quality, so indies who price so cheap are saying they aren't worth as much. Often that's true. From what I've seen, too often it's true.
If indies want to be competitive, they should worry more about book quality and less about pricing cheap.
Amazon is the Walmart of stores. *shrug* Many people will go there for cheap while others will go elsewhere for appeal. We don't all have kindles, or want one. We don't all have iPads and such that can use a kindle app. That means we buy elsewhere. (I only buy ebooks I can put on my Sony Reader, and I will not spend $10 on an ebook that I can wait and get in paperback for $7-8 or less. I sure won't pay $15 or more!) Those booksellers who want to compete will open their formats to make it easier for readers to read their ebooks on whatever they please. That's their advantage. They need to grab it.
I predict that any change to the current pricing mess will ultimately drive technical innovation in the publishing industry. Not necessarily innovation for the end-user, but innovation on the back end.
The reason I suspect that print publishers are clinging to their current business models that support print publishing is that they have no (or little, or insufficient) back-end infrastructure to support ebooks. Servers, system administrators, software to support the b-to-b needs (distribution, etc), technical support staff. I think the reason why Amazon scares publishers is because they already have much of this in place.
Granted, I'm a software engineer who has worked for 15 years (gulp) in engineering and IT, designing and configuring this kind of thing for other industries. When I started writing fiction and learning about publishing, I was horrified to hear that many editors want paper printouts of manuscripts (sometimes in Courier font). That edits are sometimes done by hand. In ink. That you should "never" use italics in a manuscript because a typesetter (presumably a human typesetter) can easily miss them.
The business process changes needed are huge, and probably cost a lot at the outset. For a start-up digitial-first publishing "company" of just a couple of people, its not a big deal. For a corporation of hundreds (maybe thousands) of employees and existing processes and business culture, its massive.
I sympathize with the publishers, although I don't agree with their choices the past few years. In the end I think the winners will be the ones who embrace change, not the ones who fight it.
Thank you for providing a description of the process that's easy to understand for those of us not versed in legalese. I'm also pleased (I guess?) to see somebody agree with my thoughts that readers would probably benefit, at least price-wise. Given my interest in publishing, though, I'm not sure how worth it this will be overall. It'll be interesting to see what happens. It's something of a scary time to be a writer, but every era is filled with its uncertainties.
I posted about this on my blog, but it deserves comment wherever I see it.
I believe the loss of agency model will have some serious effects, spoken of already. Readers and Amazon are the only winners here. Authors across the spectrum will lose to varying degrees. Publishers will lose. Bookstores will lose.
No matter the winner, I have a difficult time supporting anything that benefits Amazon's predatory pricing practices. More annoyed the DoJ isn't going after them as well, because beefing up Amazon's ability undercut every bookseller out there is the last thing we really need to be doing. This isn't free market competition, it's a financial behemoth using it's massive resources to destroy competition.
And my biggest issue with this is that Amazon doesn't give one iota about books, whereas booksellers do. Amazon is not in the business of selling story. Amazing literature or total crap, it's all the same to them. Books are a meaningless widget to them, a sale item to get the consumer in the door. It's a gateway product, meant to entice you in to buy other things. I imagine they could discount books down to zero and still come out ahead due to the money spent by consumers drawn in through books.
I read books, and I like to spend as little as I have to, but I'm also an author, and seeing my work, the hours upon hours work, pouring my creativity into a story get turned into a meaningless item to wave at consumers, really, really bothers me.
Don't get me wrong. I want as many people to read my stories as possible. I like having people read them. It's very satisfying to know that my work is appreciated, that I can bring a few hours entertainment to several thousand readers. But I don't want to do it at the expense of the art of storytelling. Art is far to significant a cultural element to be relegated to the bargain bin at the dollar store. It's worth more than the cup of coffee bought to sip on while reading it.
So, regardless of who benefits or what those benefits might end up being, these economic forces that are driving book values toward zero are just wrong.
"Art is far to[o] significant a cultural element to be relegated to the bargain bin at the dollar store. It's worth more than the cup of coffee bought to sip on while reading it."
Doug, I like Jim and think he's smart, but I think both of you may be misunderstanding something here about authors and money.
Let me give it a shot.
First, Amazon pricing something at 9.99 is not giving it away for free, and that's what Amazon was doing prior to the agency model.
Second, self-publishers are the ones pricing their books for free or at a dollar cost. Most do this temporarily as a marketing tactic. In addition, more money is made this way due to Volume of units sold. The concept behind lowering the price of books is to sell more and therefore make more. For example, Amanda Hocking sold her book for about a buck, sold a million of them, and made a million (details not accurate, but close enough).
Also, in terms of predatory pricing, Apple is well able to compete with Amazon and lower their prices as well. They will, if the agency model is over-turned.
In terms of bookstores, I agree with Nathan in the post, the decline of print is inevitable. It has nothing to do with Amazon or Apple, and everything to do with the e-reader itself.
Finally, if you are interested in making money as an author, it is really important to examine royalty rates. Legacy publishers lock in e-book royalty rates at 17% whereas Amazon offers royalty rates at 70%.
I don't know if legacy publishers really care about books or not. I also don't know if Amazon cares about books or not - just because they price them lower doesn't mean they disdain them. I think these are assumptions.
Although if you do use price as a measure of caring, I think it's safe to say that legacy publishers, with their outrageously low royalty rates, couldn't give a fig about the authors on their list, with the small exception of best-selling authors like Turow.
Maya said, on 3/15/2012 12:11:00 PM
Currently, choice is also influenced heavily by price, not necessarily solely by taste. Publishers were keeping the price of ebooks artificially inflated. Why should an ebook ever cost more than a physical book, when ebooks have no printing or distribution costs? Right now price swings toward physical books, but if the DOJ wins their case, consumers driven by price will be more likely to buy ebooks--which only makes sense. Physical books and retailers will remain but economically they should cost more and cater to those who want to pay a premium for a physical book. Publishers have been afraid of the future (and so have I) but you can't stop the inevitable, and the inevitable is economics.
Maya said, on 3/15/2012 12:17:00 PM
Also, I'm no fan of Amazon either, but I'm not sure why people believe Amazon would be the only beneficiary of this change. I own a Nook, and I think a plethora of third party ereaders are in the market now. Yes, this will hurt physical bookstores, but I think a lot of internet companies may benefit.
Thanks for explaining it all. Personally I really like the printed book. I enjoy reading them and the fact that I can share them with others. That is a huge plus for me because I love sharing books with my daughter and giving them away on my blog.
And lots of kids who are poorer are not going to buy e-readers or e-books. So it's going to limit their choices of books.
I hope print books do not go away for those of us who like them. I'm willing to pay a bit more for them so I can share them legally.
Anonymous said, on 3/15/2012 12:27:00 PM
Maya, people say Amazon will be the only beneficiary, because it's the only company with the resources--and the proven desire--to eat losses on every ebook they sell to move more ereaders.
(Apple has the cash reserves to do so, but gauging by their entire history as a corporate entity, they have no interest in using loss leaders to push their products. Apple isn't Dell, and doesn't want to be Dell. And they have the numbers to back up that approach.)
If the agency model is disassembled, Amazon will go back to crushing all competitors with cheaper prices, and all those 3rd party e-bookstores and ereader manufacturers won't be able to match the prices Amazon can squeeze out of publishers.
Ereaders only became competitive after the switch to the agency model. Prior, there was the Kindle, and a swathe of niche readers with no penetration.
I'm sorry, Nathan, but your argument that price will become a factor in ebook purchases ignores the fact that price has ALWAYS been a factor. That's why Amazon did the $9.99 price in the first place.
This is yet another discussion based on on erroneous premise, which is that ebooks didn't exist until the Kindle appeared. Which is absolute rubbish. Hard Shell Word Factory was selling ebooks in 1996, and Ellora's Cave, the biggest publisher of ebook erotica and erotic romance in the US, started in 1999. And ebooks were priced between $3 and $8. And money was made by both publishers and authors, who received 40-50% of net sales.
Amazon knew this, because unlike the latecomers who followed them, and the traditional publishers who sneered at ebooks until they didn't dare to anymore, they did their homework. They had staff on Yahoo Groups and other places where ebook readers gathered, and they LISTENED when those readers said they wouldn't pay hardcover prices for ebooks. Ever.
So, the traditional publishers crying that selling ebooks for $10 and under will devalue the merchandise are just making up another excuse to cover up the fact they screwed up and ignored reality for nearly a decade. By which time, the value of ebooks had already taken root in the minds of many, and will not be dislodged because they once again are determined to bail out bookstores instead of letting them succeed or fail like any other business.
Because bookstores, too, could have set up to sell ebooks ages ago, but they, too, sneered and insisted nothing would ever take the place of those lovely pages and that wonderful new-book smell. Until it did.
Wow, Elizabeth, strong words. That's why I said the "modern" e-book era - sure, there were e-books for sale but they weren't being sold in large numbers. There were quite a few people trying to sell e-books in the years before the Kindle, but e-book sales were a tiny, tiny fraction of print until the Kindle.
Mira, I do understand the economics of it. There is money to be made the way things are now with some luck, perseverance, skill, resources, etc. We see stories all of the time about the rise out of obscurity for an author who didn't or couldn't get in through the legacy path. It's entirely possible I could be relegated to following that path. Some authors who weren't making it now are. This is a good thing as far as that goes. Writers deserve to be compensated for the work that they do, the stories they bring to people.
My issue is what the change is doing to the perception of books. My concern is that the future is driving public perception to believe that months worth of work, of creative enterprise, of several hours worth of sparked imagination, is only worth a buck or two.
It doesn't really matter to me that we can sell more copies and make more money selling at $.99 on our own over 17% royalties from a publisher. I'm not lamenting the loss of traditional publishing. There's problems for authors there too. What I am lamenting is the fact that this new environment is eroding the value of story, and Amazon is doing us no favors in this regard. It's not that I think Amazon disdains books. I just don't believe they see them as stories, of something valuable in and of itself, but a mere means to the end of drawing in consumers to buy stuff they will actually make money on. If they cared about making money on books, you would see an entirely different focus on how they go about selling them. You might actually see them attempting to cultivate an environment that makes consumers actually value them more, not less.
In the long term, I honestly don't see this change working out well for anyone. Because as the perceived value degrades toward zero, the creators of the product will lose interest in making them actually have any value. The art of story-telling will die a slow death.
I'm being a bit extreme here to make my point, but not by much. This DoJ thing is just the start of whole chain of issues that go nowhere good. Doom and gloom I know, but I don't see much positive here for the vast majority of authors.
Anonymous said, on 3/15/2012 6:45:00 PM
I don't see any difference between the big publishers and Amazon besides the fact that Amazon chose to innovate and the big published didn't. They are both in business to make money.
As for all the nonsense about Amazon being the big bad monopoly, I haven't seen any antitrust charges filed against Amazon. However, we did the DOJ file against the big publishers.
At the end of the day, Amazon pays authors more and wants to provide readers merchandise at good prices.
The big reason why print books cost so much is because the big publishers cannot manage their costs. Why should authors pay for bad management?
Amazon isn't the big, bad wolf. Stop letting the spin doctors make you think otherwise.
Fight the battle worth fighting: demand larger advances and larger royalties or move on!
I took down my first two posts, because they were harsh and a reflection of my troubled mood this morning. Sorry, Nathan.
I didn't give enough credit to this post. You do an extremely nice job of presenting complex material in a very understandble, balanced way. I completely agree with your conclusion that readers are the big winners, and I really appreciate your point that this is such a big deal. It is. And it's easy to miss that.
But if the agency model falls, everything will change, and I hadn't really thought about that before you pointed that out. So, thank you!
Jim - I think I understand your point. Let me know if I'm wrong, but it's not really about making money for you, it's the idea that a writer can work for three years on a story that then sells for a dollar.
I get it. I don't want that either.
But I guess I'm alittle more optimistic that as things fall out, there will be price scaling. In other words, a new author might charge a dollar for a book, but a well-known, sought after author could demand higher prices.
I also have faith in the corporate desire to make money. They may be willing to price a song at a buck, but to make that the default price for a book? I guess I don't see Amazon or anyone doing that. Good books are not as plentiful as good songs. They take tremendous skill to craft, and that skill is rare. I just don't think it would make sense for a corporation to devalue books to that level. They'd lose money.
I could be wrong, of course.
But again - it's not Amazon that's charging a dollar for a book. It's self-publishers. They are experimenting with pricing as a means to draw customers. Once they have a customer base, they tend to raise their prices.
I'm not going to argue about Amazon not valuing a story because they use business tactics - I still don't see how you get that conclusion, exactly, but what I do think Amazon doing is letting the writer take the driver's seat, which includes pricing their own books.
So, I appreciate the discussion because I respect you, Jim. One more thing, I guess sometimes I feel as though I just want to cheer people up. I think this is a wonderful time for authors and cause for celebration. And I like to convey my optimism about it. :)
I really have no idea what the future of books is going to look like, and that is both exhilirating and terrifying. What will we gain? What will we lose? It's a bit like playing Russian roulette for a million dollars and literary immortality. I just don't want to be the last one with the gun in my hand...
I just came back to read everyone's comments, and was particularly interested in some comments from people who were wondering about what the future of books will look like.
I think the original Star Trek series had it right. If any of you recall, in the episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," Gary Mitchell, played by Gary Lockwood was reading books on a monitor. Bingo, there is it.
BUT...
In another episode, "Court Martial" the lawyer who represented Kirk in his court martial trial was an old-fashioned dude, and he had no use for computers or reading books on monitors. He only read books that were real books, and he made that point very clear.
So, I think that digital formats are the future,like Star Trek envisioned in the sixties, but print books will still be available for those of us who prefer them.
And for that, I am grateful.
Anonymous said, on 3/16/2012 6:35:00 AM
Interesting. Eisler isn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Apple IS destroying the personal computer market with its introduction of the iphone and ipad. It makes me wonder what else he's got wrong...
The wholesale model doesn't make sense when it comes to electronic products because there isn't a physical product taking up warehouse space. The agency model makes much more sense with the sale of electronic products because there is no warehouse storage space limit on the number of ebooks you can sell.
Amazon uses the agency model to pay authors who self-publish through the Kindle Direct Publishing branch. Why would they complain about publishers asking for the same thing for their authors?
I've always thought that if publishers wanted control over the retail price, they should be selling retail instead of wholesale. Nothing was stopping them from being a vendor to Amazon's customers instead of Amazon - like the gazillion indy and small presses have done, upload it and price it themselves. It's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot to prohibit your distributors from promoting your product with discounts and such when it doesn't cost you a thing.
Understand that Amazon's purpose in pricing some books (primarily major bestsellers, certainly not all books) at $9.99 was not to sell more books. It was to lower the toughest barrier they had to get people to decide to buy a $300 device to read books: the fact that you still had to pay about the same amount for the actual book as if you hadn't bought the Kindle in the first place.
The "pricing war" was and is, in the case of both sides, about sales in a secondary arena.
Anonymous said, on 3/16/2012 10:56:00 AM
The main point has nothing to do with readers winning or losing. It's about justice. The main point of the DOJ investigation is whether or not *they* colluded and if anything illegal transpired. There are, and always have been, laws to protect consumers from things like this. And if the DOJ finds that it did happen, it's going to bring more than a few people back down to earth. Martha Stewart went to jail over nothing compared to this. I know small businesses that colluded in the same way to fix prices and they were fined heavily. If the allegations are true, someone needs to pay for it.
Sadly, I think this type of thinking is really short term. Returning to a wholesale model might benefit publishers and readers and authors in the short term, but it will consolidate the pricing power over the e-reading market into the hands of just a few key players. Once Amazon controls both the pricing on the content and the method of delivery, they will be able to force the publishers to accept less favorable terms. They'll be able to poach authors for their own publishing arm, thus turning their war on bookstores into a war on publishers. When they control most of the content and delivery systems, they'll systematically raise prices again.
I think that taking away a retailer's ability to price books as they see fit is the correct solution either, but any scenario that provides an avenue for one or two major players to eliminate the competition is bad for consumers in the long run. All you have to do is look at the telecom industry if you need an example. Because we lack real competition between the major wireless and internet providers, we lag behind many countries on price and speed. Allowing Amazon to control the pricing of the content so that they can dominate the delivery system will create that same kind of stagnation. Maybe not right away, but it will happen. History proves it.
Anonymous said, on 3/16/2012 2:42:00 PM
All makes sense except for the Amazon part. If Amazon is losing money on their pricing of books, they will end that pricing at some point. For a while, the taking the loss was logical, while they tried to lock people into the Kindle. I don't think there's much further to go with that. There are too many other readers out there, and the iPad.
Hi Nathan, thanks for the well-reasoned piece, and salute for focusing on what matters most: readers. One of the interesting things about arguments like Turow's is they all boil down to, "Sure, Amazon's low prices, high royalties, and high volume are good for readers and authors today, but we have to discard all that because if legacy publishers weren't around to thwart readers and mistreat authors, Amazon might do it instead!"
Which is a pretty strange way to look at the world. A species of "the devil you know" argument, I guess.
Anonymous said, with regard to my suggestion that if Amazon is "destroying" book selling, Apple must also be destroying computer selling:
"Apple IS destroying the personal computer market with its introduction of the iphone and iPad."
I guess that's one way to look at it -- that Apple is "destroying" computer selling by inventing innovative new products that consumers demonstrably want even more. This is in fact pretty close to what Turow is accusing Amazon of doing, though of course he can't say so plainly, because "Amazon is destroying traditional paper book infrastructure by inventing new ways to distribute and read books that consumers demonstrably want even more" just isn't a sufficiently scary sounding call to arms.
"It makes me wonder what else [Eisler] got wrong…"
As wrong as that? Pretty much everything, I hope... :)
"Amazon uses the agency model to pay authors who self-publish through the Kindle Direct Publishing branch. Why would they complain about publishers asking for the same thing for their authors?"
It's not Amazon complaining, it's the Department of Justice, and not about the agency model as such, but about collusion, instead.
BTW, Joe has an epic follow-up to a recent interview Turow did with Salon, an interview which made no more sense than did Turow's Authors Guild blog post.
Really. Are the big publishers spin doctors so good that their fearmongering has you convinced to throw Amazon to the fire?
It's classic redirection. They pay you less or spread your advances out and then tell you that Amazon will destroy publishing. Instead of being angry at the publishers for paying you less, you start blaming Amazon for your pay cut.
If Amazon is the big great monopoly, a term that gets thrown around a lot from publishers and crazy writers, then where's the antitrust lawsuits?
Also, think about what Turow is saying:
"Our concern about bookstores isn’t rooted in sentiment: bookstores are critical to modern bookselling."
Does this really make any sense?
It's like saying the horse and buggy are crucial for travel while the automotive becomes more promising every year. Eventually, people switched. Innovation happens.
If the publishers wanted, they could sell their books for more to Amazon, but they don't. Has anybody asked why?
All of this craziness makes me think of one of those conspiracy shows about disinformation. I feel like I'm in the middle of one waiting for someone to get a clue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
I'm going to put on my little tin hat now and watch how many authors fall for the bait.
No matter the format the e-book is read in they should cost a fraction of the hard copy price. Once the author or publisher had created and formatted the file and put the e-book on a server there are very few costs in selling or distributing those copies. There is no paper to buy or type to be set or presses to be run. There are no boxes to fill with hard copies that then need to be shipped to bookstores.
Publishers and writers need to understand that the great percentage of the reading public is under the assumption that most popular writers are like John Grisham and are rolling in their royalties. I've learned that's not the case due to contact with independent authors on facebook but I have yet to buy a book from an indie author that I thought was overpriced.
There's a book I want being released on Amazon on the 27th and the e-book is priced a about $1.50 less than the hardcover price. I think that is highway robbery. And as disgruntled as I am I'll pay that price cause I'm hooked on the book series. I will look at future purchases though and will avoid that publisher.
Authors are worth their weight in gold and deserve the fruits of their labor. Maybe they should all go indie.
I wonder, though, about the effect of libraries. If print declines to nothing, and the publishers try not to let libraries loan e-books, does that mean the end of libraries? I love libraries!
First, I suspect the motives of anyone who refers to "legacy publishers."
Second...my thoughts may be somewhat tangental to the discussion here, because they are largely about the whole notion that eBooks will reign supreme and print books will experience a huge die-off.
I may be wrong.
But things I've been reading lately, about discoverability, and more to the point, about the resistance to eReaders that has increased as the devices have become more popular, have me wondering if the future of books really is all about the screen.
I hate to analyze by anecdote, but here's how I've come to use an eReader: I generally buy books that are cheap (free) or unavailable in print format. If there's a book I really want, I almost always buy it in paper. If I have a choice between reading a book on my Kindle or a paper book, I almost always chose the paper book.
i am far from a Luddite. I work on a computer all day. I may be inappropriately attached to my iPhone. I do all of my writing on computer and my editing too. I never print out a paper copy and only work with one from the publisher at the very end of the process. But for those reasons, I tend to associate work with screens. I associate a paper book with relaxation. With being able to escape. (in part because I feel like if I'm reading something on a screen, I should at the very least be editing it). I focus better on paper books. And I don't think this is purely generational (I know people a generation older than I am who love their Kindles and Nooks and iPads).
My guess is, and this is based on intuition as much as evidence, that as more and more of us lead more and more of our lives on a screen, paper books will be seen as an alternate form of entertainment that have value because they are not on a screen.
I read an interesting editorial, I think in the WaPo, that said this whole DoJ lawsuit was a matter of picking your monopoly. That whatever collusion occurred between the Big 5 and Apple encouraged competition, because it enabled Barnes and Noble to regain its footing and helped prevent Amazon from using predatory pricing to gain even more market share and driving out competition.
For all of these reasons, I hope the DoJ's suit fails. Yes, traditional publishing needs to change and to adapt, but they have all kinds of incentives to do that now. The agency model is only a temporary dike against an onrushing flood, but one that gives some shelter to paper books and to brick and mortar bookstores while some of these larger issues get sorted out. I think it's worth it, for the health of the book business, for publishers, book stores, authors and ultimately readers. Because I think at the end of the day, we may have come to the conclusion that physical spaces and paper books have some real value that eBooks and online markets do not.
"First, I suspect the motives of anyone who refers to "legacy publishers."
Well, Lisa, since I'm the only one on this thread who used the term "legacy publishers", I can only assume you're talking to me....?
Which is a darn shame, because I was hoping to get away with it. But darn it all, you caught me. My motives are dark and devious indeed. Terrible, furtive happenings in the night, and who knew it would all be revealed by the phrase "legacy publishers."
This should be a lesson to me, one can not hide forever. All dark secrets will come into the light.
Although...I'm not exactly sure what my dark motives are exactly, but I use that phrase ALL THE TIME, so they must be just awful. If you ever want to let me know what this all means, I'd be grateful.
Actually, Mira, no, it wasn't you. I didn't even notice that you used the term. But it is something that has bothered me for a long time. I think the people who use it tend to see traditional publishers as eeeevil dinosaurs who need to go ahead and die already, and the sooner the better so they can dance on their graves. I think a lot of people using it are angry and resentful about traditional publishing, whether because they were mistreated by it or excluded from it.
I realize that not everyone who says "legacy publishing" feels this way, but I think it's very loaded language.
I think there are a ton of problems in traditional publishing and in the business model and all of that, and I have my own list of suggestions/grievances, but referring to an entire industry as being outmoded and largely irrelevant (which is the inference of this term) does a huge disservice to a lot of really great and dedicated people working in the business, who are publishing a lot of great and worthwhile books.
As a further clarification, I think without "legacy publishing," we'd have no brick and mortar bookstores, at least not until some new channels of production and distribution have sorted themselves out. As per my earlier comment, I think it's more than worthwhile for us as a culture to preserve these actual physical spaces, where people go to discover, buy and discuss books.
I am published by what I guess you'd call a mid-sized publisher in the States, one that's a true independent but that's big enough and has enough infrastructure to get its books out there and into the larger public eye. I'd love to see more smart, nimble publishers emerge who are able to get their books into bookstores and whose books also help support bookstores. I mean, I would love it if a lot of the imprints that were bought up by large corporate entities were independent again and able to compete in the marketplace. I just think whatever needs to be done to cushion the blow of this transition, to make sure that the important parts of the infrastructure and ecology aren't destroyed, we ought to think very carefully about that. Because I really do believe that people still want paper books and that they will continue to want paper books, and that there's a value in physical spaces to distribute them.
It's sort of like, well, the US largely dismantled its steel industry. Literally dismantled plants and shipped them over to China. As oil prices and the cost of transporting goods across oceans continues to rise, and the implications of not having a thriving manufacturing sector and what that has done to middle class wages becomes clear, a lot of people are saying, we need to start doing that stuff in the States again. It would make sense. But we no longer have the infrastructure or the expertise to do it, and if we want to do it, we're going to have to rebuild all that.
I'd rather preserve the useful parts of the infrastructure for when we want/need it again.
Just a quick thought on the term "legacy publisher." I don't mean it to be pejorative; I just think it's dead-on accurate. Here's Wikipedia's definition of "Legacy System:"
"A legacy system is an old method, technology, computer system, or application program that continues to be used, typically because it still functions for the users' needs, even though newer technology or more efficient methods of performing a task are now available. A legacy system may include procedures or terminology which are no longer relevant in the current context, and may hinder or confuse understanding of the methods or technologies used."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system
Whatever you want to call it -- traditional, Big 6, New York, mainstream -- old-style publishing still works and is still used, even as more efficient means have become available. This is the very definition of a legacy system, and that's why I use the term.
Lisa, thanks for the clarification. I realize now that Barry used the term "legacy publishers", too, so, despite my usual assumption that everything is about me, you might have been more referring to Barry or others, etc.
First, I appreciate Barry talking about why that term has been coined. I would add that I partly use the term "legacy publisher" as a shortcut for the Big Six. Not sure if that's accurate, but I don't include independents in my mind when I use that term.
However, in terms of underlying motives, you're right. My stance toward the Big Six is pretty much what you said. I was abit surprised by that. :)
But I am definitely one of those people who would toast marshmallows as the New York corporations burned to a crisp. I believe that the Big Six are manipulative and exploitive in their business relationship with the writer, and I can't state that too strongly. So, I would feel great joy at seeing that power structure either dissassembled or (even better) morphed into something responsible and worthy of power.
That is different from wanting harm to come to the people who work in publishing, who are most likely wonderful, talented people. My concern is with the company they work for and the way it deals with writers, not them.
In terms of the future, we may need to agree to disagree, because I believe the decline of paper is inevitable.
So, I don't quite see this as industry outsourcing so corporations can save money, but more a transition to a new industry, which will involve a new infrastructure. All of the wonderful, talented people will find jobs in the new infrastruture - and I have no personal knowledge of this - but I have to wonder if those might be better jobs. I'm not sure if the Big Six treat their employees much better than they treat writers. But I don't know.
So, I see movement of resource rather than loss of resource, to a new infrastructure where the writer is treated with respect and compensated appropriately. And I will be very happy to see that happen.
And if we disagree, that's okay. I know that people have great stake in the future, which can make this emotional, but ultimately, we're all facing the future together. :)
In the end, I think the big loser is everyone except the online retailers that manage to control the majority of the market (aka, Amazon or perhaps Apple).
Only a tiny group of readers consume enough books that price is a significant factor for them, and in the current system, anyone who is price-constrained can go to this place where they have lots of books available for free, the library.
What readers lose is quality writers who have been able to make a living writing who will no longer be able to do so. One of the "inefficiencies" of the traditional publishing model is supporting mid-list authors because nobody can predict who will be a big seller. That system keeps many writers who have spent decades honing their skills creating novels.
I don't see the winnings for readers if their favorite authors can no longer afford to write.
For years, Amazon took losses on their experiments with innovating. They still do when they decide they should lose money in order to invest in innovation. It’s boggled my mind for years that brick-and-mortar bookstores and publishing houses haven’t invested in the digital age and set competitive prices. No one stopped them from hiring inventors to develop their own eReading devices. No one stopped bookstores from setting up cozy reading areas for customers to read eBooks on eReader devices. Bookstores were willing to add coffee shops to their buildings and celebrity books to their shelves, but invest in the inevitable digital revolution? No, they couldn’t do that.
In regard to the deep pockets of Amazon, Amazon’s deep pockets are nothing compared to the deep pockets of the umbrella organizations that own the big publishing houses. The big publishing houses have repeatedly said they can’t compete with Amazon’s deep pockets, but that’s complete and utter nonsense. Rupert Murdoch and Bertelsmann AG own a huge number of the big publishing houses. In 2011, News Corp. and all the businesses it owns were worth between $62 billion and $72 billion. I searched online, couldn’t find the net worth for Bertelsmann AG, but did find that from January through September 2011, their revenues were $10.7 billion. According to Forbes, as of this month Jeff Bezos is worth $18.4 billion and is $300 million richer due to the Kindle.
The weird thing is that the big companies own nearly all traditional book publishing and news outlets, so they can get a near mantra going for things it’s in their best interests to have the public believe. I cannot tell you how many places I’ve now read that Jeff Bezos’s deep pockets will take down and destroy the entire world of publishing and literature. The same thing in the realm of politics – there is an incredible amount of false information circulated as truth every single day in the news. If a handful of billionaires own all the traditional news outlets and it’s in their best interest to have the public believe something, it’s very easy for them to just print it up in multiple news sources. For example, 97% of reputable scientists report that global warming is real. However, despite rising seas, obviously warming temperatures, and tornadoes wiping entire towns off the map, the public at large kind of believes that the research on global warming is completely inconclusive.
DISCLAIMER: I’m published by Amazon’s KDP Select Program (and am very happy with both their royalties and the seriously respectful way in which Amazon treats their authors).
I just finished reading everyone’s comments, and am so sorry I didn’t discover this discussion until today. I hope the discussion hasn’t ended.
I wholeheartedly agree with Barry Eisler and Mira. Also, I’m truly baffled by so many people complaining that Amazon’s low prices will convince readers that books are worthless. It seems to me that people don’t understand how Amazon is experimenting with digital sales AND (gasp!) how they’re actually allowing authors to run a lot of their own experiments. For example, authors who sign up with Amazon KDP Select are only required to sign up for 90 days at a time; and within each 90-day period, they are entitled to five days on which they can price their book as a free giveaway. KDP Select authors whose books are "purchased" like wildfire during the free days are added to popularity lists on Amazon which offers higher visibility to those books, but only for as long as the book continues to sell. Authors can experiment with changing their book covers, changing their prices, etc. any time they choose in order to see if that sells more books. When three of my books were downloaded thousands of times for free and then started selling at 99 cents each, I raised the price to $3.99 each, and am now selling more copies at $3.99 each than I did at 99 cents each. And there’s incentive to price books higher. Whereas Amazon only gives authors 30% royalties on 99-cent Kindle books, they give 70% royalties on higher-priced Kindle books. Do the math: 30% of 99 cents vs. 70% of higher prices, and a number of authors have reported selling more copies at the higher prices. I’m not sure how any of that translates into Jeff Bezos lowering the true value of books. He’s experimenting with sales offers, not unlike my neighborhood bookstore having bargain bins or the low price of mass market paperbacks that publishers used to sell. People hardly think of music or computer games as worthless now that digitally downloaded music and computer game apps are so cheap.
And Jeff Bezos hates books? Oh, please. He’s a graduate of Princeton University. He gives away a lot of his money to charity. He’s also established Blue Origin, a company that’s developing new technology for spaceflight, in order to pursue his lifelong interest in space travel. NASA has actually invested $22 million in Blue Origin. Bezos is hoping to offer paying customers the opportunity to travel into space. Is it wrong that this could conceivably, if the price of spaceflight eventually becomes manageable for the average person, cause the car industry or the cruise ship industry to lose customers?
Colluding to keep prices high is against the law. Period. Laws may be changing to protect big businesses and special interests, but thank God many laws still protect consumers. That’s why the Big Six are being sued, but Amazon isn’t. I agree with Nathan that Amazon is a dream come true for customers who love books.
It seems like hardly a week goes by without one literary writer or another hyperbolically decrying the way we're all going to hell in an electronic handbasket.
First Jonathan Franzen argued that e-books are damaging society and suggested that all "serious" readers read print.
Last week Pulitzer Prize winner Jennifer Egan complained of social networking, "Who cares that we can connect? What’s the big deal? I think Facebook is colossally dull. I think it’s like everyone coming to live in a huge Soviet apartment block, [in] which everyone’s cell looks exactly the same."
Zadie Smith has written of Facebook: "When a human being becomes a set of data on a website like Facebook, he or she is reduced. Everything shrinks. Individual character. Friendships. Language. Sensibility. In a way it’s a transcendent experience: we lose our bodies, our messy feelings, our desires, our fears. It reminds me that those of us who turn in disgust from what we consider an overinflated liberal-bourgeois sense of self should be careful what we wish for: our denuded networked selves don’t look more free, they just look more owned."
This of course comes on the heels of Ray Bradbury complaining in 2009: "They wanted to put a book of mine on Yahoo! You know what I told them? ‘To hell with you. To hell with you and to hell with the Internet.’ It’s distracting. It’s meaningless; it’s not real. It’s in the air somewhere."
And of course there's a long and storied history of writers eschewing technology and returning to nature, such as Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
But doesn't it seem like there's some nexus between literary writers and technophobia? Are literary writers more likely to fear our coming robot overlords and proudly choose an old cell phone accordingly (if they have one at all)? Do they know something we don't?
Even when a writer really does use tech as either an artistic mode of expression or as a relentless self-promotion engine (or both), like Tao Lin, he's derided (or praised, depending on one's POV) as "a world-class perpetrator of gimmickry."
Have lit writers become our resident curmudgeons? Or are they just like any other cross-section of the population? Is it tied to deeper fear of the transition in the book business? Is it just not interesting to think new stuff is cool?
69 Comments on Why Are So Many Literary Writers Technophobic?, last added: 2/19/2012
Great blog, Nathan. To answer your question, I think they are a tad cranky and will probably come around to the tech side of things. After all, I'm sure they all have cell phones, remote controls instead of antennas on their TV and probably even listen to I-tunes. LOL
Ray Bradbury has since changed his mind. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/30/fahrenheit-451-ebook-ray-bradbury People are always suspicious of the new thing. Just give them some time.
I think age might have something to do with it. A lot of the younger writers have embraced the technology, while some of the older ones used to doing things in a certain way or manner of writing for years are more averse to change - until someone gets around to explaining the benefits to them.
For me, in person socializing is much better than "chatting" on Facebook and so is holding a bound book in my hand better than reading an e-book. Being on the computer feels more like work - interacting with a person or a book is relaxing at least for me.
I still hold that college professors are the ones who are pushing back at technology. Refusing to use anything besides powerpoint, not sending out emails, etc.
But on the writer front, I'd say we're in transition. it's not that literary writers are completely averse to the idea of an online book world, but rather they are trying to get used to the idea. I mean, even the publishing world is still trying to adapt to the e-book. It'll just take some time for things to settle down again.
I don't completely disagree with the notion that there is some evil in technology. Or at least that technology makes it easier for people to do evil things.
On the other hand, I completely disagree about Facebook. I mean sure, the company and some of its policies aren't perfect, but it allows me to stay in touch with friends who live across the country with more ease than any other tool in history.
What do you think of Google's new Word Verification, Nathan? Have you had to use it yet?
As a grad student in literature who is also an aspiring science fiction/fantasy author, as well as a high school English teacher and a technophile, I have often thought that the majority of "literary" writers have tremendous sticks up their rear ends. I rarely read the sort of self-important pedantry from "genre" writers that I do from the so-called "important literary figures," with the obvious exceptions Bradbury and Harlan Ellison, who still eschews the Internet and types his stories, last I heard, on a manual typewriter.
I think it comes from their need to think their work is something more than storytelling. If they don't convince themselves that they're doing something important, they might realize they're no better than TV writers, and then what would they do with their smug sense of superiority?
This also ties into our society's need to seperate stories between "Important Work" and "Entertainment," as if the two can't be the same. People who buy into this forget that Shakespeare was the pop culture of his time, and would doubtless be writing (brilliant) television today.
They're just chicken because they can see the end coming. Rather than dodge the knife coming for their neck like everyone else, they choose to stand firm and say "To hell with dodging. That's not real. Dodging isn't standing." Good riddance to all those dinosaurs.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 8:26:00 AM
I love Franzen, but he writes a book a decade and laughs all the way to the bank. Who on earth has that kind of a sweet deal? If I were him, or John Iriving, or any other authors who've found a great thing and have milked it for years, I'd be against technology, too.
When telephones first came out, there was a time that the boss did not dare use one. That was the work of his secretary. Twenty-five years ago I worked at a company where the CEO didn't have a computer, but everyone else did. Not his job.
With the evolution of each technology, the same comments were made. But there is an entire population out there that has never grown up without a cell phone or the internet. All of the books on my e-reader have saved at least one tree. I'd say that some say we're all going to have to wake up and small the Kindle, but by that time we'll probably start having books transmitted to the thought centers of our brain.
I'm not sure the writers you've quoted here are all technophobes. They are specific in their comments and it is difficult to dismiss them out of hand even when one does embrace social networking as a medium for writers.
Facebook can be dull. And I found myself thinking about "looking owned" as Smith puts it. As for Franzen's comment about e-books, it is a larger question that he raises: taking the time to let work inhabit us as we read it. E-books don't necessarily preclude that but the idea that you have a battery life on the device you are using does, in fact, change the reading experience.
I see the same thing that these writers and that many commenters seem to acknowledge: when we embrace what is next, we have to consider if, when, and how to let go of what is. It may take a little time (as it did for Bradbury) or we may find ourselves looking at new kinds of writing that use the social media even as they use us. I think "420 Characters" by Lou Beach is a fine example of this, as is Margaret Atwood's use of Twitter.
I suspect that the real difference between "serious" writers who reject electronic media or appear to do so, is simply that they are more private people to begin with. And they have limited time. It helps all writers to consider how best to use that time and how best to connect.
Bradbury sounds like a delightful grumpy old man in the quote you provided. "[The internet]'s not real. It's in the air somewhere." That's just brilliant.
I don't know... I feel like things are always going to change. It seems a bit pretentious to state that serious readers read print. I prefer print books to ebooks right now, but I know I'm still reading the same story as someone with a Kindle. I think.
The internet is the home of mass consumption and mass culture - the common denominator (sometimes the lowest common denominator) is what makes it big on the internet.
And that is not (typically) literary fiction. It's more of a niche market, these days, and is somewhat reliant on traditional forums that support it as important culture.
I think literary writers are probably a little fearful of the literary free-for-all of the internet, of being a small fish in a really big media pond. There's no Amanda Hocking self-pub success stories among literary writers, at least that I've heard of (though I'm sure there's a few doing well in this new market).
I think the old system supported literary fiction, both in terms of exposure and financial support. It was assured a place at the table. The new system? Nothing is guaranteed. And that's probably pretty scare at a time when mass culture seems to be moving ever further away from literary fiction (at least in North America).
Spot on. I don't presume ever to rank among the likes of the literary authors you quote here, but my manuscript is getting a healthy bunch of rejections from editors for being "too literary." As a result, I'm starting to consider the ebook route, although making sure to get proper editing along the way. But then folks make me doubt my idea, like the well-established and straight-talking agent I ran into the other day who, having read a couple of chapters from said manuscript, said: "Don't do an ebook. Only as a last resort. Your book is too good." That's flattering and all, but I wonder, how long are "literary" and "e", or technology, going to continue to look at each other askance from across some divide?
In 50 years it won't be an argument at all, the ones arguing will mostly be dead or too old to argue or care. Times change whether we want it to or not. Arguing about the lack of merit in it isn't going to make it go away. Embrace it or don't, but it's going to thrive and grow and someday we'll have computers in contact lenses and data pumped directly into our brains. And in 50 years, they'll be talking about how it was so much better when we were on Facebook.
Elizabeth, you bring up the point of battery life. Have you ever used an e-reader? Even with active reading and a lot of syncing, you will find it takes at least two weeks to drain their batteries. Normally the battery lifespan can be a month or more.
Heck, you'll usually change the batteries in your reading light far more often than that!
The batteries on e-readers don't in themselves mess with the reading experience.
What do I make of this? Facebook sucks. Smart people, some of whom are writers, recognize that. Twitter is much better, and smart people, some of whom are writers, recognize that. And as an unrelated note, some writers are iffy about ebooks.
I don't think I would lump all of this under "technophobic."
But seriously, Facebook is terrible. A terrible software, a terrible system.
I think there needs to be a balance. Sure, I love the convenience of e-books, but I still relish the smell and feel of a book in my hands.
And though some part of me agrees with with the comments made about social networking, I also have to note that if it weren't for Facebook and Twitter and the fact that everyone and their grandmother (literally) has quick access to publicly speak their mind, it has forced those of us who fancy ourselves clever to be that much cleverer.
As far as Colson Whitehead's comment about the internet keeping us from finishing our novels... I'm sorry, but I can find any numerous ways to distract myself from getting any writing done. But the internet did give me http://writeordie.com/ so I consider that a win.
Of course lumping them all together is dangerous and unfair, but I'm going to go with fear. And I can only say that because as a new author with my very first book hitting shelves in May, I am slightly terrified of the e-book business myself. Not that I haven't embraced it. I love my Kindle, but I do wonder just where we authors will be when the cookie does crumble.
I think, for a lot of people, there comes a point in life where "New" becomes synonymous with "Bad." You get comfortable enough in life and suddenly those things that come along and change it are no longer opportunities but threats. The status quo is more important when you have somethign to lose. This is why older generations look back on the younger generations and say "Those Damn Kids!" even though their parent's generations said the same thing of them.
I don't think it has as much to do with the culture of literary writers, especially since most of the writers you included are exactly young. Franzen and Egan are in their 50s. Zadie Smith is almost 40 (old enough to remember life before the Internet). David Foster Wallace would turn 50 in a few days if he were still around (how's that make you feel?).
I think it has more to do with finding comfort, which often leads to complacency which, in turn, can lead to a protectionist mindset.
How many up-and-coming literary writers are anti-tech? Phillip Roth will continue to get his checks with or without Twitter. The unknowns...they're more likely to see the benefits.
Technology, the Internet, Social Media and other New Fangled Things(tm) are just tools. They aren't good. They aren't bad. They just are. It's how we use these tools that give birth to good and bad outcomes. Like anything else in life, its where we choose to put our efforts and our time that make the difference.
I'd love to hear the literary crowd talk about THAT.
Great post, Nathan! Appreciated that you talked about this. And loved that you pointed out that "new stuff is cool".
Because it is!! :)
I think Bryan Russell nailed it. It's anxiety.
The changes in the book world are probably scary for some Lit writers.
I think they may fear that the democratization of books will push literary fiction into a very small corner or make it disappear altogether.
I would argue that literary fiction is already in a very small corner.
E-books will expand the book world tremendously, but there will still be a place for literary fiction, with it's artistry and innovation. Those who love it and award prizes, like the Nobel prize, as a small example, will keep it alive and thriving.
Literary fiction writers may also reach new audiences with the e-book, and they might make more money, too, so, they may find that they like the new book world once they get used to it.
I agree with F.T. Bradley. Writers are introverts, most of us, and certainly the older ones among us have a fondness for the touch and feel and smell of paper, a love of bookbinding and design, a sense of connection to history through the books we handle. So even if we are willing, out of need or desire, to publish our book in ebook form (guilty), we still feel guilty about it, as if we have cheated on our old friend, the book made of paper.
I haven’t read the articles you link to yet, but in response to this post I would point out that people who see themselves as intellectuals are often critical of what they see as popular--especially when, as in this case, the field from which they draw their identity is heading down a wildly popular but unpredictable path. All cultural shifts meet with derision, and even those of us who embrace certain changes might benefit from considering them with doubt as well as hopefulness. (After all, as things change, we always gain and lose.) But, when it comes down to it, the future happens no matter how comfortable we are in the present, and I believe those who choose to meet it with enthusiasm and cleverness despite their misgivings will be happier as it comes.
I work in a public library. Right now, at my branch, we’re seeing more patrons than ever, but I have no delusions about how the future decrease in the printing of both popular and literary books will challenge our library system. As long as librarians and library users value the role of the public library, though, I keep faith that it can live up to its value. It’s up to the public library community to figure out how to do so, even if we find ourselves uncomfortable.
And on an aside--If Franzen really means to assert that serious readers only read print, all I would say is that he seems to be great at sticking his foot in his mouth. Maybe he likes it that way, and I doubt it will lose him any readers. I still hope to read him one day, and I might even do it on my Kindle. :)
I think people who write about how much they hate facebook are far more ruined & time-wasting than those of us who check in real quick (oh, look! my SIL had a baby!) and MOVE ON with our very real, very fulfilling LIVES :)
Nathan, I suspect there's several reasons for the criticism of social networking sites. One may have to do with the fact that it's something new, and authors are used to doing things their own way, so having to change how they market their books is difficult for them and requires their taking time to learn all about it. Second, authors are frequently solitary people, used to working alone most of the time, and now here they are, having to take time to interact with others which they may find difficult to do, and may take time from their writing. Third, it may stem from the fact that publishing houses are abandoning authors more and more and putting marketing and promotion duties on the author, and well-established authors like Franzen react angrily by denigrating the social networking sites, even though those aren't the real cause of their anger. As a new writer myself and not published in fiction, I'm appalled and disgusted at the way writers are treated by publishers. It's getting harder and harder to get published these days, but the social networking sites are not to blame. I'm probably older than any of the writers you mentioned, but I use and embrace Facebook (though not Twitter, I do think that's for the birds). After all, Facebook is how I get to your blog through the updates that come through my Facebook page. Enough said.
Much, I suspect, is due to people insisting that, say, print is dead and the books that they love are on their way out. No one likes to hear that something he or she loves is obsolete and needs to be thrown away, especially if he or she still sees value in it. I think that a lot would come around to the idea of "E-books/Kindles/social networking aren't THAT bad" if the technophiles would stop insisting that e-books and Kindles and such are not only valuable but the only possible future...indeed, the only future worth having.
No one likes to hear that the things that they love will cease to exist in a few years, and good riddance. Of course they're resistant to that attitude! It's human nature to cling to what you love and to fight to preserve it, especially if you feel that it's being threatened.
And, to be honest, social networking on places like Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter is not very social. People post comments on Facebook (and on Blogger)--but there are no threads of comments; you can't have a conversation in writing with someone. I have seen no conversations on Tumblr; people post, people like the post and people re-blog the post. Twitter is limited to 150 characters. I think that a lot of writers see social networking, in many cases, not as promoting communication and thought but as curtailing both.
I am a debut author who is published in both print and e-book. When I first saw my debut title up on Amazon it was great thrill. I e-mailed all my friends and told them they could pre-order!!!
Then my release date came and I immediately made the rounds of all the local B&Ns. Discovered my book was on the New Releases shelf! Equally thrilling! I took a jpg of my book with my iPhone and posted it to my blog page on my website!
I think I love both high and low tech. Not sure that one without the other would be as wonderful.
The music and sound industries already went through this.
In 1994 a tape transfer house my production was using had a sign on their counter that read "The Future of Digital is Analogue".
Needless to say they are out of business.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 4:25:00 PM
Well, lit writers do tend to be big on tradition - paper over word processors,plots with cerebral rather than visceral entertainment (if it's meant to entertain at all)... but the Internet is about laughing at silly stuff, learning highly interesting but completely useless facts... we DON'T worry about the human condition. We have fun, and a great deal of it involves zero intelligence. Zero personality too, maybe, and lit writers fear that. Their issue is that so many of them completely dismiss the web - they refuse to wait around for the benefits. And I think that hurts their readership.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 6:28:00 PM
Hi,
I've completed a manuscript, and I just wanted to know whether it would be okay to walk into a literary agent's office and query in person. I live in manhattan.
I'm an aspiring lit author and I'm on twitter. So are Lauren Groff (author of the gorgeous forthcoming Arcadia), Jami Attenberg, and the much-anthologized Sherman Alexie. It becomes more difficult to market yourself as a lit writer using online tools such as twitter and blogs because your audience isn't necessarily online, unlike, perhaps, YA, which has an established online community. Most of my preferred agents aren't on twitter, they don't have blogs. It's just a different community that has different expectations as to how to market your writing. For me, publication in a little mag will mean more than cultivating a following of thousands as far as my career goes. Do I think that lit writers should ignore the internet? No. But I don't think that Zadie Smith is entirely wrong in her assessment.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 6:47:00 PM
Thank you Nathan. I'll go the conventional query route. It was tempting to walk in since these agents' offices are mere blocks from me haha. Thanks again. It's a great resource you have here for would-be writers. Yours,
In a slightly different vein, it also brings to mind the question as to whether established literary writers are willing or would be able to write convincingly about technology. We can't imagine 19th century literature without the epistolary device, but it's hard (for me) to imagine serious literary works involving social media sites, text messaging, or any reference to technology which might be dated in another two years.
Odo said, on 2/16/2012 8:03:00 PM
On the matter of Facebook. Sorry, I don't make friends that easily. If Facebook allowed me to indicate "acquaintances", I'd be just fine with it.
On the matter of E-books. Battery life and readability of the screen have been solved. What hasn't been solved is how to do the equivalent of flipping the pages until you see something interesting and then reading from there. I just did that with a book. Started in the middle of a paragraph that caught my eye and an hour later I was still reading. That's really hard to do with any of the e-readers that I've seen. That's also how I determine if I'm going to buy a book at a bookstore, and again, you can't do that with an e-book. (Of course that plays merry hob with the author's intent, but that's just too bad.)
Funny that when I read your title I thought the blog was going to be about writers being afraid of technology, as in still using typewriters instead of the computer. It took me years to learn how to double space. But afraid of technological advances -- considering the number of writers tweeting, blogging, publishing e-books, putting out there trailers of their books, and altogether using every ounce of technology that seems (to my amateur eyes at least) available today -- I don't know if I'd agree with that. But I liked your quotes of the grumpy anti-tech writers anyways. www.lilcornerofjoy.blogspot.com
Nathan, Nathan, just when I have a blog post all planned, you write something that makes me want to blog my response instead. Why do you keep doing this to me? ;-) Kidding.
Okay, seriously.
First, I really hate that everyone here seems to think that young people have embraced the digital world and it's only old curmudgeons who aren't really that into it. I'm 33, I've had a computer since I was eight, and I'm in the paper and ink camp. Just sayin'.
Part of it is time. We only have so much, and learning how to use all this stuff and use it effectively takes a whack of time. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels like just when I get the hang of something, everyone has moved on to something else. (Pinterest? REALLY? Come ON.) I'd rather be writing.
Plus, there's the fact that Twitter and Facebook and the Blogosphere are basically just electronic versions of High School, where the cool and witty kids have bazillions of followers and the rest of us struggle to rack up more than five. A lot of us chose writing so we could get away from those uber-cool people and feel successful at our own thing.
And I think there's something to Zadie Smith's comment. Sure, I can read your witty posts on Twitter. I can read and "Like" your Facebook page and comment on your blogs. But if I met you on the street and acted like I know you, you'd call the cops and take out a restraining order, because the fact is that I DON'T know you. I just know what you choose to post about. I only know about a tiny, tiny piece of the man named Nathan Bransford. And you only know about a teeny, tiny piece of me, the writer named Ishta Mercurio-Wentworth.
When I meet my writer friends in person, I get the whole person: the facial expressions that say that even though they're putting on a brave face, the waiting is really getting to them; the stories about kids and spouses that are too private for the Twitterverse; the banter and fast exchanges that stimulate ideas; the look of their notebook as they scribble in it. And they get the whole me.
I love email: it helps me keep in touch with my close friends in Seattle and Connecticut and Australia and England. I use Twitter: it lets me chat briefly with other writers about specific topics at pre-arranged times. And I blog, regularly. And I read blogs.
But whenever I leave my office and meet with other writers in person, I am reminded of this: the internet, for all its wonders, is less. The internet me is a lesser me. And I only want to spend a very limited time being a lesser me.
Thank you for the very interesting article. Our writing world has changed so much with technology and will continue to change. http://www.amberlykclowe.blogspot.com
I don't think that's necessarily technophobia, that's critical thinking. What social media is doing to you, either good or bad, is something worth thinking about.
I think if they're not accustomed to using things like Facebook and e-books, then they're more likely to be wary about it. On the other hand, like you said, there are people from older generations who have embraced technological advances. I'm kind of divided on this issue. I don't use Facebook or Twitter because I think both would take up too much time; they seem like a lot of work. But I like blogging because I think it's good writing practice and it's a good way to meet other writers.
Franzen is (in effect) telling poor writers not to shop at Walmart. He can afford to be snippy about ebooks. Without estories (short, not books) I might not be published at all. Without Facebook and Twitter, I'd have to grab strangers on the street and beg them to read my stuff.
Honestly? I think it's because most of these quoted writers are bad at social media so they disparage it. "You don't see me on Facebook or Twitter not because, god forbid, a genius like me doesn't *get* it, but because I *reject* it." I feel justified in saying this because I am bad at social media--at least in terms of connecting with potential readers. I'm not an extrovert, and I bet most lit writers aren't either. I've met plenty of writers (many YA writers) who are extroverts or otherwise self-promotion gifted, and they're *awesome* with social media. I appreciate that plenty of writers feel that way--but am self-aware enough to see that it's only the well-esatblished writers who can afford to reject social media in its entirety offhand--and that, in that old maxim "It's not you, social media--it's me."
I'd much rather connect with friends in person and save Facebook for stalking people to see who's gotten fat since high school...but I also recognize that the world is moving in different directions.
I am an aspiring literary novelist but I have to agree with what someone said above me- the professors, the MFA writers-in-residence, aren't helping the peaceful merger of lit writers and technology. I am a creative writing student and my prof is a self-proclaimed luddite- he has a feature cell phone and has just signed up for Facebook two years ago. He is 36 going on 37, so age isn't really a factor, I don't believe. I am 33 and have always embraced technology, am pushing my way through promoting my literary YA novel, etc. I'm not sure where the disconnect is for these writers, though they are the only ones, it seems making any money from their literary works. My professor is not.
As a lit writer I can tell you I don't think I am going to devote all my work to a strict literary formula. I want to make money at this. I want to do this for as long as I can. Twitter, Facebook, G+, LinkedIn, etc is a step I must take to ensure, or at least tilt the odds .85 degrees in my favor.
I wonder if it has something to do with what they view the role of the writer is. With the advent of media, many commercial authors have embraced it as a tool to connect with fans, and they consider connecting with fans and creating communities for their writing an important part of their job. But literary authors are probably more likely to consider their job solely "writing"; why should they reach out to the people who read their writing?
The 2 F's. Fear and frustration. Afraid of new things. Afraid to leave the classic ways behind. Afraid we can't learn new ways.
Frustration at the amount of time taken away from writing to master and use new media. Frustration that the brain changes (it's documented)caused by using the shortcuts available via new media will mean beautiful writing no longer has a place in society.
What is a book but a box of many characters? And what is a computer/the internet but a box of many more characters? I don't understand how it can even be considered limiting or superficial, especially in comparison to a traditional book.
I think the technophobia derives from feeling slightly threatened... well-established authors around before the digital age may be feeling a bit overwhelmed by the access people now have to fictional works - it ups the competition!
Anonymous said, on 2/17/2012 8:05:00 AM
I say, "To each their own." I love holding printed books, and I love getting an e-book in 30 seconds. My book is available in both formats, and the printed version is selling better, because people still visit bookstores. So yay! But friends who are on my Facebook, who didn't know I'd written a book until they saw a post, enjoyed downloading right away. So I'm for all of it--whatever works best for the book! ♥ K. L. Burrell
I believe what we're hearing is the fear of established writers that their exclusivity is disappearing with the power of the big publishers who have supported them, and whose power is vested in print.
This attitude reminds me much of Aesop's fable "The Sour Grapes"- which because the fox could not reach them dismissed the grapes as being sour. Likewise, those who haven't a clue how to master Internet say the same thing.
I can see both sides. How's that for straddling the fence? My next gig will be politics. This conundrum reminds me of the setting of Fahrenheit 451. Yes, I will be that lady who goes up in flames for her books. I love to caress the pages, admire the art and care it took to create the actual book. Going deeper, I appreciate the actual experiences that lead to the stories I've enjoyed. A virtual adventure is never the equal of the real thing. How to describe the smells and sounds are tempered by what we've known in our past. Your past is not mine and vice versa. I appreciate technology for opening new worlds to me that I cannot afford or physically manage to visit. I appreciate the ease with which the internet makes possible for me to send my words out into the world. Like all things in life, there needs to be moderation. A melding of technology and experience, the virtual and the actual, is the best we can strive for. Afterall, the quill was once new technology.
Sorry to disappoint, but I agree with them. How can anyone who loves words and the richness of the English language read Twitter without a sense of revulsion?
"How can anyone who loves words and the richness of the English language read Twitter without a sense of revulsion? "
Well if that's your standard, how can you go anywhere without ear plugs or talking to anyone when the majority of the population butchers the language just by speaking daily without a sense of revulsion? Are you a hermit?
Twitter is not a genre of literature. It's social media. That means it's people talking. If you choose to avoid the global chit chat, that's a valid choice. Trying to compare it to literature, not so much.
*No offense to anyone writing their WIPs one status update at a time. There's no way to account for the artists. :)
I'm late to this discussion, but I wanted to chime in because I'm a literary writer, I'm 25, and I don't think I could ever read a book on an e-reader.
I've tried. Many of my friends have e-readers, and I've attempted to read books on both Kindles and Nooks, but there was something about reading on a screen that made my mind wander, and I generally gave up after only 15 pages. In comparison, I can read print books for hours without falling prey to any distraction. I love the feeling of pages under my fingers.
So why the attention deficit? I think I'm enough of a digital native that my mind subconsciously links words on screens with reads that are supposed to be quick and easy -- I can't read a long article online; that's not what the Internet is for. When friends send me manuscripts over 5 or 10 pages long, I have to print them out.
This is not to say that I'm a technophobe; I use Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress, and I'm the social media specialist at my day job. But I can see why established literary writers are leery of the advance of e-books and other technology. The "death" of the print book is something that brings me great sadness, too. When I chose to become a writer, I did so partly because of the desire to one day see my name on the front of a print book, and I knew that getting my name on the front of said book would take years and years of effort and rejection and, ultimately, validation. While I know that e-books take hard work, too, seeing my name on a screen seems like a much easier job: all I have to do is open Microsoft Word and type my name. The concept of having a novel released only as an e-book isn't satisfactory; it doesn't connote effort to me in the same way that a print book would.
I have no idea if any of this made sense, but the transition from print books to e-books -- the general dissolution of physical connection in general -- bothers me a lot.
"Great catch by @sullydish reader that Dr. George's objections to HHS regs =rejection of Cath principle of double effect http://bit.ly/AeGnrS"
is a strange and beautiful language. A language with hidden meaning, that requires great effort; one must read it many times before it even begins to make sense.
However, regarding Twitter, I think you underrate it.
I'm late arriving to this conversation, but I thank you for posting about this. I see this all the time among both literary fiction writers and serious nonfiction writers. They're very resistant to social media. They see it as a time waster (maybe they're right). It's difficult to convince them of the benefits. I think Mieke was right in saying that literary fiction writers don't see people reading blogs as their target market. I say the more ways you can reach readers, the better. It can't hurt to try.
I urge you not to read those articles all three in a row unless you want to get the sense that the traditional publishing industry is, um, a little nervous about how relevant it is in the future and mildly uncertain about what it should be doing.
I've been out of the publishing game a while, but it's worth taking a deep breath and remembering some things: a) This is still a print world (yes, still), and publishers are still best at getting paper to customers (yes, still). b) Some authors will still benefit from the collection of services publishers offer into the new era.
But also: Publishers must think about how their brands matter in the new era, especially to consumers, and how they can make themselves indispensable to an author's sales figures and bottom line. Right now they ain't getting it done by relying on authors for their own promotion and offering very little added value except for a few titles a season (who are often the titles that need the least boost).
But the sky isn't falling yet.
Whew! Meanwhile, Kassia Krozser at Booksquare previews the Tools of Change conference and tackles the perennial topic of print/e-book bundling.
As Amanda Hocking said herself, "I don't understand why the internet suddenly picked up on me this past week, but it definitely did."
And how.
The writing world is abuzz about Amanda Hocking, the 26-year-old self-published author who sold over 450,000 copies of her e-books in January alone, mostly priced between 99 cents and $2.99. She's now a millionaire. The writing world has been abuzz for a while about J.A. Konrath, who has very publicly blogged about the significant amount of money he has made selling inexpensive e-books.
Many people in the last week have sent me links about these authors, wondering...
What exactly is going on here? How in the heck are these self-published authors making so much money? Is this the future? And does this mean the end of the publishing industry as we know it?
The News That's Fit to Print
Before we delve into what this means for the world of books, I feel like it's important to take a deep breath and splash some cold water on our faces.
The reality: This is still a print world and probably will be for at least the next several years. Even as some publishers report e-book sales jumping to between 25% and 35% in January, the significant majority of sales are still in print. As I wrote in my recent post about record stores, over a decade after the rise of the mp3 the majority of revenue in music is still in CDs.
So let's not get out of hand (yet) about the scale of this e-book self-publishing revolution, if it is indeed one. Yes, this is real money we're talking about. Yes, these authors deserve all the credit in the world. And yes, these authors are also making money in print as well.
But we're still a ways away from self-published Kindle bestsellers making Dan Brown, James Patterson, Stephenie Meyer, J.K. Rowling kind of money, the old-fashioned way, through paper books in bookstores. It's not as exciting a story to remember that traditionally published franchise James Patterson made $70 million between June '09 and June '10, but it's still worth keeping in perspective.
Let's also not forget that Hocking, Konrath and a couple of others are the tip of a very large iceberg of self-published authors, the overwhelming majority of whom are selling the merest handful of copies. As Hocking herself writes:
I guess what I'm saying is that just because I sell a million books self-publishing, it doesn't mean everybody will. In fact, more people will sell less than 100 copies of their books self-publishing than will sell 10,000 books. I don
169 Comments on Amanda Hocking and the 99-Cent Kindle Millionaires, last added: 3/10/2011
Kudos to Hocking and Konrath and all self pubbed authors who are fighting back against the system that would never have let their words see the light of day. I understand "gatekeepers," and yeah, I appreciate not seeing total garbage in stores (and yet...why is there still such garbage being printed? Oh yes, because people will buy it because Snooki wrote it, etc). At the same time, I HATE how agents hold authors' careers hostage if they have just the slightest doubt that the author's book won't be a three-quel, movie tie-in mega blockbuster. No one cares about literature anymore, it seems. Writers have to write...and writers need their words read. Agents and editors have been holding writers back and I am thrilled to see them getting out from under the yoke of the oppressors who really just want to use their talent to make money off them...while ignoring the masses who still have good things to share.
I say huzzah for them. I've always viewed self-publishing as something of a last resort, but clearly, that doesn't have to be the case. That said, I'd hate to put all that work not only into writing a book but editing, formatting, and designing it, only to see it move 57 copies at 99 cents a pop. Talk about a Buzz Killington. For now, I'll continue to pursue that most elusive of creatures: the literary agent.
I think that the most important thing to remember is that for every Amanda Hocking and J.A. Konrath, there are a truckload of self-published authors not making squat.
I wonder, how do these self-published e-book authors go about marketing their books? Do they have large marketing budgets, or are their books so good that word-of-mouth is enough to make them millions?
Also, if anybody wants a free book, no strings attached, or knows someone who could use a free book, check out my blog.
Authors like Hocking and Konrath are doing well, and rock awesome for them. But, they're still the exception rather than the rule. I think self-pubbing has its place, but it's a matter of what you want out of your writing career. As you said, Nathan, I know that I am not a one-woman publishing house with editors, marketers, PR, legal etc ... I know that for the career I want, a traditional publishing deal is the way for me to go. As the business evolves, I can adapt, but print/tradition pubbing defines where I (personally) want to be right now.
(And I'm tired of my well-meaning friends sending me the articles on Hocking telling me that I should drop my agent and go Kindle.)
It's a strange phenomenon on many levels but if you uncover the basic underlying principle of why these novels have seen spike of success I think it boils down to price point. Face it, when you're options are a 9.99 e-book, or more (I've seen them for 14.99, and a select few for 19.99), the .99 options feel almost free. It's the impulse buy of Kindle e-book shopping.
What does it mean for big six publishers? Perhaps nothing. Maybe they'll increase output in an effort to keep up with consumer demand. Books are consumable. Most readers finish a novel in days. They want the sequel available upon demand. They want more books from their favorite authors. In this fast food nation waiting for a novel to come out in a year or two feels like some kind of unimaginable eternity. So the reader goes elsewhere.
I think at the end of the day the writer will come out the ultimate victor. Whether its with a big publisher who gives only a portion of profits back to the writer, but whose distribution is high, or for the self-published author whose garners a lion share of the profit, but distribution is limited (if indeed you can call the Internet limited and in this case I think you can), the writer is still at the nexus of the equation.
Well said. I've recently come out of the newspaper industry, which seems to be about 5 years ahead of book publishing in the disintegration mode, eaten by the Internet and electronic news dissemination, along with bloggers/independent journalists and the consumer changing to the opinion that news should be a free commodity, not something you have to pay to get. I think traditional book publishers have about 3-5 years to figure out a solution or they'll be following newspapers into the dust bin of history. And there are upsides and downsides to that.
The danger of success stories like Amanda Hocking is that people then think "I can do that too". Sadly, it isn't that easy, and even those that managed it don't exactly know how they did it.
Personally it's left me confused about what to do with my novel (assuming I ever finish it). I'm inclined to go the traditional route purely because I trust the feedback I'll get will help me improve, and thereby increase my chances of success. I'm not convinced the same could be said for self-publishing...
Hocking says she spends an enormous amount of time on promoting the books. She's invested heavily in social networking and it has paid off.
I haven't read any of her books, and probably won't, but what's 99 cents? Or even $2.99? I'm so used to downloading songs at that price that it wouldn't even faze me to buy two or three books at a time if they were that cheap.
I think publishers should use the Netflix model. Get people to sign up to have ten dollars debited from their account each month and allow them to download a book a week. Guaranteed money.
What is really going to totally change the system is when one of the top agents bucks the system and e-publishes a line of kindle books. After all the agents do half the work that an author gets from being professional published. You'll get your quality without the overhead.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 7:28:00 AM
I'm prognosticating that it's not Nora Roberts and James Patterson who will consider leaving traditional publishing first. They have so much penetration into the print market, with their books in every corner grocery store, that it won't make any sense.
It's the midlist mass market authors who have the most to gain from this. Because, see, that 25-30% figure of print--that varies per author. For Nora, it's probably closer to 5% (guessing), just because she is EVERYWHERE.
But for your midlist author who is no longer being carried in Walmart because Walmart halved their book section? The author who used to be in Target, but isn't anymore because Target's shifted more to trade paperbacks? The midlist author whose books may disappear from Borders? The midlist author who isn't in the grocery store or the pharmacy?
For that author, electronic sales might end up close to 50-60% of her sales. For some authors, that point has already come. For others, it'll be here in a few years.
If you get $1.40 from your publisher selling your e-book at 25% of agency net, and you get $1.99 selling your e-book yourself at $2.99, assuming that you sell as many copies of your book at $2.99 as at $7.99, you make more in royalties when e-books make up 53% of the market.
Of course, you may sell fewer copies because you don't have a NY house behind you. And you may sell more, because your book is $5 cheaper.
Of course, you'll have more expenses (like editing and covers). But you'll also save on some of the money you spend on print promotion.
As I walked by my computer this morning, I noticed that a friend had sent me the link to the Hocking story on Huffington Post. I saw "self published millionaire" and continued my walk into the kitchen. As a first time author seeking publication for my first book, I have to admit- I looked into self publishing before I ever considered sending off a submission to a established print publisher. I am many things- A mom, a wine-sipper, a journalist....What I am not, is an optimist. I have seen several first time authors that have yet to complete their first book and have already stated that they will self publish- no doubt- no need to even consider an agent, or even publishers that allow submissions without agents. Here is what I think about not even trying to get your book published through a publisher- When I was in my early 20s, I was poor and depressed. I was awake one night and I caught an informercial for SMC...Tom Bosely was the spokesman, and come on- If the dad from "Happy Days" says you are going to make money- it must be true. We saved and saved and instead of investing or just living a bit better- we sent our money into SMC and, gosh darn it- we were going to be rich like that little old redneck man in the feathered cowboy hat. If he can make millions, we could rule the world via household items and gifts. ( I think I just heard Charlie Sheen yell, "WINNING!") As it turns out, those results are not typical as the little man in the feathered cowboy hat seemed to make it sound, we were even more poor than before and I was now set with plenty of candles and dragon shaped incense warmers to unload on ebay for next to nothing. Hocking may have made the mother load with self publishing ebooks, but to me, she is the old redneck in the feathered cowboy hat. I want my book in print, with a publisher. I want to smell the pages of my freshly printed novel. Kindle and Nook can not offer the reward of smelling the pages of my book. Not to mention, if you do not have enough faith in your own writing to at least attempt to have a publisher consider it, why are you writing? Hocking did try to get published the "old school" way, and I do admire her for not giving up...but to never try the route of print publishers, to me, it seems to lack a certain part of the journey.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 7:29:00 AM
I think it's great that both options are open to authors - but I dislike the hatred against publishers from Konrath and his followers, as if publishers were the Devil incarnate.
Publishers have and will serve a purpose for years to come. I have a good contract with a small publisher that nets me 40% royalty on my ebooks right off the top. I'm not scrambling to do all the work myself and can spend more time writing. And I'm happy to do so.
Konrath et al have such a hate on for publishers and claim that they can produce the same quality with two weeks worth of editing, a few hours paying a cover artist and spamming their friends. Uh, no.
Self-pubbing is a great option for certain genres and for certain people. But let's back off on the hatred for those of us who wish to get a traditional contract with a publisher. Don't call us stupid, mentally ill or deluded nuts who need the approval of NYC to continue living.
I'd love to see more failure stories about writers selling their 120K novels for less than a buck and failing miserably. Not because it's bad writing (and let's not kid ourselves, 90% of all the self-pub has to be crap, if not more) but because he/she doesn't have the resources a good publisher has.
I'd name myself here but don't want to get hate mail from all the self-pub gurus and their followers claiming they've made a million dollars this year and I Can Too.
Good article, man. Nice and balanced and interesting. As someone who's gone the Hocking/Konrath route since December, I have to say that I never expected to sell the amount of Jimmy Stone's Ghost Town as I have. It's one of the best decisions I've ever made. I can also say that, without the initial price of $0.99 (it's now higher), there's no way I'd have over 50 reviews on Amazon for the book in only 3 months (34 of them five-star reviews). It was the impulse buy that got it into the hands of readers and now word of mouth is keeping it selling... even at $4.95 on B&N.
The thing about Hocking is that she's truly a good, down to earth person with a big heart and a mighty pen. It's great to see her success and for what that might mean for more people. I agree that there are a lot of people jumping into this world with garbage books, but my thought is that the cream ALWAYS rises to the top and it has for many of these authors.
If you write good books, they will sell. Bottom line. Indie authors have NOTHING against traditional publishing. It's just nice to see that there's no longer one viable path to successful publication.
While I agree with the points you make in your article, I'd like to add that many publishers could avoid some of the Amazon and chain store overhead by selling e-books on their own web sites. My publisher does this, and is able to pay 39% royalties.
That being said, my publisher also does zero marketing of the titles it produces. This means that unless an author has a substantial back list, they usually make about $500 total on a book before it is yanked from the site, or the publisher tries to get the author to offer it as a free read! Consequently, I can see how it might be preferable to own my work, perhaps sell 500 copies on Amazon.com for 99 cents each, and call it a day.
I think people are much more willing to take a chance on a new author at .99, but without the publicity of big publishing behind them it's hard for anyone to hear about them.
It'd be interesting to see some percentages of how many self-pubbed books actually sell more than a couple hundred. I haven't bought any of those super cheap ebooks so far. I worry about the quality of the writing. A buck is still a buck and my reading time is incredibly valuable to me. I don't want to squander it on something that hasn't had some rigorous editing. That's not to say that all self-pubbed ebooks are not well edited and all traditionally pubbed are, but it's more likely on traditionally published books. (I have read a great self-pubbed book recently that was very well edited, but I probably never would have heard about it or read it if it hadn't been written by a friend.)
I think it's tremendous and I wish them and all other writers who have the abilty to take matters into their own hands the best of luck. I just downloaded a novel by James Henderson called "Baby Huey: A Cautionary Tale of Addiction", for .99 cents. It is the best novel I have read in the last couple years and he couldn't get a publishing deal, so he did it himsef. It's now climbing the kindle rankings. I only found out about it from and "indie" review site. Oprah should be calling this guy!
I hadn't realized what a small percentage of the total cost was hard copy cost... though the eBook DOES eliminate the waste of books over printed and shipping for returned copies.
Still, I feel like the quality control on the traditionally published books is important to me as a consumer. The self-published stuff I've read all reads several iterations short of 'done' because it is just too easy for us (myself included) to think we've FINISHED the next big thing when there is no layer of reality check besides our crit group who loves us. Until some system of quality control crops up, I am commited to the traditional model, both as author and reader.
Thank you for the excellent breakdown! The industry is changing faster than I think any of us thought it would (I expected numbers like these in another 3-5 years, not now) and the big houses need to figure out their future game plan NOW, or they'll be like Kodak during the rise of the digital camera.
I'm thinking hard about self-publishing because I hate pressure. I already have a job and a family and I suspect I would fold trying to jump through the hoops of the traditional publishing route when all I want to do is tell stories and maybe knock a few quid off the endowment disaster that is my mortgage.
I probably will have a crack at the agented route first, but if it doesn't happen, I won't be crying. I just won't be putting a deposit down on a sports car either.
great post. With e-readers and e-book sales increasing I can see more self published authors seeing success if they are good. I think that mp3s and the internet made it easier for indie and local bands to have success and build a following. It used to be that maybe these bands had to go through one of the big record labels and now there are a lot of smaller labels out there. Just because the internet made it easier for people to get music out there doesn't mean that all the music is good. I think the same is true of self published books. Just like many musicians bypassed the gatekeepers of the music world I think that some writers will chose to bypass the gatekeepers of the writing world. I think it is interesting to see how publishing and books will redefine itself in a digital age.
While I am impressed with the numbers that Hocking and Konrath have, and great for them, I am still going to keep sending my own manuscripts to traditional publishers.I have no intention of going in without editors, marketing teams, agents and all of the other trappings of traditional publishing. There are millions of self published books collecting virtual dust on servers all over the world because bottom line, it isn't the actual printing process that gives a traditional publisher the advantages - it is the army of editors, agents, copy editors, marketing teams, art departments and all of the rest that make a book successful.
I was hoping you would pick this up when I first heard about Hocking last week. It's certainly made me think more about different ways to get exposure to my works outside the publisher system (besides the experience of a good friend who has tested the self-publishing system himself, Jamil Moledina).
My problem with self-publishing is that, in spite of Hocking and Konrath, people still have this stigma about it. "Oh, guess you weren't good enough for an agent" type thing. Yes, I know that's not true and it is unfair, but the problem with self-publishing is exactly that, ANYONE can do it, including your Aunt Mabel, who wrote a novel about her cat Tiddles. It's the rotten apple, that spoils the lot. Alannah
Nathan, I think the movie analogy is the best way to look at this. Everyone said that movie rentals would put theaters out of business. It didn't. People still go see movies at the theaters and always will. Why? Because you can't get that experience at home. But will I pay $6-$12 to see every movie at the theater? Not a chance in hell. I see only those movies I really want to see right now in the theater. And those movies need to be Big Screen quality, not home viewing possible. Now apply that to books. I will purchase a hardcover (or $15.99 ebook) if I want that book right now and really want to read it. Whereas, I will wait for a cheaper version down the line (used books or cheap ebook) if it's no big deal for me personally. We'll see a happy medium soon, just as we did with the movie industry. Will print books go away? Nope. Never. Will ebooks replace the mass market paperback? Quite possibly. Only time will tell.
And, in all fairness, I have indie published my first novel, and short collection, on Kindle, Nook and Smashwords. I've seen 100 times return in the month it's been up compared to the eight months it was in print with a publisher (I was lucky to negotiate my contract termination). But, I also have a literary agent and am shopping a YA novel to traditional publishers. I think too many people are drawing lines in the sand (writers and publishers alike) when they should look at this as an expansion of the market, not an either/or situation. As a writer looking to be successful (profitable) in the business, I'll go where the money is. If it's ebooks for one novel then great! If it's traditional publishing for a different novel then I'm all for it! Everyone needs to take a deep breath and just chill. No one knows where this will land, but we'll all be landing there at the same time.
I agree with David Kazzie, we only here the few stories of how people made it big. And why do we hear those stories? Because it IS so shocking. It still comes down to the fact that they must have done something right in their writing (or so I hope).
The most important thing will always be to write the best you can. If I wrote a crappy book and it sold millions I think I would feel a little silly accepting money for it. But if I wrote a fantastic novel that everyone else praised and didn't make much, that would mean more to me than all the gold in Donald Trump's vault.
As a self-pubbed author, one thing trad authors will always have over me is some sort of marketing budget and mechanism. I've had to discover how to do those things on my own; hell, I'm still learning everyday. Hocking, Konrath, etc. are the exceptions to the rule and I applaud their efforts, but I don't believe that everyone can duplicate them. Still glad to know some of "us" are making it.
I got a kindle for Christmas, and went a little nuts with e-books. THe heady instantaneousness of it! The cheapness! Then, I found I struggled to "get into" reading like I can with print. I think my brain isn't used to processing the information the same way, and recently saw an article that discusses this in Scientific American Mind- retention is lower in electronic format among students than print. I also began to miss being able to just pass on a book I liked, something I've always done. I then discovered that many of the .99 cent "bestsellers" were worth just that: .99 cents- while my favorite authors continued to be "worth" more. Reliable excellence. My book is being shopped for traditional pub deal by my agent. It's hard to sit and wait, and hope, when right an left "everybody" is running out and getting their stuff "instantly" on line and peddling it. But in the end, I want substance. A book in my hands, in stores, with a future of becoming dog-eared by passing it around. Self pub will continue to be a last resort for me. Call me a gambler...
I wouldn't be surprised if the next move in the e-book world isn't pulling the plug on a lot of self-publishing through major carriers, restricting it, labelling prominently with publisher/self-pubbed, or segregating it to a "special" section of Amazon and B&N and the like. As a consumer, I would actually appreciate this--call me a cynic, but the quality on average of self-pubbed books is below that, on average, of industry-pubbed books (note--on average. There are always exceptions). I'd rather not wade through dozens and dozens of self-pubbed books when I'm e-browsing, which is often the situation I find myself in. At the same time, they should have an outlet. I think this is going to continue to refine as retailers tweak the e-book shopping experience.
Lately, the news of Konrath and Hocking have changed my perception of self-publishing. Before, I thought of self-publishing as a last-ditch effort to have a book published, an admittance of failure because editors didn't think it was commercially viable. However, I think these self-published authors are disproving that and in a big way. So the editors didn't like their work. It seems that there are consumers out there that thought otherwise. Hocking and Konrath took it upon themselves to find their readers and delivered. I'm seriously considering self-publishing for my first novel.
I think there is another perception to take into account as well- most authors currently perceive being published traditionally as providing the validation that self-publishing does not yet offer. However, as more authors head out west into the self-publishing unknown and strike it rich, the perception of self-publishing as a 'last resort' is going to wear away.
What I think all this means is that everything is going to shake up and shake out in the next couple of years. When I hear stories about the big publishers trying to nickle and dime libraries (of all buyers!) and holding out e-book releases for more hard back sales, I get the mental picture of a bunch of old dudes sitting around great marble tables clutching at piles of money ala Scrooge McDuck and bemoaning all those "meddling self-publishing upstarts."
I think these old publishing dudes are going to have to start injecting some Apple innovation and imagination into their business images. Part of the reason consumers love buying Apple products when they could be paying lots less and why so many love Google is because of the inspired and creative image these businesses project.
"We are always changing and thinking up new ideas" seems to be the motto of the current beloved brands. Consumers want this and I think the image of the moneymongering old publishing dudes holding onto the old ways is going to have to give way to something young and new and embracing of technology and change. Right now it seems like everyone else is changing the publishing field with new gadgets, applications, and ideas and publishers are being dragged along by their dentures. I wonder how much better it might be for them if they took control of the innovations and forced distributors (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, self-publishing authors) to chase after them instead?
Yeah, I'm an old traditionally published author who was full of suspicion about ebooks as well. For the longest time I was selling perhaps $100 per month over the 19 or so titles I had up on the Amazon KDP system. I hated reading Konrath's blog about how much cash he was making. I justified all of it by saying that it was not a viable business model if it couldn't really be replicated by another person.
I went so far as to call Konrath out on his blog. He invited me to guest post about my experiences, which I did, and titled it "Tales of an EBook Nothing." Then while I was waiting for Konrath to run the piece, I decided to put up my hardboiled Lawson Vampire backlist with a new array of covers - priced between 99 cents for stories to $2.99 for novels and novellas - about ten titles all together (the four novels had all come out through traditional publisher Kensington in 2002-2003).
That was right at the end of January.
In February - the shortest month of the year, mind you - I made $3200 on my ebook sales. Yesterday, I sold my 1000th ebook of the month and stand to earn almost double what I did last month.
The fact is, people like Hocking and Konrath are not the only ones enjoying a LOT of success. The 5th installment of my Lawson Vampire series, The Kensei, is actually out from St. Martin's right now in stores everywhere and I think my ebook sales are far better than my print sales at this point.
Traditional publishers need to realize that the crappy 25% royalty on ebook sales isn't viable any longer. And don't forget that agents take their cut out of that 25%, so in reality, authors are getting screwed even more on the agency model.
Selling ebooks the way I do right now is giving me a fantastic income - better than the income I've earned from writing about twenty traditionally published novels over the last decade. And it gets directly deposited into my bank account net 60 days, which is pretty awesome and about as close to a writer having a constant paycheck as you can get given that the traditional publishers still cling to archaic business models that fail to address the economic reality of writers.
As someone who worked hard to be print published, I'm now stradling the line of both and having surprising success with my e-book. I do little to no promotion for my e-book, which was edited and published traditionally almost 10 yrs. ago. I doubt it would do so well, were it not traditionally published in the first place.
I do think it is unfortunate that people can throw any old thing out there, and sadly most will make little money. There is something to be said for breaching the gates of traditional publishing. The effort and persistence it takes just makes better writers. The process weeds out many writers both good and bad.
Although the idea of having to contract for editing, copy editing, cover art and so on for self-publishing gives me the heebie-jeebies, I may do that for previously unpublished work, but nothing beats the package that a publishing house can give you.
I'm curious why the comparision is always Hardback to e-book, and never includes the picture for mmpbk compared to e-book. I do think publishers are going to have to adjust their margins or writers will take their e-marbles and play elsewhere.
Whether they self-pubbed or not, Hockings and Konrath's numbers (income) can be an enviable outcome for writers whether they've self-pubbed or signed with a royalty-paid pub! Dang! Lawdy be.
But, yup, there's more to it than the price, or else all 99centers 2.99ers would be enjoying their income or even half of it. Something else is in the formula.
If I could figure it out, I'd use it, and then bottle up the formula and sell it for 99cents :-D
Your comments and observations regarding self-published work is taken to heart by all thoughtful IndieAuthors. We *know* the bane of typos and poorly designed fast-to-market work and have self-collected around web communities such as Independent Publisher, Self-Publishing Review and other web-spots where IndieMentors meet to discuss these hurdles - and more!
With publishing industry experts predicting that 50% [fifty per cent] of all tomes will be in eReader format, with established authors (Lisa Gardner to name just one) slipping their titles away from their agents to try their hand at self-publishing, you may find that the quality you seek. And with book bloggers such as Alan Rinzler forecasting that self-publishers will soon own the mid-list - I believe the future is here. As individual IndieAuthors find their own level, I believe that the quality in formatting and design you so hunger for will be close behind.
I see self published books advertised all the time. You know the ones, they hide in the sidebar of your favorite blog. The author is trying to make a buck selling his eBook, and using his blog. The problem I have is, you get what you pay for. The stigma here is that someone, somewhere really liked that traditionally published book enough to publish it. You have to wade through a lot of self published books to find the diamond in the rough, because let's face it, lots of them are just crap.
I see the publishing world doing a compromise. Publishers will begin to break out writers in an eBook format for a cheaper price - say $5.99, without all the hoorah that goes with a paper bound version, much like a paperback novel. Readers will be relatively assured that the book they are buying at least got someone's attention (and an editor).
I think people underestimate the opportunity that is available to the publishing industry if they were to embrace this phenomenon. The traditional publishing model is the best at delivering high quality works to a broad market. But the efficiency of the self-published author means good things for the reader-- a more diverse range of voices, faster time to market, and a cheaper price. It's not a giant leap to see that publishers and bookstores could create a win-win situation by partnering with self-pubs that bubble to the top. What's called for is an innovative business model that leverages the power of entrepreneurship rather than pretending it isn't a force to reckon with.
First most writers (self, indie, big6) never break out. They publish a book and sell 10 copies to family. It doesn't matter what venue. Saying that most indies will never sell more than a hundred books ignores the scads of mainstreams that never earn as much in royalty at 8% as the indie selling 100 books.
The reality? Most writers will never make it through the gatekeepers. Agents are trained by publishers to accept what the publishers think will sell to bookstores. This talk of "new voices" and "break out novels" is right up there with "campaign finance reform." It makes good copy but nobody's actually looking at the systems that are preventing it from happening. Occasionally the system *breaks* and something interesting leaks in. That's not a design feature.
Yes, the barriers are lower for indies. No, everybody won't win. There are too many books that are just not worth reading regardless of who publishes them. The difference is who gets to decide what's worth reading. In mainstream, it's the agent, then the editor, then the marketing department, then the bookstore, then the reader. In self-pub, it's the reader.
Talk about cutting out the middleman.
Does mainstream do a better job of vetting content? Possibly. They make the bar much higher to entry and have more people who need to be paid in the process. Does that, in fact, make the books too expensive? Possibly. It certainly increases the overhead for producing the books.
Second, it's not the margin, it's the volume. Mainstream arguing that they "don't make that much" is lame. You make what you make. Buyers think it's too much (restated: You're trying to sell above the supply-demand curve).
That's a losing strategy. If the price of your goods are above the curve you have to make it up in volume. This is just normal business economics. If you can't promote enough to get the volume you need at the lower price point, you need to lower your overhead.
The problem is that Big6 houses have too much overhead. That's easily solved and a lot of people before me have pointed it out. Get out of NYC. Distribute your staff electronically. If your economy of scale is not scaling (or not economy), there's a structural problem in the company. Address it.
Learn from the people who are working on a shoestring instead of letting them take Ghandi from a baby.
"First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, Then they fight you, Then you win."
Most of mainstream is at stage one or two.
Key point, if you don't *need* to sell more than five thousand units a month to double your day job salary then why wouldn't you write for a living.
Restated: How much of a $350million dollar market do you need to live comfortably?
Consider that the average income for the bottom 90% of US citizens is about $34,000 a year. (mother jones). Do the math? How many books do you need to sell to make that? At 2.99 it's only 1250 a month. About forty a day. There are over a 1000 individual books above that level now on Kindle alone.
And that number ($350m) is only what's reported. Hocking, Locke, and Konrath aren't included in that, nor are the hundreds of others who are selling a few thousand units a month.
Any bets as to how much that number (350m) is understated? 10%? 40%?
I also think there's far too much credit given to "supposed" experts in NYC when it comes to deeming what is worthy of being published and what is not.
From personal experience I've found that many of these so-called experts are completely out of touch with the reality of their customers and the things they want to read. This is another aspect of the backlash that is helping indie writers rather than harming them.
Case in point, I have a boys' adventure series being circulated right now and the editorial remarks have shown a complete lack of understanding of what boys would be interested in reading. One editor: "I don't get ninjas." Well, fine for you, but boys happen to love ninjas - and they'd love a series written by an author who has spent his last twenty years actually studying the authentic system. That sort of comment shows that as much as the industry claims to know what people want, they actually do not. They put out what they think will be help perpetuate their own existence in an industry using failing business models, an attitude towards change that would best be described as catatonic, and an inability to affect that change even in the face of hard data with regards to the number of ereaders being sold, the exponentially increasing share of ebooks being sold, etc. etc.
If a self-published author has done their homework and has a great a marketing plan, professional cover, website, and a great story, the regular consumer will not know the difference between their indie book and a traditionally published one. With competitive pricing, I believe those indie authors will be successful.
Great post. I agree the perception of value issue is one big key moving forward. Here, the role of gatekeepers as curators - a "guarantee" of quality in some sense - will be a potential advantage as the market gets more crowed. .
And I think there's the possibility of another type of disruption, too: a change in the way we consume written material. I'm not sure what this will look like, but iTunes, for instance, moved music from an album business to a singles business in a big way. Will these reduced price points lead to some other shift like that in publishing?
I can see niches, lots of niches, filled by self-pubbed or new types of publishing companies taking advantage of the ability to sell, and trying to control areas by using price as an advantage. I don't profess to know how it'll play out, but I think it's worth keeping an eye on.
Writers are going to need to sit back and analyze what's best for theire career. That means taking a hard, objective look at their product. Some product is best suited for the Big 6, some would do better going independent.
The knee-jerk reaction from both sides doesn't help anyone. And it makes all writers look like a bunch of nutcases to not involved in the industry.
I see comments suggesting that the dangers of Amanda Hocking's success is that other people will see it and say "I can do that to."
How, if you don't mind me asking, is inspiration dangerous? We could say the same thing about Stephen King, James Patterson, Jonathan Franzen, or Neil Gaiman.
The biggest successes in self publishing right now are by and large authors with the most book. Amanda Hocking has written nineteen novels, and she only has nine published. Why? Those are the nine that are good enough. Konrath has nineteen books published as well, but he is an industry veteran who had plenty of backlist to pull from.
Are self-published books lower quality? Yes. If you made a scoring system and scored every book based on quality of prose and tightness of story, I'm almost certain the average for self-pubbed would be lower. But, the thing is, I'm not reading the bad ones. Amazon scores, and book blurbs do a good enough job of showing me who can write, and who can't.
Kaitlyne said, on 3/7/2011 9:24:00 AM
Thank you so much for this article. I've been questioning people about this very idea for a few days, and it seems that a lot of people don't consider it a potentially dangerous thing that readers might get used to being able to buy a book for ninety-nine cents. Great information, as always.
I've self-published, and sold 16,800 copies since August last year. I'm just finishing my next book, and will put it up on Amazon when it's ready.
I'll also send it to a couple of agents who turned down Remix but asked to see my next novel. I'll tell them my sales, and won't be too eager to accept a deal, should one be offered.
I'm not as successful as Amanda Hocking - but I love what's happening in publishing right now. In recent years, publishers seem to have lost the plot.
The general problem with publishing is the following; the writer is creating the story, the writer is writing the story and because of the present bureacratic system, the writer is the one who get almost nothing after each sales (As we see Nathan's numbers, everyone get much more then the writer.). And publishers are wondering why writers are turning to self publishing. Well, don't be surprised.
It seems if you really care with literature you must leave the following two elements behind; agents and publishers.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 9:42:00 AM
In terms of perception of value, one of the most valuable commodities these days is time.
If you read the reviews on many of these cheap books, there are readers warning others not to waste their time.
Reading a book is a commitment. In our modern society, time is money. However much money a publisher puts into a book, the reader is putting in more.
So I think it's understandable that people want cheap books. I went a long while where I didn't buy new books because I was routinely disappointed by many of my favorite authors.
So, sure, I shelled out a dollar to read Amanda Hocking's book. Whether or not it's worth my time...
We'll see.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 9:44:00 AM
I keep hearing about "such talented writers" who "can NOT even get an agent" and "especially in THIS changing marketplace."
So, I wonder, if Rowling was trying, today, to find a publisher, would she have gone to over 100 attempts (or something like that, I've heard) or would she eventually just go self-pub?
If the dynamic didn't change soon, we were only going to have a few top-top sellers and many voices who gave up before they were ever heard.
Maybe I'm the odd duck but I just wasn't that impressed by Hockings book. It was good. I've read worse. But I value my time. While I read Switched I could have read a bunch of books that are probably better.
I love e-books and I love my Kindle. And I admit that spending $12.99 on an ebook when Amazon has the hardcover marked down to 9.99 just FEELS ridiculous. I can't explain why but it feels so wrong. But if I love a book/series I'll pay for it on e-book. I don't even know what I paid for "Monsters of Men" the 3rd Chaos Walking book because I was so into the series and NEEDED the book so much I just didn't care.
Having read a cheapo e-book I'm a little put off by them. I see the value of having an editor/agent/more eyes on your work.
However the classics for free--I am all OVER those books. But other free/cheap books I'll consider very closely before clicking buy.
Well, I decided a few months ago to self-publish my vampire series because I tried the traditional route and it didn't work. I had an agent at Trident Media Group who loved the books. She tried her best, but editors repeatedly told her they didn't want to take a chance on another so-called vampire book at this time. We were stunned. I had an interesting hook, so it isn't a Twilight replica. I've had two books published the traditional way. Yes, it was great to hold them, turn the pages, smell them, but in the end the fact is Vampires Rule was sitting on the computer doing nothing. I want them to be read and enjoyed, by thirty people, a hundred people or a thousand. I'll take whatever I can get at this point.
First, congratulations to entrepreneurs like Konrath, Hocking and others! Ebooks are what what American culture is all about - work hard to create a quality product, bring it to market and earn your financial success.
Self-publishing is here to stay, it is only a question of market share now.
That said, I agree with your premise that there will always be a market for printed books. Even self-published success stories like J.A. Konrath are contemplating (or doing, by now) offering limited editions of print versions of their ebooks. It is hard to sign a Kindle :).
I don't think your post was sobering as much as it was defending the status quo. The beauty of self-publishing is that there are no gatekeepers between authors, the creators of content, and readers. There are plenty of excellent books that traditional publishers will never take a risk on for their own various reasons.
The potential for ebooks is that it will bring many good, self-published works to market for readers to enjoy. Works that might not ever be picked-up by the traditional publishing world. Bad ebooks will simply not sell well and bad writers will have to improve their craft if they want to make a living as a writer.
Here's the deal - most readers know that a self-published work by an unknown author is a gamble, but they will be willing to risk 99 cents or a few bucks to find their next great read. I've bought plenty of print books only to find out after getting through them that they sucked. Every reader has a story like that, so to say that a printed book written by a represented author and published by a tradtional house is a higher quality product really doesn't hold much water.
At 99 cents, the risk/reward ratio works very well for readers and success stories like Hocking's and Konrath's encourage other writers to take a risk and bring potentially great ebooks to market. After building a fan base with one ebook, the perceived value of an author's works increases, allowing that writer to raise prices in the future.
2009-2010 were the worst two years in history to try to break in with a traditional publisher. The industry cut 30% of their staff and bled money. Borders went bankrupt. Thousands of good books went unbought.
For me, it isn't choosing indie publishing over traditional publishing, it's that my three books that are selling very well as ebooks were all rejected by traditional publishing houses over the last 4 years. If I didn't indie publish, they'd still be languishing on my desktop, unread and unloved. Why NOT indie publish? Why not share my books and my stories with people who email me daily and tell me they loved them? I'd love to make a ton of money, but far, far better is that I am no longer writing in a closet by myself, for editors who like the characters, like the plot, like the writing, but think my books are 'between genres' or 'not marketable in the current competitive climate'.
The great thing about ebooks is that you can download a sample. If the writing is bad, the plot uninteresting, you don't have to buy it! The reader is king! HOw cool is that?
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 9:56:00 AM
I think the big problem with traditional publishing is they seem dead-set on making themselves irrelevant. You get several things with traditional publishers that are difficult to get self-publishing: 1) Professional editing 2) Placement on brick-and-mortar store shelves 3) Marketing 4) An advance 5) Cover design (art and copy) and layout 6) Stamp of approval
Well, more and more we're being told that publishers don't have time to edit books. We have to self-edit before sending them in.
Brick-and-mortar stores are going away.
The marketing budget of a book basically goes entirely into store placement (and maybe not for *your* book). Authors have been taking an increasing role in marketing for years and years—and it's getting worse.
Advances are getting smaller and smaller.
It's basically coming down to cover, layout, and that stamp of approval.
Cover and layout I can take care of if I need to. It won't be as good as a publishing team, but they mess up sometimes, too. I'll at least control the process.
I think it's still worth it to go traditional—though having never been through it, I can't say for sure—but it's rapidly becoming a bad deal for authors who are not automatic best-sellers. The amount of work looks the same to me: I have to market my book single-handedly no matter what.
I like having self-pub/kindle books as an option. I'm trying the traditional route one more time...then will consider Kindle-ing it. Don't forget the CreateSpace paperback option for kindle/amazon self-published authors. I still prefer paper and have bought self-pubbed books in those formats from Amazon/CreateSpace. I have a hard time with the "agents as gatekeepers" theory 100% (maybe 90% true) when Snooki is out there instead of some really good, talented authors.
Anon (first comment) has some good points and identifies how a lot of writers feel. But we must remember, Konrath and Hocking are smart and savvy. Everyone who self publishes doesn't automatically acquire those traits. They are also lucky to be some of the first to reach the top of the heap but as they both say -- it took a lot of work on their part.
I think self publishing will appeal to more writers if they don't succeed with traditional publishing.
One writer I know is going to back away from trad publishing and try selling on her own for a while. She self-published, then tried print publishing, and is now going back to self-publishing.(if you're not an internet personality, established writer, a go-getter like some, or God forbid, a vacuous celebrity, who has time for you in publishing?)
Frustrated writers will do what they feel they have to do. Publishers will do what they have to do, but perhaps they should consider giving the NEW writer more priority, while pushing for quality in the writing. Publishing has to cut what's not working, perhaps 'flattening' their organizations like so many other industries which were too 'fat' in personnel, especially in management.
Right now, I'm just sitting on the fence, and gathering data. Both will survive IMO, but perhaps in different incarnations.
Loved Sommer Leigh's take on this post. Scrooge McDuck!! And dragged along by their dentures! What a mental picture - thanks for the chuckle.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 10:24:00 AM
One thing to remember about self-publishing is that a lot of the services that traditional publishers provide can still be purchased by the self-publishing writer.
Need a professional-looking cover? You can pay for one. Need an editor? New York pros are out there selling their services.
The biggest thing traditional publishing does is print books and push them into bookstores. At some point down the road, that will be much less important.
I don't think big publishing will vanish, but they are going to have to slim down a bit and reduce their infrastructure costs so they can sell ebooks at more affordable prices.
The future of publishing? I don't think it's going away even though people like Hocking and Konrath are making money. I read Hocking's book a month ago before the big buzz started. While an interesting read with a creative plot, I wished that a publisher had looked at it, first, because if it had been subject to a strong editor, it would have made for a much better book . . . perhaps something that could rival Twilight in popularity. Aside from major typos, inconsistencies (at one point in the book, a character suddenly changed from female to male which I account for as an editing snafu rather than an unexplained transgender operation), the characters were not as fully fleshed as a strong editor could make them. I hope that the very first thing Hocking does with this money is to hire a good editor to help her with her subsequent books.
Second, while I understand publishers' reluctance to embrace new technologies, I frankly think that their desire to stick with paper is the same sort of backwards thinking that led Blockbuster to their demise, in favor of operations like Netflix and On Demand. For example, the most recent book in Robert Jordan's New York Times Bestselling Wheel of Time series came out in November 2010 but the publisher wanted to hold out on Kindle sales until November 2011, expecting that people would buy the hardcover and the Kindle version. Instead, many loyal readers (including me) refused to purchase the hardback book, which led the publisher to cave and release the e-book in January 2011. All in all, the publisher looked stupid and the new technology won.
E-books are here to stay. The publishers better get used to it.
Interesting. I don't think I have the entrepreneurial nerve to self-publish yet, but it's fascinating to watch these developments. Even if Konrath and Hocking are the tip of the iceberg, they could also be the start of a new model that will have tremendous ramifications on the existing structure.
I've had to set a few people straight lately about the "high" cost of ebooks. The problem is that most people don't see why they should have to pay for art or craft. This is across mediums. I've got friends who are artists, make jewelry, etc., and people are always trying to get them to give away their work for very cheap or even free because "they could do it themselves", "the artists like doing it", "it doesn't cost that much for beads/paper/etc.". I think some of the same attitude extends to literature. Too many people think they are paying for the paper in a print book, not the time and labor of the author and any editors, agents, design artists, and so on involved in the project. Take away the paper, and they just don't see why they should have to pay. It's ridiculous.
For authors, getting our writing into the hands of readers (or message out to our audience) is the mission behind what we do. True there are some who just write dribble for cash, or who want to brag about holding a book they wrote. But primarily authors have a story to tell, one they want to own, and one they want others to read. It's not about a book. It's about my collection of words, telling a story, and getting it into the hands of readers. Authors want to be read. The medium is simply the method of distribution. And it's one I can chose without layers. Without giving up 85-90% of sales. And without losing the copyright to my own work.
Great post, Nathan, very thoughtful and very informative. I also love how you tend to dive into these sort of waters - its brave and far-seeing.
I don't think I have much to add to your post or the comments - alot has been covered here. I just think I want to add two main point.
The first is: for writers, it's not either/or. Amanda Hocking just signed with a literary agent.
The second is: there has not YET been a mass exodus to self-publishing, but I would just give it some time.
The first Kindle was released in November, 2007. That's just three years!
Wait until a few more Amanda Hockings come to the forefront, and also for the current culture of publisher loyalty to fade....
I truly believe that the biggest threat facing print publishing today is not the failing of bookstores, the low price point of e-books or the e-book market in general.
It is the pretty much inevitable movement of authors toward more money, more control and more freedom.
When this occurs, publishers may begin to offer more competitive packages. Whether that will be enough to stem the tide of attrition - I don't know. I tend to think they'll move too slowly and be too late - to be brutally honest, but I could be wrong.
It's always good to hear about successes and publishing is the same as everything, for every huge success there will be hundreds or thousands of people who are not huge successes.
I think one thing that gets missed in the calculation of cost between print and ebooks - the author takes a long time to get the book into publishable state. It's debatable whether it's cheaper for the big houses to go e-book, but for small houses and individuals, e- is definitely cheaper.
I think that if we look at it as "can we become millionaire bestsellers as self-pubs" then yes, it's a recipe for failure. But I look at it this way: as a traditionally published author, becoming a bestseller or at least escaping midlist is crucial, because I won't keep getting contracts otherwise. If I'm self-publishing and making the same sales I was making as a "failing midlist" author, I can actually not only make a decent living, I'm not waiting on reserves against returns, not waiting for my bi-annual royalty statement that if anything lacks transparency, and I'm not living in a constant state of "will they like my option book? Do I have enough audience?" It gives me the flexibility of responding to the market more quickly. Yes, it means more up-front costs and an uphill battle... but we're doing the promotion work anyway, or should be. THe business is hard on either side of the fence. For authors who are more entrepreneurial and who perhaps have a background with traditional, this seems to give more of a chance to control more variables in our income stream. It depends on the level of risk we're comfortable with.
I've read through all the comments and there is a major point missing to this discussion.
Self-publishing is NOT a new phenomena. John Milton self-published Areopagitica in 1644. Some well known authors of classic literature self-published their first work including Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Wolf, Rudyard Kipling, James Joyce and a smattering of others.
Looking back over the past 20 years, one can see that every few years an author rises out of the self-publishing world and goes onto commercial success. The ones that immediately come to my mind and that I can point to without looking at Wikipedia or googling for answers are: The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield and Eragon by Christopher Paolini. Amanda Hocking and J A Konrath are the current names to add to the list.
A complete list of self-published authors who have gone on to commercial success is small.
Self-publishing has been an option for almost four hundred years. So far it hasn't toppled traditional publishing. I doubt the ease of e-publishing will kill it either.
In fact because it is now so easy to self-publish electronically, the probability that I will take a risk on a self-published author and buy one of their selfpubbed books is diminished. I know how many writers are out there who think that what they write is absolutely brilliant when in fact it is absolute garbage.
Regardless of whether a book is traditionally published or self-published what makes an author rise out of obscurity and onto the bestseller lists is talent. Even if your name is Snooki, your book won't sell if there isn't some talent behind it.
Writers feel that being trad published will validate their worth as a writer, but the truth is that most trad published books turn out to be damp squibs (only the chosen few are vigorously marketed.) I learned that after being trad published myself. So, tired of being told But Can You Drink The Water? was not commercially viable, despite it winning awards, I decided to e-publish. It’s the best thing I’ve ever done as a writer. I’ve sold over 5500 books in three months and am now selling over 100 a day on Amazon UK. At 71p ($0.99) it is earning more money than my trad books brought in over several years. Why waste time looking for an agent or a publisher when you could be selling eBooks? There’s nothing to stop you doing both, but if you have good sales you are going to wonder if it’s worth even having an agent or publisher.
So your question is what do we think about the Indie Millionaires and what does this mean for the future of publishing? Well, I'm not an Indie Millionaire, but after publishing my humorous mystery on Kindle in June of 2010, I am now taking in a monthly paycheck that allows me to pay my mortgage and a new car payment with a little left over. It also helped me find an agent with a respected NY agency. So I think that self-publishing ebooks is a viable option for those who haven't had luck via traditional routes IF they're willing to do the self marketing and IF they're willing to do the work up front to put out a professional product. What does it mean for the future of publishing? What I think is going to affect the publishing industry PERIOD, is the advent of the eReader. We indies have only been able to take advantage of an offer originally made possible by Amazon, but it's the owners of eReaders that will force the industry to change. People just don't want to pay high prices for books that aren't printed on paper. That's not a guess -- I see readers posting this complaint continually on various discussion threads and social networking sites. I think it's human nature for people to resist change, but it's coming, that is for sure.
No, Nathan. It's not because some ebooks are going for $2.99 or less. It's because the very same book is selling for $8.99 in paperback, but the publishers wants $12.99 for the ebook.
I will NOT pay that. Which means I don't buy that book at all, because I'm swearing off physical books. I have no more shelf space. I'll wait to check it out from the library.
Which also makes me angry. I'm an aspiring writer - I want to support other writers. I wonder if I can send the author a donation if I check the book out instead of buying it?
That's not the fault of publishers, or at least not entirely. For print, publishers set a suggested retail price, but Amazon decides what to charge consumers. Publishers DO set the e-book price with the agency model. So if Amazon wants to charge customers less than the e-book price for a print book publishers can lower their e-book prices, but for the reasons I outline in the post they're reluctant to do so (and would be happy for you to choose the paperback). So you end up with a bizarre stand off.
I agree that it's extremely confusing for the consumer.
I have been considering self-publishing since the Literary Lab did a series on it a while back. Your post has me wondering if I could actually make a living at it. I don't need a million dollars, just enough to be comfortable here in central Missouri. Must go cogitate.
J. T. Shea said, on 3/7/2011 12:00:00 PM
Careful, Nathan! If you splash water on your face before delving into the world of books you'll get the pages wet. Or short circuit your I-Pad.
Seriously, beware of journalists' estimates of other peoples' 'earnings'. People have enough difficulty counting their own earnings for tax returns and so on. How can journalists know someone else's debts and expenses and taxes, payment schedules and conditions governing advances, and so on?
Your report of Reuters' report of Forbes' report of James Patterson's earnings is a case in point. For example, how can Patterson's supposed 2009/2010 earnings of $70 million include a $100 million dollar deal?
I've criticized the book to music comparison before, but I won't repeat myself now.
Only $1.50 to make and print and distribute a $24.99 hardcover? That's lower than any estimate of such costs I've seen for a mass market paperback. Where did get your figure, Nathan?
Hardcover to e-book is the extreme comparison in windowing terms. Both author and publisher do better on the $9.99 e-book example than on a $12 trade paperback or $8 mass market paperback.
Charles Dickens books were being pirated in the USA during his lifetime. Legally, due to US copyright laws, which remained among the most lax in the world as late as 1988. Dickens went on US lecture tours to recoup some of his losses. Today's Longtailers would love him!
Anyway, I thoroughly agree 'traditional' paper publishing is very far from dead. Now I must go down to my dungeon...basement to see how my slaves...ghostwriters are doing on my next 17 books.
Samantha G said, on 3/7/2011 12:07:00 PM
I always thought as the whole e- book fad as a way to exploit the author and the author to loose money- based on the fact that some people give their books away for free. This post has made me more confused because I don't understand where the money lies for the author (I understand the whole lower price + e-book = unhappy publishers.)
So, where can the author REALLY make the most money?
First, on Patterson, those deals are paid out over time, hence the income discrepency for one year.
$1.50 may be on the low side for unit cost and shipping (HarperStudio cited $2.00 as average), but unit costs vary depending on the print run. For a bestselling book, I don't know that $1.50 is so far off (though the four months since I left agenting may have wrecked my memory).
You are saying that paper and print cost is only 6-7%? Well, not this side of the Atlantic. I am a designer who has been involved in book publishing, and I have never seen such a low figure, certainly not on a hard cover.
On the ebook millionaires, they are the lucky pioneers in a very new market, where kindle owners seem to suck up whatever books come their way. And for $0.99 I guess you dare take a chance. I think there will be a flattening of the market though, when hundreds of thousands of titles will be out, and more difficult for unknown authors to make a dent. But the ones that have something ready to go already now can rape the seeds.
There’s another aspect to this whole Kindle induced upstart Indie (self-published) eBook writers. As an old mid-list writer, I believe that the big houses have failed in their mission, if their mission is to provide a voice for new, interesting, and, even controversial authors. Everyone knows the story of A Confederacy of Dunces, but for those that don’t, in a nutshell, writer John Kennedy Toole wrote his heart out, started sending it out, receiving rejection after rejection, till he finally killed himself out of heartache. (His mother later had the book published with the help of literary novelist, Walker Percy.) Well, there are probably thousands like Toole, good writers who pour their souls into their work, maybe writing things that are controversial or politically incorrect. And when they approach the gate keepers (publishers), things shut down. Rejection. Rejection. “We’re looking for female PIs now. You got any of that?” Or, “How about YA? That’s all that’s selling.” Or, “Vampires.” Not to single out one genre, but it seems that publishers are always chasing the latest trend.
This is all pretty sad and discouraging for a writer with a serious tale to tell to grown up audiences. I remember reading about a writer that won the James Jones Literary Society’s annual award. Serious book people pronounced his book worthy. But several years later he had still not found a house. His story and others like it are all too common.
Yes, the print folk have lost their way and are now blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes. But now at least we won’t have as many broken hearts and dreams, and yes, even suicides. Using the web, the Kindle ereader and others, and sites like Amazon, these writers can now get their words before appreciative readers. And that’s every bit as significant a change as genre writers making millions on $0.99 to $2.99 books.
Sorry that I don't feel like reading all the comments, and someone may have mentioned this but why is Mr. Bransford comparing ebooks with hardcovers rather than paperbacks? It is a much more logical comparison.
He also kind of ignored the many other ebook authors out there who are doing very well. Victorine Lieske who has been on the NYT bestseller list may well be doing BETTER than Amanda Hocking; it's hard to tell. Will most eboon authors become millionairs? Obviously not. But one thing is for sure. This evolution in publishing is going to change things and it's a long way from over.
Another piece of the equation is book sellers. On paper, they make more off print sales, but do they really? After you take shipping, storage, and repackaging costs into consideration, e-books are a better deal, especially for e-retailers like Amazon. They'd rather pay for server space than warehouse space, which means they will continue to push e-books over traditional books.
Using your numbers, it looks like only two parties benefit from traditional book sales: traditional publishers and physical book stores. Given Borders recent bankruptcy filings, I have to wonder how significant the benefit is. Would Borders have benefited from investing in smaller retail spaces with larger coffee shops, wifi, comfortable chairs, and maybe an on-site daycare so patrons could buy and discuss e-books in a comfortable environment without the muchkins underfoot? Possibly, but this is the same conundrum faced by the traditional publishers. Do they produce/sell a good or a service?
According to the traditional publishers, they produce a good: books. When you look at their financial filings, they report their revenues as book sales, not author services. Unfortunately for them, consumers don't buy books from traditional publishers. Consumers buy them from bookstores, including Amazon. If supporting the traditional publishing model isn't in the bookstore's best financial interests, they will create their own publishing platforms. We've already seen this with Amazon.
The "good production perspective" is, as you pointed out a fallacy in an post-Internet economy. Publishing houses act as gate keepers, editors, and marketers. These functions are outside their self-defined mission, but they still provide value. I can see a future in which the publishing houses are down-sized or split into many companies. As subcontractors, they could oversee quality control in the e-book marketplace, most likely at the behest of e-publishers like Amazon that are inundated with material. While they might not have the authority to delete works, they could guide the best books to the top for a fee. They might also work directly with authors, excepting a percentage of sales or a flat fee in exchange for their expertise.
This assumes they wake up and realize their corporate value is in their expertise, their people, not physical books. Until then, they will be service providers masquerading as goods seller in a service economy. The smart ones will learn from the software companies, many of whom have already undergone this transition, and survive.
Of course, a decent agent could easily offer the same expertise, which makes me wonder if we will see the death of traditional publishing or agents first. My gut says traditional publishing. Literary agents already understand that they provide a service, and some are already filling roles, such as advertising, that were traditionally handled by the publishing house. As small businesses, it's more likely that some of them will adapt their business models to the new paradigms and do so years before the traditional publishers, who are shackled by both tradition and bureaucracy.
I think it's a supply and demand thing. You don't supply me with a NY contract and I'm going to demand a new way of publishing, a new way of really making money instead of those laughable royalties and I'm going to demand you to listen to me when I say buy my ebook for 99 cents. With Facebook and Twitter, but mainly Facebook I have found, you price your ebooks lower than what people pay for paperbacks and I mean really lower so that people will buy that instead, you stand to make a big hunk of cash.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your detailed analysis of the present world of eBook publishing. I agree with everything you’ve said. I realized something the other day, with all the buzz about authors who have sold millions of copies of their eBooks by self-publishing them on Kindle: now is probably the time to strike, while the iron’s hot. This may be a temporary bubble. Things are changing so quickly and radically in the publishing world, the 99 cents price could be eliminated farther on down the line through all kinds of possible developments, e.g. all the major bookstore chains go bankrupt and Amazon raises prices after those competitors no longer exist, Amazon gets bought out by another company that believes in agency model prices, etc. I hope to get an agent and a traditional publisher for the science fiction novel I’m writing; but, if that doesn’t happen, I’ve made up my mind: I’m self-publishing that novel directly to Kindle. I hope to have the final edit on that novel completed within the next few months. I know from experience how quickly a bubble can burst in publishing.
When self-published paperback and small indie eBook publishers were brand spankin’ new, in a time that seems so long ago now – the year 2004, I had my first books (middle grade fantasy novels) published, first by a self-publishing company, then in both eBook and paperback by a small indie publisher. A distribution company opened up that catered to self-publishing and small indie publishers, and my books were distributed through them. I did lots of book promotion and enjoyed that immensely. After that, my books started selling like hotcakes. I received emails from all over the United States, telling me that libraries had purchased my novels, that one library had even put my books on display as alternatives to the Harry Potter novels, that children were writing book reports about my books, and many more wonderful things like that. A two-page article and interview with me was published in TBD, the print magazine associated with Io, the University of Glasgow Science Fiction and Fantasy Society. I was interviewed by radio stations across the United States and in Canada. Excerpts and book covers of my novels were included on a CD with Stargate novels and handed out by Stargate authors at a convention where they appeared with actors from the Stargate TV show. It was an awesome time! It was also short-lived. A big bookstore company bought the distribution company, and my book sales dwindled. One library contacted me to tell me they were trying to purchase my books but were having trouble getting them through a distributor; and, after a few months, they gave up trying. I know what it’s like to think a trend or bubble will last forever. They rarely do, and the 99 cents price for self-published eBooks may end ... or there may eventually be so many 99 cent eBooks, that very few single books sell more than a few copies. I would like to be part of a bubble while it’s new and shiny, not when it’s just about ready to pop.
As patience is not my strongsuit, after my one and only agent rejection (thank you, Nathan), I decided to "learn" how to epublish. I conquered HTML and my covers/blurbs are descriptive; being a former reporter/columnist, I was already well-versed in editing.
No, I do not make millions...or even thousands. I do, however, have four books on Amazon's Kindle site. And that is four more than I ever would've had if I'd waited for a trad publishing deal (if that even happened).
I do agree that marketing is a bitch (for me, anyway) but I'm learning that, too (thank you again, Nathan). And I only have one "popular" genre book for sale; the others are short stories and a collection of my pet-related columns (I am a dog lover). So I can understand why I'm not anywhere near the rocket-ship sales of Amanda or Joe or...
In any case, I'm writing what I love not hoping for validation by a system that unequivocally states I must write what they (monetarily) love.
And although I know my work is professional, I also know it may take some time for it to gather momentum (if it ever does). But, again, I'm writing...not waiting.
I think the major publishers are under estimating the commraderie that exists among independent authors. It is like a huge underground network where the writers support each other, have decent blogs, interact with each other, and it keeps growing every day. So many "established" writers have blogs to promote themselves, but hardly every respond to comments made by visitors. No one is getting rich, but their work is getting read and word of mouth is the most powereful tool around. I think most writers would rather spend their time writing, reading, and getting to know other writers than agonizing over the insane rules of a query letter. The turning point for me was when I was following a bunch of agent blogs and so many of them complained about how bombarded they were with queries.
Well, I enjoyed the objective approach in this article. I'm self-published. It wasn't because I hated the traditional publishing route but because self-publishing felt right for me. There is no right or wrong, and I don't understand why we can't support both avenues. The point is, we write because it's what we enjoy.
I don't see print or publishers ever leaving. Some readers want paperbacks from traditionally published authors. Some want self-published ebooks. To me, the reader and writer can win. Do what feels right for you.
And regardless of how one publishes, there will be bestsellers, midlists, and those that don't sell much at all. That's why if you're pursuing the method you're passionate about, you're better off. Better to shoot for the stars and fail than to never shoot at all.
I don't know why Amanda Hocking has been so successful. Her cover design is noticeably more proficient than most other self-published books, but I looked at her first chapters and the writing is very poor. The dialog is wooden and there are serious grammatical issues, including a lot of shifting verb tenses.
These books were rejected by everyone for a good reason: they don't meet the minimum standard of English-language proficiency that agents and publishers expect of a novel. Many of the reviews of top selling e-books by Hocking and others also complain of significant plot-holes and inconsistencies, and of wooden characterization. These are, to put it bluntly, worse than every single urban fantasy and paranormal romance that got published. But Amanda Hocking is now a lot richer than most traditionally published authors.
We may be entering a world where the quality of the writing isn't really a significant part of the calculus; readers of e-books are clearly willing to tolerate inexpert writing in exchange for a price point below $3. Either the readers who are buying this stuff do not perceive a disparity in quality, or they are price-sensitive and not very picky about their reading material. I doubt Hocking's audience was ever buying a lot of $15 hardcovers.
I think a lot of the readers turning to low-price Kindle e-books were mass-market paperback readers; voracious consumers of cheap fiction who never paid more than five bucks for a book, even before Kindle. I also think that cheap e-books have converted a lot of buyers who formerly bought up used books and remaindered books, so it's not clear yet whether these cheap e-books are cutting into sales of traditionally published fiction.
Yes, that pretty well sums it up. A few other take-home lessons:
The biggest danger to authors in this scenario is the erosion of the perceived value of books. If there becomes a widespread belief that written work should be free, then making a living from writing will not be possible (not that it's easy now). Unless, perhaps, some sort of advertiser-subsidized model evolves, which is the way that TV and radio operated for years: free content, with ads.
The biggest challenge to authors has always been, and will always be, marketing--i.e., finding readers. If traditional publishers and booksellers fold, this does not mean that gatekeepers vanish. It means that the gate will move elsewhere.
There will always be a gate because nobody will ever scan through millions and millions of available books; they will rely on some sort of filter.
J. T. Shea said, on 3/7/2011 3:01:00 PM
Thanks for your succinct explanations, Nathan. And don't worry about your memory, you sound as sharp as ever.
Harper Studio's $2 is for 'the paper/printing/binding of most books', though they do go on to instance a $26 'physical' book, presumably a hardcover. They do not include distribution in the $2. The comments on the Harper Studio article are interesting and debate returns and remaindering and so on.
In any case, I thoroughly agree paper bestsellers can make a vast amount of money and the physical costs related to paper books are much less than people think.
Project Savior, your wish is granted. Richard Curtis has been e-pubbing out-of-print books for years. And Andrew Wylie set up an e-pub operation as a bargaining chip with publishers.
Scott Neumyer, yours is an interesting example of reverse windowing. Cheaper first, more expensive later. There's more than one way to skin a horse!
Amy, I doubt Amazon operate out of a hovel somewhere.
Elizabeth C. Mock, impressive record! And you're right about 'self-publishing' being something of a misnomer. Printing, binding, and selling a book out of the proverbial trunk of one's car would be true self-publishing.
Lance C., interesting that hardcovers are still with us at all, over seventy years after paperbacks first appeared.
Sinisterechoes.com, my Aunt Mabel is very offended by your comment. And so is her cat Tiddles.
Anonymous 9:44 am, Christopher Little was the second agent J. K. Rowling queried.
In the above comments, HBIC posed the question "Not to mention, if you do not have enough faith in your own writing to at least attempt to have a publisher consider it, why are you writing?"
As a self-published author, this kind of comment really ruffles my feathers. I'm writing for the readers. Not for the publishers. Publishers don't just automatically publish every quality book that comes to them. They select which books to publish based on a lot of factors like marketing and how many other books have a similar topic and whether this genre is hot.
Just because I never tried to get a traditional publisher or an agent doesn't mean that I don't have faith in my own writing. In fact, I feel it's just the opposite. I have enough faith in my writing to publish it on my own and take it straight to the readers. I don't want an editor who might possibly change my title or make me take out my favorite scene or change something I love about my own work. I want to be the final decision-maker and believe me when I say, that takes a huge leap of faith.
I am sure I will make a lot of mistakes along the way, but I'm learning and my sales continue to grow (over 7,000 so far in just a few short months). I feel so incredibly lucky to be writing now when I have these choices available to me. That's one of the things I like best about this post - that Nathan is acknowledging the fact that authors now have a CHOICE about how they want to publish. Both writers and readers have more choices than ever, and only time will tell how the market will change.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 3:09:00 PM
Dan. "We may be entering a world where the quality of the writing isn't really a significant part of the calculus"
Since when quality matters to agents and publishers? Agents are usually rejecting quality materials too. Writers start to believe agents are using a coin to decide instead of reading the queries and the samples.
Something is definitely not good with the present system and the self-publishing can be the final nail in the standard publishing's coffin. Why? Because it's much more profitable, you keep the copyrightm there are no restrictions, you have greater freedom and you don't have to write to hundred agents whose maybe, just maybe read your letter and your work (And even take the time to send you any sort of response.).
"this does not mean that gatekeepers vanish. It means that the gate will move elsewhere."
Or the gatekeepers should learn they're working for the writer and the not the writer is working for them. But yt seems the writer is not important at all. In this damned system everyone is living from our ideas and our writings. And we're getting less and less, because everyone is starting to be greedy as hell... and actually we're doing the 75% of the work. Then the writers ask the following; why should we work with agents and publishers. They do nothing, but preparing their pockets to be filled and they're telling us what should we do with OUR work.
Agents and publishers are riding the horse backward these days. If writers are turn to self publishing, no one can blame them.
After re-reading my comment when I posted, I realized I made it sound like I don't think editors are valuable. I am sure that editors make a lot of books better. But quality editing can come from many sources. Not just publishing houses.
Personally, I use a critique group that is invaluable to me. I think the main point I was wanting to make is that it's all about what you are looking for as a writer. I don't hate publishers or have any animosity there. I just am glad I have a choice in how I want to get my books in front of readers.
The most common outcome of publishing--all kinds--is that you don't get rich. Whether you go with a big traditional print publisher, a small press, or self-publish, the chances that you will make a healthy profit from your book are really quite tiny.
Just because Amanda Hocking hasn't made JP Rowling or James Patterson money yet doesn't say much about self-publishing or digital books, because the vast majority of authors published by traditional print publishers will never make that kind of money, either.
There's something about the "90% of self-pubbed material is crap" statement that sort of bugs me. I'm not sure why some people believe that one way of publishing is better or worse than another. I think it's up to the individual and what that person's goals are. It's unfortunate that some people will think my book is crap without ever bothering to pay 0.99 to read and make a judgment at that point. Then again, people might not buy because they don't like my hairstyle either.
Well, there's also the fact that you can carry 1000 titles on a Kindle and also on your iPad and iPhone, which also synchronizes between the three devices. So I can pick up where I left off on my Kindle the night before (Kindle is easier to handle when I read in bed at night) on my iPad when I'm enjoying coffee in the cool street cafe (which provides free wireless, unlike BN), and then again when I'm sitting in the waiting room in my doctor's office and pull out my iPhone to pass the time. Hum.........
Could you conceivably get your book published through a traditional publisher for print, but not sign away your electronic rights, and then self-publish the e-book version, as a second serial? I'm guessing publishers would want to avoid this, but is it possible/legal if you negotiate the contract correctly?
It's shocking to see you're price breakdown when we continuously are hammered that shipping, warehousing, transportation, and yes, paper cost, are the HUGE factors on the massive cost of today's hardcovers and paperbacks.
I've been harping on the price of e-books for as long as e-books have been around.
If I think $10 is too much for a paperback, and gladly buy them used at Half-Priced when they hit the $1 shelf, there's no damn way in hell I'm paying for something that's not 'real' and has few overhead cost in terms of what physically has to be done to the book.
OK--reality check. I just completed a year long experiment re: how much a regular midlist author with a solid backlist, a moderate following and four books in print in brick&mortar bookstores (which were presumably being actively supported by a NY publisher) could realistically expect to make by self-publishing on Kindle. The results are posted here: http://awriterreads.blogspot.com/2011/03/great-e-book-experiment-results.html --with real numbers and real $$ amounts. And if you don't want to read the whole thing, rest assured that neither Ms. Hocking OR my print publisher have anything to worry about.
I think the biggest problem the big six are going to have in adapting to the new world of books is their overall approach to authors and their catalogs.
If eBooks had become a big deal back in the 60s or 70s, when the publishers approached money-making by growing large numbers of authors and their catalogs, we'd see:
1) fewer authors saying things like "wow, I can get everything I've written for the past decade back into circulation
2) fewer consumers saying "the selection is amazing"
As it is, if you removed the last three releases from the top 50 authors from most bookstores, you could turn them into bowling allies. Until publishers come to understand that part of the problem is their 'all the eggs in a few baskets' approach, they will not come to grips with the digital world, whether the prices are 99cents or 20dollars.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 5:05:00 PM
Nathan, I saw an online comment by Amanda Hocking that you had rejected her manuscript after reading the full. I'm the Anon who said the other day that her books seem to have broken quite a few of your rules. I find it interesting that you're now giving her book tons of publicity just because she sold so many of her books through self-publishing.
I'll talk a bit more about that tomorrow. I had an inkling I had, but since I don't have my e-mails from my old job I wasn't positive. Amanda confirmed today.
I'm not sure what you're taking away from that though?
The model you're describing of the publisher's situation pretty directly implies a discontinuous function, i.e. one with a "catastrophe" (mathematical term for the idea popularized as a "tipping point.")
So what your analysis actually forecasts is that there will be a steady decline for traditional publishing until it abruptly, in a very short time, drops the rest of the way down the toilet. Sort of like being in a soap box derby racer that is rolling down a gently sloped, smooth road, but somewhere farther along -- no one knows where -- there's a drop of a few hundred feet.
If there's a lesson in that, it's probably that anyone sticking to traditional publishing should be preparing to brake and jump.
Incidentally, I have somehow managed to achieve midlistness in the new publishing world; my self-pubbed ebook PAYBACK CITY (http://www.e-junkie.com/shop/product/25109.php, salvaged from a traditional publisher that stiffed me, and after it was not picked up by anyone else) has so far made me a couple grand. Not enough to have paid for writing it, but a couple grand more than I had when I got stiffed. I priced it at $4.00 back in 2007 and any number of people told me that was silly, far too low; nowadays I'm thinking about dropping it a bit. I'm also thinking about braking and jumping.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 5:19:00 PM
The final word in this discussion will be uttered by the inexorable free market. Pontificating on how much a product “should” cost does no good. If it can be made and sold at a profit for less, someone will do it and will put the company that insists on charging what it “should” cost out of business. Publishers had a strangle-hold on the business of books, but technology has broken their hold.
I still have this unquenchable desire to see my words in print - almost like a badge of honor...or at least a nod that says "Yes, you're an author...we're vouching for you...and now Tony the Bouncer will let you into the Club." Even if the book flops and copies end up on the cheap table in the bookstores, it means something to me. It means I did it. I made it. I'm an Author.
That's the publisher's ace in the hole - their dirty secret - their value added to their product. Credibility. There's definitely a perception in the industry that you haven't made it as an Author until you've been published by a traditional House.
Yeah, I could make a million dollars self-publishing - and that'd be awesome - but I'd still feel deep down inside that I'm successful in the Minor League, but not in the Majors. Not quite the same feeling. There's credibility with the Houses that you still can't find on the outside. Maybe that credibility is eroding, but self-publishers as a whole still lack that intangible Thing that the Houses can offer.
And I want that credibility. But I also want to make a million dollars...*sigh*
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 5:30:00 PM
Nathan, what I'm taking away from it is this: Quite a few agents are providing an immense amount of free publicity for books that make a lot of money, rather than devoting more of their blog time to books they feel have outstanding literary merit. Many people interpret blogging about a book in enthusiastic ways as an endorsement. I'm pretty sure that Amanda Hocking's book sales are about to go through the roof after all the articles and blogs written about her this past week, even though not one article or blog I read mentioned anything at all about the quality of her books.
- Anon @5:05 PM
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 5:30:00 PM
Millions of Dollars!
I have to have a serious talk with my publisher now about dropping prices :)
I have not read all the comments so I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but, although I am sympathetic to publishers need to make a profit, there is a certain disingenuousness (if that's a word) at work here. Publishers have FOR DECADES priced books according to their format. If they brought a new author out in mass market paperback in 2010, the book was mostly like $7.99 or $8.99. If the new author was published in hardcover, the books was at least $22.99 or maybe $24.99, unless the author had a built in platform, and then it was more. And yet they seem shocked that readers would assume ebooks should be cheaper. Well, duh! They need to be more upfront about why they want ebook price higher. They are, after all, the authors of the perception that format drives price.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 5:42:00 PM
SB already made most of my comment: "Although I enjoy these self-published books, I can tell that they would have benefited from a publishing process. I often find that the books have lower intrinsic value, due to editing mistakes, formatting mistakes or, sometimes, sloppy writing. But I am willing to read them because they're free or cheap and they tell good stories."
I own all of Hocking's books, but it's clear they suffer from a serious lack of editing. Spelling and grammar mistakes abound and I find myself want to make the same notes I leave on my student's papers about pacing and plot.
I'm happy for her success and for less then a week of coffee I now own everything she's published. But I think she really could utilize the shaping that comes from a traditional set-up. I think because the ROI can be so little a lot of self-published authors are loath to invest in editing and the other services.
Wow. You've done it again. Try as I might, I can't stay away.
I especially found the back of the knapkin breakdown extremely interesting. Because the cost to the traditional publisher, in the models you set forth, still include bookstores--presumably, profiting from both distribution, and display. Some piece of the pie they're not apt to get with ebooks.
Just as the paperback didn't end traditional or hardcover publishing, I don't believe ebooks will either.
But, speaking as someone who hasn't made millions as a self-published author (we all prefer the term "Indie," I imagine), I'm also struck by the reasoning used for arguments for and against. Because they all boil down to money. James Patterson's $70 million in one year certainly is eye-popping. Does that mean he's a good, or great writer? Or that he's capable of being marketed and recouping costs and then making a profit?
I'm not surprised Hocking has made a million dollars offering books for 99 cents to $2.99.
Nor, frankly, am I surprised I haven't.
I never got into writing to be rich. Some might contend that's why I've never been and may never be rich, including at least one ex-wife.
What ebook publishing--particularly thanks to Amazon, which I contend has a vision and is seeing it through--is doing is making writing more available than ever to readers.
That was the original goal of paperbacks.
How many authors would be glad to get 70% of 99 cents from ereading potentially loyal fans, as opposed to having those readers read their hard-hewn art in a library, for free?
Celebrity culture has hurt literature and writing far more than epublishing ever has or will. Everyone wants to be famous, everyone wants to be rich.
James Joyce's friend Sylvia Beach had to publish Ulysses, not because no one could understand it, but because traditional publishers were afraid they'd never be able to sell a book with such profanity in it. She didn't publish it to get rich. She published it because she could, and she loved Joyce as a writer. And the book still fetches a high price, despite Joyce being dead many years now.
There will always be those "who know," whether they say they know literature, great writing versus bad quality, or merely "what will sell."
If your goal is to get your novels read, rather than make money, and you can make some money by offering your valuable words and insight for less than a soda at a vending machine or a Grande at Starbucks, ebooks are the greatest invention since sliced bread. Literally. Even better than microwaved popcorn.
Our trade deficit alone should be enough to convince people that reality is consumers want cheap goods, or even better they want quality goods cheaply.
When I made $200 on the print-on-demand and ebook versions of my first novel, I decided I'd made my first goal of publishing: to earn as much money as Ernest Hemingway's advance from Boni & Liverite for "in our time."
Before Boni & Liverite published it, his friend Robert McAlmon published a small paperback run of 300. A copy of it interested Boni & Liverite, who thought they'd better get a deal with Hemingway so they could make some money off him.
That's the other goal of the Amanda Hockings and other indie authors like myself. To be noticed by a "traditional" publisher, to have our work validated by someone we still think "who knows" what great or good or quality writing is. Not someone who thinks they can get a cheap product for a steal that they can sell for as much "as the market will bear."
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 6:04:00 PM
My work has value and I do not like seeing authors rushing to prostitute their work for $1 a trick.
It will be better for all of us if most self-published, cheap books continue to suck. The more they suck the better. The more of them that suck the better. I hope that good $1 books are harder to find than gold nuggets.
I don't think self-publishing can make a professional author. Konrath already was one. That's a big deal. With no editorial feedback almost every book by anyone is potentially just crap or merely riddled with it.
I'm not a fan of e-books nor am I a fan of audio books. I've always preferred hardbacks/paperbacks for various reasons, so if I want a book, it's only one way I'll be getting it.
I get why people might be mad about paying more for an e-book than they would a hardback, but, as someone mentioned in the comments above, I think they're forgetting that writers are still working as hard as before, regardless of which route their work is pushed through. You're paying the writer for how much effort they put into their work, most times, and not the paper. And the effort doesn't change just because the paper isn't there.
I'm not really surprised that Hocking has sold a lot of books. They're priced at 99 cents. It's not really much of a leap of faith, now is it? Compared to 10+ dollars, 99 cents is nothing. If it turns out to be crap, I think what'll really hurt is just how much time you wasted on it. Although if it's crap, you'll probably be able to tell early on and therefore save yourself time.
If I ever get over the whole you-can't-flip-or-feel-the-pages thing, I think the next reason I'd be hesitant to read an e-book priced that low (or one that wasn't backed by a publishing house) would be because just about anyone can publish in that way. I agree that crap gets published traditionally, but I'm thinking a lot more crap gets published through the alternate route. It reminds me of sites where they allow you to publish your book through them when they don't actually provide you with anything other than the means to get the book bound.
Of course, there are self-published writers who, I'm sure, write/have written books that aren't filled with plot holes and inconsistencies and typos, but I'm not sure they're the majority.
I'm not really worried that e-publishing will take over, for many reasons, and I think publishing the traditional way still has its appeal for many people.
To me, e-publishing essentially boils down to this: It's no different than looking at my story on the computer screen. And that's not what I want. If others want to e-publish, kudos to them and good luck. I think every writer should go about things in the way they feel is best.
Anyway, thanks for the even-handed and thorough post. I learned a lot.
neolo said, on 3/7/2011 6:35:00 PM
Konrath gives away many of his books for free, and they are...well, how to say this...they are horrible. Ugh. His truculence against traditional publishing doesn't really help. At the same time, the business seems prime for innovative people to develop new business models, whether working on their own or with industry professionals.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 6:39:00 PM
Amanda Hocking's sales ranks on Kindle are amazing right now. She has the #1, #2 and #3 sales ranks in Romance, and the first book in one of her trilogies has the #6 sales rank for ALL Kindle books, better than Kindle books by James Patterson or Stieg Larsson. Her other two books in that trilogy are currently at #15 and #16 for sales of ALL Kindle books.
As a writer, I want to make the standard of print publishing. I want the legitimacy I think it confers. I don't want to be explaining to people that I went the non-traditional route because I wasn't good enough to make it in the big leagues, and regardless of whether that's the reason authors go that way or not, that's how I'm feel about it.
As a reader, I want to read published books. I want the quality I think traditional publication confers. I've read plenty of unpublished novels trawling through online writing groups like OWW and Authonomy, and I really do think that only the best get past the agents and editors into press. I'm okay with that.
I don't believe there are thousands of wonderful books not making it past the 'gatekeepers' because experience has shown me that that isn't so. I suspect there are thousands of writers convinced their works are wonderful (when they're simply not up to scratch) though. And they're the ones ranting and complaining about who has the keys to the publishing world and why they can't get hold of them. A good book gets through the gates. I want to write them, and I want to read them, so it's traditional publishing for me on both fronts.
And that's a different argument from e-books and print books. Yeah, I know they're tied together but... I want hardcovers of my favourites and I'm happy with e-books of books I wouldn't want to read again. Easy to dispose of without the guilt. I don't care what I pay, though yes, I think non-print should be cheaper, because I don't get to keep it, for real. I know, I KNOW, but that's my perception no matter what the reality of print costs are.
Not on any day am I going to trawl through Amazon or anywhere else looking for $1 reads. Time is precious, and I want to spend that time reading quality. Next book to buy will be Pat Rothfuss' 'The Wise Man's fear.' In hardcover AND ebook. You just can't get that kind of quality in a self-pub. You just can't, people.
I guess I'm one of those authors everyone is so busy debunking right now. Yes, you're right, most indie authors won't have much success, but the ones I know are all doing better than they were under the traditional model. And let's not forget, not very many of us can become the next J.K. Rowlings, either. Writing is one of the very few careers in this country in which we can truthfully say most of its followers can't make a living at their profession.
A little over a year ago I decided to give Kindle and Smashwords a try with four of my previously published works. The results were modestly good at first. But in October, sales took a giant leap for two books. It seems Kindle had put them on the Free Reads list, and in the five days they were up, they downloaded over 10,000 books each. After that, all my books sold much better, but sales were slowly dwindling. I could see people liked my books because they were coming back to buy others. So I re-set my prices at 99 cents, hoping to have high rankings for the after Christmas rush.
That's what happened. Readers found one, then hunted up the others. Maybe this is just a fad, but my sales have climbed to over 10,000 last month, and the rate of sale now is even higher. And my books by other publishers, with of course much higher prices, are also climbing quite nicely.
Now I'm realizing I can actually do better by self-publishing, and I've changed my mind about the new works I had planned to submit to trad publishers. I'm okay with people thinking I'm probably not good enough because I know most people who read one of my books will go back to find more.
As far as the editing goes, I'm sure most readers aren't aware that the indie authors who are most successful these days have ways of getting outside edits done. I always have an independent edit done before publishing a book. And I'm a cover artist anyway, so I can take care of that angle. What I can't give you is the traditional story New York prefers. But then, that seems to be what my readers like. Something unexpected.
I'm going to take the middle ground on this one and say there's enough room in the market for ebooks, print books, self-pubbed authors and traditionally pubbed authors. Each different format offers advantages and disadvantages to writers and readers, so I'm doubtful of anyone who claims that one side of the divide is doomed to failure.
I congratulate anyone who is successful in their writing, no matter how they distribute their work (or how they define successful). In the end, readers will decide for themselves.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 8:01:00 PM
Not only does Amanda Hocking have the top three best-selling Romance books on Kindle, 7 of her books are now in the top 20 best-selling Romance books on Kindle!
I had never heard of Amanda Hocking before you mentioned her (apparently I've been a little bit busy at work), but I have been reading her blog today and that girl is awesome! She's honest and authentic and funny and down to earth and full of heart. Go Amanda Hocking!
Jeannie said, on 3/7/2011 9:03:00 PM
The odd thing to me is how much is going to the bookstores--I mean $12.50 out of $24.99?
Here's the problem: They could seriously move more books IF they'd drop their price point--and maybe two hundred Borders outlets would still be in business. There is no way I pay $24.99 for any book unless it's so rare I can't get it any other way. $16.50? Maybe.
I understand bookstores are struggling to stay afloat, but until new print books come way down, they're going to continue to struggle, because too many buyers will just wait for the $4.99 used copy on Ebay.
And yes, I know there's a lot of overhead with being a brick and mortar store. But. They'll have a better chance of meeting that overhead when they come down to what the buyer can/will pay.
Anonymous said, on 3/7/2011 10:06:00 PM
Let's put this into perspective. Mid-list writers aren't making millions
Mid-list writers will make more money this way. Editing services and cover art are not expensive when your paycheck goes from around $10k to a $100k for a book.
Also, print on demand services are improving each year.
Skipping the old gatekeepers now makes better business sense. Why should writers deal with publishers with New York overhead?
Anonymous said, on 3/8/2011 12:08:00 AM
What is the difference between an indie work and a so called professional? Only the support background. But the content quality of a novel is never depended on the background. It's always depended on the writer . Writing is maybe the only profession where the support background count nothing at all. Your work won't be better if you're working with agents. They're holding you back instead. Your work won't be better if you're working with publishers. They force you to make quantity instead of quality. So if any of you believe your work will be better because of the agents and the publishers, think again. Your work will be better because of you, the writer.
Great post! I'd be lying if I said it didn't leave me with a touch of optimism. I'm in two minds about this. For one, I'd ultimately like to get my novel published traditionally, just so I can see it on bookshelves. Plus, the support in terms of cover design, marketing, etc. is all there. On another hand, I am seriously considering the self-pub route for one of my novels, because I know how slow it takes for a traditionally published book to come out, and I have time constraints on this story (namely, it has to be out before June 2012 to coincide with a certain major event). The fact that you cut out the middleman and take most of the profits is a big draw, too! I just have to pray to be just as successful as Amanda Hocking...:)
"I don't know why Amanda Hocking has been so successful. Her cover design is noticeably more proficient than most other self-published books, but I looked at her first chapters and the writing is very poor."
Everyone tip-toes around this issue and suggests that mayhaps these books just need a tad bit more work. I agree with Dan. Shame on you, Dan, for distracting me from my original comment. ;)
Nathan, excellent blog. I'm a freelance writer. I got my start in print in national publications and dailies. So while my way of thinking tends to be more old school, there is one thing that should be said about successful indie publishers: they know how to target the market. Splat! I've read countless literary agent blogs specifying "NO MORE BOOKS LIKE 'TWILIGHT!'" And yet here's Hocking, proving that what American tweens and perhaps even their parents want is precisely that. In a slightly different incarnation. It doesn't even have to be well-written. They're desperate for more of the same. Take careful note of this, because I see it in my field as well.
So what literary agents and publishing houses can take away from successful indie publishers is important information about their target markets and what said markets want to read. It's an indicator of trend. Whether people who download the 99-cent eBook actually read it could be debated (hey, I have 99-cent apps on my iPhone I've never even used, but I saw them and thought, "Hey, that looks cool!"). But the point is, these eBooks appeal to people for a very specific reason. The year-long + gap that can occur between the time a new writer is represented, has a m.s. sold and is ultimately published, can make all of the difference in missing that trend entirely.
I propose that the publishing industry will eventually -- not just yet, but one day -- have to adapt to a certain degree by learning how to cut the cost of e-publishing and getting digital content to the market, post-haste. The industry has all of the tools it needs at its disposal. By working together, the Big 6 could easily figure out a way to delineate eBooks that are thoroughly vetted and edited from those that are not -- even if they have to establish their own Amazon.com-like platform.
I started learning serious writing skills at university... 20 years ago. So I grew up under the "self-publishing is for those who can't sell to a real publisher" regime.
This year will be the release of my debut novel from a "real" publisher.
Although I do appreciate the work my publisher has done with my book, I've decided to go indie on future books. I realised a few things:
1. There's nothing my publisher is doing that I can't do myself or hire done.
2. For all the talk about how wonderful traditional publishing is, most of their authors still have day jobs. So just as Hocking is an anomoly in indie publishing, Rowling and Patterson are the same in traditional publishing. I'm not looking to be a millionaire. I want to make a living. I have a decent chance at that with self-publishing.
3. Publishing myself, I can put out 2-3 books a year, building that ever-important backlist. Sound fast? Maybe, but I have the experience to write quality work quickly. I have several books written in past years that I can go back, edit, and release. I have lined up a group of pros to edit and design. So I know I'll be putting out professional work I'm proud of.
I just wish this had all been possible 20 years ago. I am glad of the experience gained over those years, but not the frustration. I've never been happier or more confident now that *I* am in the driving seat for my writing career.
Anonymous said, on 3/8/2011 2:59:00 AM
India. Thank you for sharing your experience. I liked point #1 the most. I also meditate to go indie... after I give one last chance for the gatekeepers to read my work. In the last one and a half years I'm getting letters from all around the world from future readers. They want to read my work and they're asking when is it going to be released. But they can't and I don't have a clue when is it going to be released because some gatekeeper is lazy to read queries or novels (And they're whining on twitter and blogs, because they must work.). Right now gatekeepers and publishers are working against writers, but foremost against the readers. Honestly, if they're rejecting again without any reason, I gladly turn to indie and put a nail into the standard publishing's coffin, because as you said, we can do the very same. The only difference is; we're working for the readers.
Anonymous said, on 3/8/2011 3:53:00 AM
The problem for this independent route, is that the work needs to be vetted. This does not mean by a writing group of peers that don't want to offend the author or, in many cases, are needing that person's reciprocated love for their own writing, and potentially later when they are trying to market themselves.
Vetted means that the darling sentences or chapters that need to go, must go. It's not a suggestion, but it'd advice given by someone with a professional interest in the success of the writing.
This doesn't mean that all self-published work is automatically bad, but I've been in enough of those writer group relationships to know that many writers can't see their own trips. Those writers need a higher voice of authority and they can't even recognize this.
That hubris extends to things like cover art, where because this creative person owns a copy of Photoshop, they think they are now also a designer and artist. This is possible, but probably very rare. If the cover isn't to a professional standard, I doubt very much that the writing is either.
"Good enough", in any of these disciplines, is simply not good enough. As a consumer, I want great.
Excellent blog and very thought provoking. I'm an e-pubbed author and considering self-pub but one thing for certain making sure your book is polished is essential. I've read a few self-pub e-books lately and you can tell they skipped the editor/copy editor phaze. It does show. My parents in their late 60's both bought a kindle - now that's telling.
We just got Kindles. My husband was reading when we got ready for bed last night.
"What are you reading?"
"It's a series about trolls. A girl who's a troll."
I told him about this post and the "Kindle Millionaires." We discussed how $10 feels like a good deal for a book in a book store, but once you're on an electronic device, you're in an itunes state of mind and things should cost around $0.99.
I believe publishers should use the Netflix replica. Get public to sign up to have ten dollars debited from their explanation each month and let them to download a book a week. Certain money.
"That hubris extends to things like cover art, where because this creative person owns a copy of Photoshop, they think they are now also a designer and artist."
So true. Creating arts and a designs is my second profession, yet I still consider myself as someone who need to learn much in this profession (After 10+ years of experience). There is a huge difference between creating arts and arts, especially when you're creating a cover art. Using Photoshop is not making you to an artist at all.
"Vetted means that the darling sentences or chapters that need to go, must go." But I can't agree with this one. The writer is writing sentences and chapters because of some reason. Who is the publisher or anyone else to tell the writer how to write and what to write. Writers are not puppets. It would be good if some people would stop handling us on this way.
"writers need a higher voice of authority and they can't even recognize this." I have to disagree with this. Writers don't need any higher voice of authority, especially not any sort of self-proclaimed higher authority. If a writer want to hear higher voice of authority, they become a writer for hire or go to work into an office depot.
Hocking, Konrath...these folks are DREADFUL writers and if you want to pay 99 cents to read drek, if you're just looking for cheap titles to stick on your e-book for down times, by all means, go for it.
However, for those of us who still value a good read and writing that is not the equivalent of a juvenile wet dream, the self-published marketplace is a no man's land. E-books and print on demand SHOULD be the domain of ground-breaking, literate authors who are either tired of the corporate publishing world or who want to breathe some life into their older, out-of-print efforts.
Unfortunately, those folks are nowhere in evidence as one skims through the various e-book catalogues--instead we find a world populated by newbies, wannabes and never will be's.
Ms. Hocking may be humble and sweet (at least, that's the way her supporters portray her) but she is also someone who publishes prose that is vacuous, painfully inept; the kind of writing a high school student might produce, if given the resources and the proper venue. As I've written elsewhere, scribblers like Hocking used to write "fan fiction", with a limited readership (groupies of "Star Trek", "Buffy" or whatever), except now, thanks to new technologies, she has access to a far larger audience and a cheap means of delivering it.
She's to be commended (I suppose) for making gobs of money but, in the process, she has committed grievous crimes against the printed word and merely exposed the fact that there are a lot of people out there who will read ANYTHING as long as it's CHEAP.
Is that admirable, even desirable? Is she to be emulated or condemned? Your point of view will reveal much about your reading tastes, your intelligence quotient AND your respect for the legacy of fine writers that labored long and hard on their efforts, putting their heart and soul into their work.
P.S. I hope everyone is taking note of the fact that the discussion around people like Hocking and Konrath centers on how much money they make and NOT the quality of the work they produce. As a matter of fact, when one does criticize their semi-literate drivel, you're always taken to task for being "elitist" and "hurtful".
That's instructive, don't you think?
Anonymous said, on 3/8/2011 6:29:00 AM
Cliff. You may have a quality work if the corporate agents and pubishers are playing the excluding behavior, cartel type approach and they're not willing to read your work, because you're not in the gang. I do know many who actually writes better than most published writer and they never got a single chance because of the snob gatekeepers.
People also must live from something. If they must choose between 30-40% (Corporate style) or 70% (Self-publishing), they'll go with self-publishing.
Hocking and Konrath maybe not the best writers, but they have better incomes than most writer with publisher and agent support. Self-publishers also have full control over their property.
The problem for this independent route, is that the work needs to be vetted.
Do some independent authors slap up books that aren't ready for prime time? Absolutely. But many of the "new" independents are authors who've been published by New York in the past but have chosen to self-publish for various reasons--because they can make more money at it (especially if they're midlist authors), because they have a significant backlist that's out of print, because New York wouldn't buy this book, or because they didn't get recontracted and aren't willing to take their chips and go home.
Despite what many authors (especially the as-yet unpublished) would like to believe, all good books don’t find a home in traditional publishing. I’m sure Nathan can attest to having tried and failed to sell books he thought were terrific. In fact, for every book that was deemed “good enough” to publish, I’d bet there are two or three others that are just as good and yet are languishing on the authors’ hard drive for want of a contract.
Traditional print publishing is get smaller. Shelf space is shrinking (it's not just Borders closing stores; B&N is not renewing leases on many of its brick and mortar outlets, meaning they are reducing their shelf space, too). Print runs have dropped by half in recent months, even on books by New York Times bestselling authors. Midlisters are either not being recontracted or are being recontracted at considerably less favorable terms than in the past. Fewer and fewer books by debut authors are being contracted and for much smaller advances.
Digital publishing, conversely, is on the rise. I read David Baldacci's most recent release (hardcover) sold 75% of its copies in digital format. Many romance authors are reporting print/digital sales breakdowns in the 50/50 range.
In this environment, authors who've acquired any sort of fan base at all in digital would be foolish not to give indie publishing a shot. New York is still offering pathetic royalty rates on digital sales (15-25% of list seems to be the norm), while Amazon will pays 70% (less a file transfer fee for each download) and B&N pays 65%, provided you price the book between $2.99 and $9.99. For authors who are already seeing fully half their sales in digital and print runs in the 20k-30k range, this is a no-brainer.
Will authors lose some sales volume by not being available in print? Sure, but when the print copies are only paying you an 8% royalty and the digital 25%, simple math tells you if you sell half as many copies at 70%, you're going to make WAY more money than you ever earned from selling more copies of that print book.
As for all this vaunted editing that's supposedly done to ensure traditionally published books are top-notch--um, in my experience and that of many of my traditionally published friends, it either doesn't exist at all or is minimal at best. Traditional publishers are, by and large, only buying books they feel are "good to go" with a few minor tweaks here and there and some copy edits. They don't buy books that they think have big plot holes that will have to be fixed (although that doesn't mean you can't find plenty of traditionally published books with plot holes big enough to drive an elephant on a semi through) or other issues that will need significant revision.
In short, the advent of indie publishing with truly favorable terms is finally giving authors options. It's not a shortcut to success, fame, and riches (hint: there are no shortcuts), but it does mean that authors now have a choice other than sticking their unsold manuscripts under the bed. That, in my book, is a win.
I've been following this pretty closely as well, especially since Ms. Hocking lives near my area. I'm not sure I get why people seem to need to have their stuff "legitimatized" by the legacy publishers. Put it out there, and let the market decide! That's the way every other business works......
P.S. I hope everyone is taking note of the fact that the discussion around people like Hocking and Konrath centers on how much money they make and NOT the quality of the work they produce.
Frankly, the standard by which New York publishers determine whether books are "good" or not is by how much money they make. That's, quite honestly, the only standard that really matters, because publishers are in business to make money, not art.
Arguably, you get better art from independent artists than from corporate conglomerations. Charles Dickens had to self-publish "A Christmas Carol" because no publisher of his day was willing to take a chance on it. Most of the Impressionists were considered hacks in their own time. No one thinks independent musicians who haven't been signed by a major record label must suck. Indie films are typically considered higher "art" than studio-produced blockbusters.
So, honestly, if you want art, you might be better off looking to the independent author than the traditionally-published one, because the traditional publisher cares WAY more about money than "quality."
By the way, that's not an indictment of traditonal publishers. Publishing is a business. Publishers SHOULD care about money. Profit is what KEEPS them in business.
The vast majority of books produced by traditional publishers are crap, BUT they also subsidize the work of fantastic literary talents like Don DeLillo, Colson Whitehead, Zachary Mason, Jim Shepard, Walter Kirn...where are their equivalents in the self-published world? Nowhere in evidence.
Yup, most of what the trads release is awful but almost ALL of the self-published stuff out there is embarrassingly bad, the worst muck, spewed out by people who either have learning disabilities or were dropped once too often as infants.
I want no part of being included with such scribblers. I abhor their amateurism, their greed and their arrogance.
Comparing those gits to Charles Dickens will have the old man spinning in his grave like a lathe. He deserves far better than that.
I could wait a year for a publisher to say no. Usually, I really liked this but... But what?!
I could wait another year for another publisher to say no.
And so on. And on. And on.
Or I could, and have, sp'd in ebook and sold copies right off the bat. No waiting. I am making MORE money because I am making some money NOW. No more maybe's, no if's no but's. Me, vendor, reader, job done.
So I don't make a living... so what? Most TPd writers don't either.
This isn't Monty Python's - What did the Romans ever do for us? eith a long list of answers. - There is no irony here. What did the industry ever do for us?
Nothing.
TP = a few houshold names who make serious money.
SP = a few houshold names who make serious money.
Next tier down the same, and the next tier down the same. Remind me again, someone, anyone, what exact difference is under discussion and why is anyone discussing it? The only difference is once there were a group of people who made a bunch of money in what they thought of as a comodity market. Then, not yet but soon, there were not. The buggy whip analogy comes to mind.
This is the last comment I'm making on this subject anywhere ever. The trial is over; the verdict is in. Goodbye publishers, you are not needed here.
I've been struggling for nine years to get one of my seven novel manuscripts published. Nine years of rejection letters and banging my head against doors that won't open. Nine years of "We enjoyed it, but we didn't LOVE it."
I feel like a gambler who's been at the table way too long, losing time after time but still hoping the next roll will win it all back. No more. This is no longer the only game in town. Writers have options now.
The main advantage of ebook self-publishing is the main disadvantage too: it's all in your hands. I can't make publishers believe in me and my work. But I can believe in myself.
As with any new technology, there will be people wanting to test out their new Ipads and ˚Kindles they got for christmas. That they chose Hocking over other great authors is due to feeder frenzy. If you see hundreds of others downloading an ebook, their is a spontaneous impulse to purchase without fully investigating the choice. Plus the price is right. I still get sticker shock when I go into Barnes and Noble and see a new release at 25 bucks. Seeing a book for less than 3 bucks and you don't even have to get out of your PJs is a no brainer. Anyway I just hope my books sell like that.
I researched both avenues and I can't find a reason to go the traditional route. I'm self-publishing. I like having the control over my book. I think once it's published, it'll be just like any book. It'll have to fight for an audience.
To the people who say most self-published books are bad, well I'm sure there are a lot but last time I checked, not every book in a B&N was selling like hot cakes either. There are a lot of discounted books in the bargin bins that the author is not making any money off of.
For me, it came down to the royalty split and the control. I want to make money writing and I don't want to turn over the bulk of the profits to a publisher. When talking with other authors who want to go the traditional route, if their being honest, it's because they want the validation. They want someone in publishing to tell them they can write. In my opinion, I think I rather have the general public tell me I can write because they love my books.
Cliff said: The vast majority of books produced by traditional publishers are crap, BUT they also subsidize the work of fantastic literary talents like Don DeLillo, Colson Whitehead, Zachary Mason, Jim Shepard, Walter Kirn...where are their equivalents in the self-published world?
Since I've never ready ANY of the authors you mention, I can't possibly name or guess which self-published authors you would consider to be their "equivalents." Notwithstanding, all of those guys might be better off if they DID self-publish (do they really need trad publishers to subsidize them if they're so awesome and will their publishers even CONTINUE to do so in this shifting environment? I think that's a pretty big and open question).
More than that, however, unless you've read a wide swath of self-published books (maybe 10-20 times as many different authors as you mentioned above in similar genres), you can't claim with any authority that such quality doesn't EXIST in the indie community.
By the way, although I did digitally self-publish a short story which is otherwise only available in a traditionally published print anthology, I'm still pursuing publication through traditional means for some of my work. Notwithstanding, I LOVE knowing that my choices are not "sell to a publisher or put it under the bed" any more. I have another option now, and as an author, I appreciate that.
This story was an eye opener on the changing world of publishing. I want to thank you for giving out this information as I need to sit down and decide the road to take to publish my first completed novel.
Looking at it from another perspective I see an opportunity for agents in this changing industry.
In the old days publishing houses separated the wheat from the chaff in the slush pile, then they provided every service required (editing, cover design, marketing, etc) that transformed a raw manuscript into a quality book in a reader's hands.
Some of that gradually shifted to agents plowing through query letters, chapters and manuscripts to select quality submissions, then many agents do at least basic editing and massaging before submitting to contacts at publishing houses. Part of the services provided by publishers have been downloaded to agents.
Now look at an unpublished writer deciding to e-publish: Every task has been downloaded to the author to move a manuscript to a(n) (e)book in the reader's hand. Amanda Hocking writes in her blog linked to by Nathan that she is so busy with all the tasking required to self-publish that she hardly has time to actually write. I looked at Nathan's recent topic of the web page, blog, Facebook and Twitter pages that I should be doing and heaved a weary sigh - I really just want to write.
Re-enter the agent, who like everyone else is trying to stay standing while the ground shifts under her feet.
It seems to me that an agent could very well set up a template-style e-publishing option for her clients that would operate under a kind of label of its own, let's call it Hip Agent. Hip Agent winnows through queries, reads manuscripts, and offers representation just as before, then discusses with Author whether they will be seeking traditional publication, e-publication, or both.
If e-publishing then Hip Agent works with Author on editing, or sends the manuscript to her own editor contacts, works on cover art or uses contacts, etc. Then Author takes Hip Agent's internet templates, fills in her book's stuff, and starts blogging, etc.
The agency contract would cover such things as e-royalties, commissions, and how Hip Agent's out-of-pocket costs would be recouped.
With time and quality e-books I imagine Hip Agent's banner having marketing value at Amazon and other e-book sources because as a reader I am leery of investing my time in a self published book from an unknown, but if I've read a few good Hip Agent titles I'll start to look for them because I'll know that Hip Agent doesn't offer trash.
Among other things this would allow Hip Agent to market books she was unable to sell to a traditional publisher and she would be able to take chances on manuscripts she likes but doesn't believe she could sell to print.
As an author I would love to be taken on by an agent who could say, "If print publishing doesn't work out we will be able to go e-publishing if you choose, here's how we would make that happen."
With regard to e-publishing much of the load would be taken off the author's shoulders, the agent would still have a rice bowl, and consumers would have a way to find high quality e-books.
I've had two book traditionally published, and now I'm going to self-publish my third book (and 2 novellas) this year. This wasn't my first choice because I was hoping my publisher would pick up my option book, but they did not. I can't tell you how happy I am now that they did not. I welcome self-publishing as an option and I'm so glad things worked out the way it did.
With paper books the Big Six publisher doesn't just pay for the actual paper. The publisher must also pay for:
- shipping to the bookstore - returns from the bookstore - insurance - warehousing - getting rid of returns/excess stock/overprints, whether it's sending unwanted books to the Dollar Store or recycle/shred.
So publishers' dollar profit per hardback is less. Especially with newly released hardcovers. They're like newly released movies. Maybe they'll go gangbusters, maybe they'll tank. A lot of returns happen.
Plus, with terms to bookstores for paper books, publishers have to wait 30-90 days, sometimes more, to get their money. With ebook sales, it's same-day.
Publishers make the bulk of their revenue on steady-selling-authors like Stephen King, etc, in paperback. Most of the Big Six's profit comes from those volume sales, not on supposedly high-margin hardbacks.
So if you start comparing a $8.99 paperback to a $8.99 ebook, it's a whole different number game.
In that comparison, both the publishers and their authors would make far more money selling ebooks.
I congratulate these self-publishing authors. Ebooks have given writers options, particularly if your work falls into the non-commercial category. With some clever marketing, you can still reach your target audience. You might not make a fortune, but that might not be your goal anyway.
With regards to the standard of self-published material, I'm with the previous poster who said, "let the market decide."
Interesting analysis and totally agree with JohnE.'s comment that there are a number of other "costs" that weren't factored into your calculations – like the return rate of books (25% or more), so the actual cost of a print book isn't as low as the $2 average.
Your point about the transition timeline rings true – the transformation from print to e-book will take a long time. However, it is likely to be faster than the music industry transformation because there isn't a loss of fidelity (preceived or actual) in "quality". And consumers are technologically smarter and more comfortable now than they were 15 years ago.
Publishers need to figure out their value proposition because consumers are questioning it – not a good thing...
P.S. Wrote a blog post about the 3-Format Future of Books a few months ago and it seems to be holding true – http://www.highspotinc.com/blog/2010/06/the-3-format-future-of-books/
Anonymous said, on 3/8/2011 4:36:00 PM
It's called access; isn't it?
What's wrong with writing an entertaining story, securing good copy editing, and publishing it for readers? What's wrong with readers buying a good book for 99 cents or $2.99 or more? Nothing.
It's called time to market, people. The big six think they still have nothing but time and they've circled the wagons around NYC to prove it, clinging to their agency model and keeping the gates closed. You need some kind of golden ticket to enter. Whatever. They don't own time and it will lead to their demise over time, just like Borders and others.
The publishers stick with their big name authors out of fear of betting on a debut author whose work might not sell. They refuse to take that risk too often, so traditional publishing remains with big-time authors for the most part while the majority of finished novels languish.
In the meantime, the Amazon's of the world (Google and Apple and Smashwords) are providing direct access for authors to their purchasing reading public and eclipse the time to market for any writer. (Bonus!)
Other than writing your best work and getting it to your readers; what else should you care about? The cocktail party in Manhattan celebrating your debut? Nah, they don't do those that often anymore. Giving fifteen percent to an agent you never even met because it is unnecessary? No. The only thing unnecessary might be what lies behind the gates in New York.
I've gone the query route, I've won the contest, I provided the fulls on my manuscript and still, I wait. For what? For someone behind the gate to tell me I'm good, sign me, and then take another three years to get my book out? Why? So my ARC copy has a imprinted page with one of the big six imprints on it?
Be careful criticizing Amanda Hocking, she's a success willing to share her story. Writing is an individual taste and personal thing, don't be bitter, Cliff, or judgmental. Just take away the lessons that you can and figure out what you're going to do with more wisdom.
"Other than writing your best work and getting it to your readers; what else should you care about?" Precisely.
One of my favorite books is William Kotzwinkle's satire of the publishing industry--The Bear Went Over the Mountain. A bear finds a manuscript under a tree and heads to New York where he becomes a celebrated author. Bizarre premise, but it works. Sheer brilliance.
I just had a lightbulb moment. Maybe I should leave my manuscript under a tree...let a bear do all the legwork for me...oh wait...that'll never work...I live in a country where there aren't any bears...darn...
But who needs bears when there are kangaroos! And they have that cute little tummy pouch which would be an ideal place to stash my manuscript and all those contracts etc, as they hop their way to fame and fortune...
Oh wait...that'll never work...I live in a country where there aren't any kangaroos either...bother...
Nathan, you may not be an agent anymore, but you have a beautiful way of summarizing what's going on in the publishing industry like no one else can.
I am jazzed about Hocking success for a couple of reasons. First, she tried several times to get an agent and failed. That gives hope to those who have gone that route and came away empty-handed, that there is a way around the wall. Secondly, her success is helping to eliminate the stigma of being self-pubbed. All good things for authors.
As for ebook pricing, I believe that the market will drive it down. It does not cost the same to produce an ebook as a print book, and I don't want to pay print prices for electronic copies. Period. I think others will feel the same.
Not everyone will have the success that Hocking has had, but the future looks bright for those who were kept out of the party altogether before!
Interesting post and comments. I believe that Hocking is more of an anomaly in self-publishing world like King and Rowling are in the traditional world. They happened to hit it off well with massive amounts of people. Most people on the bookstore bookshelves aren't bestsellers, either, after all.
But even so, I decided against traditional publishing. My books, though I believe are good, are not going to have the mass appeal the traditional publishers need. For one, I write shorter books than fantasy publishers require. For another, my books are more niche.
But I write what I love to read and what I try (and usually fail) to find on the book shelves. So self-publishing opened up opportunities for me I wouldn't have otherwise.
I don't think traditional publishing is wrong. Nor do I think it is the only validation worth anything. It works really well for some people. But for people like me, I think self-publishing works far better. Besides, with seeking the self-publishing route, the final validation comes from producing a good work after hard effort and finding readers that agree.
Anonymous @ 9:55 mentions: "Well, more and more we're being told that publishers don't have time to edit books. We have to self-edit before sending them in."
No, no, no. You are way off base. Publishers are editing books. Believe me, the difference between a self-published, self-edited book and a book put out by a publisher is easily spotted.
Yes, authors are being told to get rid of grammar, language and punctuation errors before submitting. OF COURSE. It is common sense to look as professional as possible. It does not follow that publishers are not editing their books.
Today, no one's book is not going to be "edited" the way Catch-22 or Look Homeward, Angel was edited... but that's a whole different thing. Most authors would scream at that treatment, anyway.
I think you did a good job putting the money and soaring sales of a few new authors into perspective, and balancing that out with the real sea-change that's underway.
One aspect of epublishing is getting ignored in all this noise. (That is - as far as I can tell, it's getting ignored. or at least getting short-shrift. But I have not read every single post on every blog on this subject, so let that serve as full disclosure.)
That aspect is the ability of writers to build their own reading audience, as opposed to signing with a traditional publisher for a share of THEIR audience. That's been the role of publishers vis a vis writers, after all: You need readers (to pay you, to connect with, etc.), we have them.
In a similar vein, I once worked for an ad agency whose owner privately said: "We control the client." By which he meant he (and his account execs) was the conduit between the paying client and the creatives who actually did the work being paid for. The owner maintained his circumstance by positioning himself between the clients and the creatives.
Agency heads can't always prevent their clients from building relationships directly with their creatives and account execs, and so they do make off with the clients from time to time, and open up their own shops. It happens (see Mad Men). It's been a lot tougher, though, for a writer to connect directly with readers - for reasons that are probably pretty obvious. The writers' 'enabler' - the publisher - had a secure position.
The tools for writers to build direct connections with readers have existed for decade or so now. What's changed is the end product. That is: A bound book was once the preferred medium of product delivery, even over laptops (with their instantaneous delivery).
In a similar way, CDs were vastly preferred to online downloads for years. Not so today.
What changed in the music business was the acceptance of iPods as a device for listening to music. That's exactly what's changing in publishing: Tablets have reached the point where they are not only being accepted instead of books, but they are being PREFERRED to books.
It's no coincidence that Amanda Hocking's meteoric rise coincided precisely with the rise of iPads.
Writers are now free to build their own audience, and then (if they wish) offer their audience to the publisher of their choice, in a classic reversal of roles.
That's the big news here. Not that you might become a millionaire (as Hocking says, most won't), but that your fate is now, truly, in your own hands.
I'm very curious why, if paper, ink, machinery, storage, machine maintenance, machine labor, storage, and shipping of a physical product is just pennies of a book price, is there such a big descrepency between a $24.99 hardback and a $7.99 paperback? Doesn't that tell us that publishers could sell ALL ebooks for $7.99?
Kudos to Hocking and J.A. Konrath. I hope to follow in their footsteps with my book Bad Girl Gone Mom.
I wanted to get the book out there as fast as I could. For me it is a platform to help other girls who struggled with growing up.
It was published 12/10/2010 and I have sold about 50 soft and hard cover and another 20 ebooks.
Anonymous said, on 3/10/2011 1:45:00 PM
I don't know that the .99 cent e-book works for children's books (not Young Adult, I'm thinking middle grade or lower).
A quick overview of the top 100 e-books on Amazon for 9-12 year olds shows no self-published books that I could see. I didn't check, but I imagine that trend is true for lower ages as well.
Curious to know how many self-published books are out there in non-fiction, biographies, sports, etc.
There are lots of genres other than vampire fiction or murder mystery thrillers.
Paul R said, on 3/10/2011 2:58:00 PM
Critics of ebooks citing Hocking and Konrath as exceptions don't understand that many mid-listers are making good incomes with ebooks, and that those who do not have to be compared with the slush pile of authors who never get an agent or print publishing contract. Not everyone will succeed -- in print or ebook.
The difference is that for some authors, the personal control, especially on the marketing side, can be a big plus.
"Transition" is the word I most associate with 2010.
2010 will always be a year of major transition for me personally as it was the year I disembarked from an eight-year stint in publishing for a new life in the tech world. But it was also a year of major transition for the industry as a whole. Transition transition transition.
And the effect of all this transition is what I like to call the Big Squeeze.
Whatever the causes, whatever the broader forces at play, the reality is that we as a culture are moving at seemingly every level to a stark divide between the haves and the have nots. Whether it's income distribution or blockbuster movies, books, music, and celebrities, or even when you look at politics, for whatever reason we're at a time of polarization. There are a few people who win and find themselves at the top and have gazillions of dollars and fame and are bigger than ever, and a lot of people below the tip of the pyramid who are part of the long tail and living in the Big Squeeze.
Life inside the Big Squeeze is hard, and chances are if you're reading this blog you've experienced it. You're scrambling with lots of different people to try and get to the top, you have sent queries that have gone unanswered and feel lost in a sea of insurmountable numbers. The competition is ruthless and at times seemingly random. Who knows what will emerge from the scrum and why? But every now and then a book will become a force of nature and reach megabestsellerdom, a level that agents and publishers now depend upon discovering to make their careers and provide a reliable income/bottom line.
The day to day reality of life in the Big Squeeze is frustrating, especially if you are trying to make a living within that environment. There are obstacles at every turn, the successes are hard won, and the odds are always against you. And for me personally, a new opportunity came along in 2010 that was just so amazing I had to take it, so I'm opting out of the Big Squeeze. (At least for my day job. I'm still in the scrum as an author.)
But the Big Squeeze is about more than just the day to day struggles of trying to make it as a writer in a blockbuster world. It may be inevitable that the supply of books outstrips the demand and this will inexorably drive down e-book prices. There are a whole lot of books out there, and lots of authors who are willing to do whatever it takes to find their audiences.
Enter the agency model in 2010, which is essentially five of the major publishers' attempt to raise the dam to stop a great and probably inevitable flood. They are trying to hold the line at e-book prices above $10 even as the levees are springing leaks right and left, whether it's J.A. Konrath selling his books for cheap, or the thousands of authors out there who are willing to heavily discount or even give away books for free just to find their readership.
Maybe the quality of the books the publishers curate will be sufficient that people will pay a premium for them, and the levees will hold. Or, much like how journalism has been drowned in a sea of free and often inferior online content, prices may have to come down in order to compete with people willing to write for free or near free. The future of the industry as we know it likely hinges on the balance between these competing factors.
Publishers are hoping the levees hold, but there's a lot of water behind those dams.
And yet! If you're an author, things are not so bad as all that. These are tricky times to be a publishing employee, and I don't envy my former comrades-at-arms as they try to navigate these difficult waters. But if you're an author: it's still the best of times.
Your success is still not totally within your hands and the whims of fate are s
33 Comments on This Year in Books, last added: 1/4/2011
Your choice of the word "curate" leapt out at me! I hope that publishers don't become merely displayers of fine art, culled and displayed while the (other) masterpieces sit in the museum vaults. That would be a sad day for everyone.
I agree with your (ever) optimistic tone about the future for authors, though! It's never been easy, and never will be, but it's a journey with more possibility for personal satisfaction.
Whatever the transition means for writers, it is definitely bringing good things for readers. Since most of us are both, there are blessings regardless.
Whoopsie - I was looking at the wrong post when I wrote my first comment.
This is so well-spoken, and I think an excellent summation. Very well said. It's inspired me to pontificate. (I've already read my post, so I can come back and tell you I definitely pontificate. If you don't want to hear me pontificate, I'd stop reading. Really. Pontification ahead.)
Okay, onto the pontification. It's true, I don't envy those still in publishing, but for authors, we are about to see the golden age. Never before has the author had so much freedom. It's truly wonderful. Because what e-books really means is Freedom of Publishing.
I was just thinking the other day that no one could stop me from being published, and how incredible that is. I don't need to find someone who agrees with me, or shares my vision. I won't find my work forever buried because a small group of people decided my message should not be heard.
This is directly relevant to the first part of your post. The struggle between those who want to garner ALL the power/money, and the rest of us is a constant. I believe many things can help that struggle, but one of the most important is for those who have little power to have both a voice and access to information.
That is what the advent of e-books means, and it's why I welcome it with open arms. Voices can find an audience. The impact of Freedom of Publishing has not yet begun, but I believe it will be profound.
Can I think of a dark side to this, and possible unfortunate detours? Oh yes. But that's always the case, the human race always has to grapple with it's shadow. But Freedom of Publishing is a massive change, something the world has never seen before, and I believe it will ultimately be a tremendous force for good.
That's my belief and hope, and so I welcome e-books with true hope and optimism.
Oh my. Well, then. Enough pontification. I'm going to come back later for my yearly thank you to Nathan - and this one will be a BIG THANK YOU. But for now, I'll stop.
Many blessings to all for 2011! Happy New Year!
J. T. Shea said, on 12/31/2010 9:37:00 PM
Thanks for your candor, Nathan. Some slightly connected thoughts:-
So agenting was a much bigger squeeze than Social Mediating?
Statistics do not necessarily support what you say about polarization, but many people feel as you do, and we all know the saying about 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'.
We writers are perhaps tempted to imagine agents lounging like Roman emperors, slave girls popping grapes into their mouths as they judge us, thumbs up or thumbs down, mostly thumbs down. Yet most agents never get to represent a megabestseller.
A $10 e-book is probably as profitable for all involved as a $14 trade paperback, excluding the printers and shippers and warehousemen, who are no longer needed. Likewise a $5 e-book and a mass market paperback. But finding/creating an e-book analogue to a $25 hardcover is a greater challenge, particularly since that price is more a matter of windowing than the cost of two pieces of cardboard and a dust jacket.
I do dream of megabestsellerdom, among other seemingly crazy things. Yet I am happy to have written 500 or more comments on your blog and forums this year, for nothing except my own satisfaction and a little attention from others. A paradox!
Pope Mira The First, pontificate to your heart's content! I agree we can all be published now, though I do not want to be underpublished, to borrow a word from Nathan.
The husband and I were just having a discussion about polarization (and the haves and have nots and how scary it was all getting here in the USA, etc), so it is interesting to me that you touched on this. In a time in our world and culture when it would be so easy to be a pessimist, I read the optimism in your posts and I feel a little better (the way I feel when I get my fix of Jon Stewart). There are always amazing things happening and amazing people out there in the world and you are one of them. I celebrate all your contributions to my trying-very-hard-to-be-optimistic daily life. A toast to you, Mr. Bransford. Happy 2011.
Anonymous said, on 12/31/2010 11:42:00 PM
When a mega-star agent like you jumps ship, we all have to read in between the lines.
So sorry, that it's that bad. Really sorry.
And still wishing you the very Very Best.
Man, publishing is in the pitfalls, we thinketh.
Samantha G said, on 1/1/2011 3:44:00 AM
Happy new year!
I came on this blog hoping for a fresh start in the publishing industry and instead I get this- what a bummer. But, I think what we're really worried about is not the e-book era, but the change. We, as authors, unpublished and published are worried what this means for us after hundreds of years of the paperback and hardback. Sometimes technology sucks- but it can be a good thing. The music industry has accepted the ipod and downloads and has accepted people don't want to go out and buy singles on a CD. It has survived in the tough waters, even though more and more people are illegaly downloading music. The publishing industry needs to follow their example. We will all survive this new round of technology!
(I just realised I'm one of the first commenters of 2011 who come from Britain- hehe.)
The other thing I wonder about is, as a reader, whether it becomes more of a challenge to find books that a) interest you and b) are good. I can't shake the feeling that (please forgive this appallingly bad metaphor) there'll be a lot more books chasing a smaller pool of readers.
Of course, hasn't that been the case for a long time already?
And out of the big squeeze will come the wish, the demand, the need for good story. Always.
Nathan, as usual, I appreciate your clear thinking and positive spin on this time of transition. I use the word disequilibrium. Whenever and wherever there is growth, we must go through times of chaos and disequilibrium. Once the ground has shifted, equilibrium will return even though the landscape may be changed. Through it all, though, good stories will remain.
Transition is a very apt word. However, I think the transition is still going to continue through this year and the next and the next. Technology never stops!
Lisa
Anonymous said, on 1/1/2011 10:16:00 AM
So many people in the United States are finding themselves suddenly homeless, unemployed, and/or seriously ill without medical insurance. Great book on this topic written by Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post, an Internet newspaper: Third World America: How Our Politicians Are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream. I find it inspiring that Arianna has given such a huge voice to social issues through a newspaper on the Internet and is now frequently interviewed on TV news.
Nathan, best of luck to you as you go forward in your career as an author and in your new job in the tech/media field.
We writers will continue to plod or zoom along, depending on where we are in the writing process. Thanks for answering the question about how long it took you to finish your second book - a previous post. 8 months sounds good to me.
As for publishing, we continue to watch and wait for some of the dust to settle. Even in S. King's The Stand - there were some survivors.
Hello 2011!! I've posted my own writing resolutions on my blog, just to keep me in line.
Right now, I'm struggling to see a downside to the current 'transitions' in the publishing industry.
After a year of submissions (close but no cigar) I self-published my novel in August, catching the first wave of the UK Kindle Store. By tomorrow teatime, I'll have sold my 7,000th ebook.
I cannot tell you how good that feels. Happy new year!
RLS said, on 1/1/2011 5:25:00 PM
Thanks for the New Years Post. I am relatively new to the publishing world and get nervous when I think about the changes brought on by technology. But then I remember, for me, technology has made my writing life possible. I would never have been able to write and sell my novel if I hadn't hadn't had access to a computer for research (both for plot and publishing biz info--thanks BTW), word processing, portability AND being able to query and send partials/fulls electronically, etc. Yes, I fear piracy and the inevitable e-book-slush pile--but I know I can't have my publisher and eat it too.
"As long as you're not counting on megabestsellerdom to satisfy your personal happiness or to pay your bills, there is so much satisfaction to be had."
Thanks for another great and thought provoking post. I will say that in the midst of a shifting publishing paradigm, I do feel encouraged by the freedom that shift may afford aspiring authors.
Thank you Nathan for your thoughtful post... Polarizarion is everywhere. In the USA and other "developed" nations perhaps some readers are feeling the effects for the first time but in the "developing" world, we are old hats and you know what... once the slope has gotten slippery, I don't know of any way to turn it back into a level playing field.
Individuals can get their footing IF they are exceptional. Not exceptional by their own standards but by the gold standard. Yes, self esteem is a good thing and dreams keep us going but under this "new order" it takes extremely hard, consistant effort for "we the masses" to break into the inner sanctum.
So boot up, keep your bootie in the chair and write on! When you think your done, edit, edit, edit... rewrite, rewrite,rewrite... promote, promote, promote... The road is long, keep your feet on the ground!
When even Forbes Magazine says the American middle class is dying, you know we've got some pretty big problems.
@Joanna: Individuals can get their footing IF they are exceptional
So true (and I agree with the rest of what you said as well). Personally I'm allowing myself to feel a bit of optimism. But I worry, a lot, about what kind of society we are becoming.
J.T. - I hear you, I have some similar fears. But at least with e-books, if you 'under-publish', you can still publish as many books as you want! Maybe the next one will hit.
So, Nathan, time for my yearly from the heart thank you.
Thank you.
After I recovered from your career switch, I realized how much I really love your blog. I learn so much here!I stretch and grow as a writer - and as a person - and I'm very grateful for that. I'm sure the blog must feel like just one more thing to do sometimes, when you're so busy, and I really appreciate your hard work, your insights, your humor and your consistency.
I said this last year, and I'll say it again now because it's still true. One of your great gifts is that you listen when people say something. When I type my little posts into the little boxes, I always know that you'll listen to what I have to say. That is a very rare gift that you have, one that is valuable on many different levels, and I truly thank you for it.
I hope life sends you much joy in the New Year,with lots of time to rest and have fun, and that you have an extremely happy one!
Anonymous said, on 1/2/2011 8:45:00 PM
What Nathan decided not to mention is that authors like JA Konrath make MORE money from the sale of a $2.99 eBook than they were from the sale of a $25.00 hardcover.
That is the reality of the eBook world. Both the power and the money are now directly in the control of the author.
The gates are down and it is the gatekeepers who now have their heads in the noose.
Don't let the fact that both of the "Rock Star" Agent Bloggers now no longer work in the publishing industry escape your attention.
The opposite not quite polar answer to the Big Squeeze is the Big Grab. The haves continue to grab and cling and claim first dibs on their just due slice, while the have nots continue to try to carve out a slice, forelornly, sometimes, all too often abandoning hope and going out on the freebooters' career. C'est la vie.
I'll settle for carving out what I need, be content that I'm not missing out on the material display of ostentatious wealth that attracts freebooters, and conformtable that I don't have to be one. For rich or poor, I'll get by, because I have lots of practice at it.
Very good description of the hopes, fears and opportunities in the publishing world today.
The comment on polarization in our culture should be of concern. One of America's greatest strengths has been our unity in times of adversity. At a time when we need unity more than ever, the media and our leaders in nearly every fields are "dividing and conquering" by focusing on the things that divide us.
My first self-published ebook novel, Lie Merchants (www.LieMerchants.com), takes this theme to heart.
I got a lot of personal satisfaction in making my ebook available for sale on the Kindle Store and other online book sellers. I know I have a long road to go in terms of promoting Lie Merchants, but that is true of any new business.
The bottom line is that my book is selling, I am earning profits to recoup my investment in the work. More importantly to me, the ideas in the book are now out there in the marketplace and being disseminated to an audience. No agent or publisher filtered the ideas because they were considered controversial or unusual.
To me, ebooks and self-publishing have given more voices a huge megaphone to exercise our freedom of expression. If we use our new "freedom of publishing" responsibly, then over time like-minded authors can help heal the divisions in our culture and come together for solving many of the big issues that are not being addressed by our leadership today.
Nathan, thank you for being generous and unselfish with your experiences.
What if you don't want to get to the top of the pyramid? If you don't care about the pyramid and you just want to be a working writer? I found this post very bleak.
Nathan. First of all Thank You for all the words/blogs and everything in-between. I am sad and happy for you both- I am not sure if that even makes sense. I haven't been on here for a while and this is the post I found. I came here to actually ask you a question. You answered without needing to hear it.
I wish you the best of luck and hope you stay blogging. Your heartfelt posts have been an inspiration to us all. Hey I say you got talent kid! do keep blogging- Livi
I agree with you.
Exactly. Reading a book should be something anyone can do. It shouldn't require a device, which means we ought to have both print and ebook available.
Publishers need to rethink their positions in the form of partnerships with authors, flexibility is what makes some industries survive and some die a slow death. Books will endure, regardless.
I really like your comparison to transportation and traditional publication being perhaps like the old stagecoaches.
Oh, boy, do I ever agree! No business has any special right to exist. If they serve the customer (and their suppliers) well, they will thrive. If not, if they fail to adapt to a changing marketplace, that's just the free market system at work.
Wow, Nathan. Mega-bravo!!
Brilliant post. Great clarity of thought.
The irony is that if Publishers stopped treating authors and books as commodities, and they started understanding you can make more money pricing lower and selling at higher volumes, they would acheive their
goals, and be much more likely to weather the storm of technological transition.
Slow clap.
Great post, hopefully your brand of thinking will spread.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Great post! I agree a well.
Wish you were still agenting, Nathan. You are fearless and wise. Agents are fearless (they have to be) but they aren't all as wise as you.
As you so rightly point out, ONWARDS.
Funny. I posted this comment on a different blog today, and it is equally apt here, verbatim: Well argued. You always know an industry is at risk when they turn to protectionism to legislate or litigate success rather than adjust to market pressures.
You are 100% correct. Publishing is not special.
The example of "Book X might not be written in the hypothetical future" is specious. One might ask the converse hypothetical question: "What incredible books did not get published in the past because they did not fit in the channels that served the publishing industry?" The original argument presupposes that the publishing industry is perfect today, or at least that whatever harm it does is outweighed by the good it does. There is no way to prove that, and in fact there are solid arguments (made in this blog post!) that point to the opposite.
Noticed recently vs. the 'before times': the tone of agents and publishers to budding authors (me) in query/book proposal mode, is noticeably more generous and considerate of MY time and effort committed to not only years devoted to producing my best work possible, but also to dedicating and educating myself to the understandably competitive requirements of the literary world and profession. Said approach albeit necessary, could -at times- be said to resemble the court protocols of Louis the XIIII; Now thanks to the increasing legitimacy of online publishing and the recent P&RH merger, a much needed re-evaluation of the necessities of each side of the business can flower. To Quote Martha: "it's a good thing".
So agree Nathan. This is a great post. Loved the analogy to stagecoaches. It's so true that the industry has to grow with the times.
Ironically, your example of Walter Isaacson finding a wealthy patron to sponsor a Steve Jobs bio is the way publishing worked before there were publishing companies. Back then, an author would find one or more rich people to underwrite the production of some number of copies of the book he'd written, and in return they'd get copies.
Read the fawning introductions in some 18th-Century non-fiction books singing the praises of someone long lost to history, and you're probably reading an author's suck-up tribute to his "publisher."
Nathan, I've always liked you. Now I like you more.
There are so many quotable lines in this piece, I want to share them all with everyone I know.
This is a good post. Books do need to be cheaper. I buy my books on Kindle mostly but when I do decide to purchase a physical book, I'm usually bothered by the high price.
Now that I think about it—I guess I'm like the inverse of the people who think ebook pricing is too high.
yes, but it's not just about money -- it's also about culture, and the dumbing down of the collective unconscious by removing the "gatekeepers", the agents and the editors and the publishers, who, whilst making money, also have, hopefully, an eye for quality and who would, I suspect, not accept a majority of self-published books because they are rubbish. I don't want to read badly written books -- I don't care how cheap it was to download. Books should be expensive; not prohibitively expensive, but I think they should cost enough for one to consider them a luxury item, to revere them, and treasure them, to acknowledge the toil invested within those pages. I don't want books to become acrylic -- I want my books to be cashmere.
Sam, you might notice that some products today are acrylic yet cashmere is still accessible to those who prefer it.
Last I looked, the textile industry was not given special protections to ensure the availability of cashmere.
Just sayin'.
There are some well reasoned arguments here... but also a huge loss of credibility by comparing the vomiting onto the page that is NaNoWriMo with actual books.
It's nice for self published "authors" that they can come to your blog, and so many others, and know they'll get to hear all the things they want to hear.
The fact that so many people type words then say they wrote a book and describe themselves as authors is undoubtedly driving down the quality of books in general, and the only people who disagree are those who are doing that, or gaining something from it.
Excellent post, Nathan, and I like your comment Peter Dudley.
Nathan, I'm glad you pointed out how the publishing industry is increasingly treating the work produced by writers as a commodity. I've seen quite a few writer friends produce fabulous manuscripts, but they can't get them published b/c there are no vampires, werewolves or zombies (I'm talking about YA). These well-crafted "quiet" books are unable to find a home. As you pointed out, in the age of the celebrity book, the arguments set forth in favor of special treatment are disingenuous.
If J.K.Rowling decided to write another Harry Potter book, we'd all buy it and likely I'd pay $20+ for it. Why? Because we want it. Just like with all products, some are worth more than others. Cashmere and nylon. Mercedes and Ford. A coffee from Starbucks versus the swill at your local Circle K.
I see no reason for books to be any different.
But here's the rub. If publishers want to continue to obtain $15, $20 or more for a book, they are going to have to make that book worth the price and give a reader reason to spend that versus downloading a book for 99 cents (or free) from an Indie author. That $15+ hardcover better have great editing, a fabulous cover, quality pages inside - the whole package better be top notch.
I'm not seeing this. I'm seeing quality -overall - going way down, while the prices are the same or going up.
Big publishing should focus on what they can do best - when they set their mind to it: Produce quality books and charge a fair price.
Do books really need to be cheaper? There are so many books already available for free (at libraries, or online) or for pennies (rummage sales, used bookstores, or online).
One unintended consequence of books being cheaper could be that they'll lose their value. (Sam Albion touched on this, though Peter Dudley has a nice counter; maybe there will still be a range of prices for a range of books.)
The publishing industry doesn't deserve special protections, but like any business, they will try everything to save themselves. This is an industry that never had a high profit margin to begin with, and they're threatened with having products that they used to sell for $20 now having a price point of $2.
They've all seen what has happened to the music industry, and I'm sure it's their biggest nightmare.
I think the publishers are just working our emotions and the historical attachment we, as humans, have to books. They're milking that for all it's worth and saying, "Don't you want to preserve thousands of years of historical significance? Do you want to be the cause of the collapse of something so venerated?" But in reality, anything we humans truly value has proven remarkably tenacious and capable in whatever form is best its survival. We love books. Books won't die just because there is a new way to get them to market. Maybe those traditionally responsible for delivery will die, but not the product itself. That's what the publishers fear, at least the big ones. The new pubs are much more nimble and quick to evolve.
Anon 7 p.m.
You said:
"...but like any business, they will try everything to save themselves"
Yes, but what they did was commit a felony criminal action to try to keep prices low. And the article Nathan references defends that felony. It calls for 'Special Protection' for Publishers, saying they should be allowed to break the law, because they perform a necessary and important function.
If I can paraphrase him - hopefully correctly - Nathan's point is that the function Publishers provide is necessary, but others can and do provide it. Publishers do not deserve exemption from the law because they are not irreplacable. The reality is that they are replaceable.
When people are in competition to provide a service, the market should decide who wins.
Very well said, Nathan. For any industry, if your business model no longer works, change it or go out of business. Only those who adapt to a changing environment deserve to survive.
Books. Cheaper. Why fight it?
Well, as a reader, I wouldn't, but as a writer, I have some concerns. Within the current publishing system, a smaller cover price means the author makes less money.
Unless, of course, the author goes indie and snags a higher percentage of a smaller cover price, which can preserve income. But if indies lose their price advantage because the traditional publishers are charging less, the indies may sell fewer copies, reinforcing the problem for authors to make a living.
Great post, Nathan. I also agree with you. This past weekend I attend and spoke at the Avondale Writers Conference (just outside Phoenix,) and the keynote speech was given by Gordon Warnock, senior agent for the Andrea Hurst Literary Agency. In his speech he said that those who viewed change in publishing with pessimism did so because they're focusing on how things used to be. Those who are excited about the current state of the publishing industry feel that way because they're looking at how things are now and how they could be in the future. I think your post tonight falls right in line with that same line of thought, and traditional publishers are just going to have to get used to it.
YES! (And as Forrest Gump says, "That's all I have to say about that.")
One of your best posts ever!
I applaud your take on the publishing industry and its future - that it should be prepared to adapt rather than continue down well-worn paths of yore. I wonder, though, if in the push to price commodity cheaply as possible, will less risks be taken with publishing choices. Will publishers choose more often to go with trends and low-risk publishing options like celebrity books and biographies than risk publishing dollars on a worthy work that's left of field and which might, or might not, sell well.
I agree, too, that people will still write books even though decades pass in the journey to their completion. It's the journey that, in retrospect, is the most pleasurable for the author. I believe Tolkien took twelve years to write his saga, and I've taken longer to write mine.
On reflection, though, I suppose mainstream publishers have always tried to stick to the tried and true to one degree or another, and the big break-throughs have come when those with risky literary ventures have self-published like Lord Byron his work of epic poetry which, I guess, wasn't expected to become as popular as it did. I wonder if the work was helped by the charisma of the author who probaby held many public readings in order to make his public aware of both his work and his name.
But I digress.
Excellent post.
I really can't see why publishing should have special protections (just like I still can't understand why baseball has their special protection as well). Survival of the fittest.
If you can't change with the times to make yourself leaner and meanter, and more importantly, relevant (see the newspaper industry on how not to make yourself relevant), then you have no one to blame for your own obtuseness except yourself.
One argument that traditional publishers keep bringing up is this idea that the publishers were ‘gatekeepers’ or guardians of literary quality, that the reader needs them to be protected from bad books. The question is actually asked, “with the wave of indie publishing, how will we know what’s good?” Ironically, most submissions editors have told me that they know within the first paragraph if a book is good.
Big six publishers have access to high dollar editors, top graphic talent, massive distribution infrastructure, sales reps, years of experience, etc. but it is all wasted when they use their resources to publish books by empty-headed, vacuous, reality TV stars that have nothing intelligent to say. I don’t know that they have done anything more for America’s intellect that TV, radio or any other medium of pop culture.
I think it's Visigoths, with two Is.
I totally agree with this... with respect to fiction. Fiction can be written for free, and excellent fiction produced at no (substantial) cost to the author. But certain non-fiction (the research required to write it) does usually cost money.
It's why I got into fiction. I wanted to write narrative non-fiction, along the lines of Bill Bryson (as a familiar example) or Pete Dunne (a favourite author of mine) - studies of a subject that were part informative, part memoir/travelogue. The problem? I don't make much. I can pay my bills every month but there's pretty much nothing left over to be able to spend - especially with no guarantee of publication/return! - on travel.
Without that advance up front, there's no way for me to write these books. I don't actually have the platform/pub record to get the advance anyway (learning this was what prompted me to try writing fiction - serendipity, as I love it), but for people who do, it may be their only means of covering their costs.
I think we'd suffer a great decline in both the quantity and quality of such non-fiction books if the authors were left to fend for themselves. Not everyone (possibly very few) would be able to secure wealthy sponsors to take a chance on them.
The one thing that always bothered me was that when people spend hundreds of dollars on tablets or dedicated e-readers they expect e-books to be less expensive. And it's a plain and simple fact that e-books are less expensive to release. I've done it and I know from personal experience. So why they think they can get away with charging these ridiculous prices is something I don't get.
But I also think that as long as the big publishers charge these prices they only make it easier for smaller e-presses and indie authors who are pricing their e-books competitively. I have passed on more than one e-book by large publishers just because they are over the line and I've purchased quality books from small presses instead.
As for the Steve Jobs book. Of course that would have been published. I've read that book, and it was practically put together by Jobs and his wife before he died. It was a great book, but there were no surprises.
You're right, of course. But my question is: Why does it take hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop any book? Writers who demand those kinds of advances will find themselves left out of a competitive, realistic industry.
Bravo! No industry is any more deserving of protection than another! If we "rescue" the traditional publishing houses, then who or what is next? And who bails them out? Government (taxpayers)? The government is in worse shape than publishers.
The free market, with a minimum of regulations, always tends to produce the best product at an affordable price.
The publishers need to learn to adapt like all other industries.
Years ago color TV's, cell phones, VCR's (remember those?) cost hundreds of dollars more but now are far more affordable for the average American...
"There's a moment when Jacob goes inside to warm up some corndogs (natch), and the narrative stays with the kids outside." Great example to the approach.
If anything, when it comes to any kind of protection, real publishing companies - as opposed to accounting entries for multi-media conglomerates might POSSIBLY be in the running.
Companies who actually pay taxes for the streets they use, hire locally and support their host communities, and don't allow their executives to have offshore accounts... MAYBE.
Tariffs, protective legislation, and financial assistance should only apply to the health of the company regarding maintenance of community integrity.
@Seabrooke - maybe it's time to rein in some of ridiculous litigation around defamation and libel.
I don't want to comment on the issue as a whole, rather leave some thoughts about what Nathan envisions as alternative futures/realities for the evolution of publishing (or rather, the adaptations in its absence). I think it's important to consider that there could be such a thing as devolution--that not everything will be advanced as evolution of an industry.
"All of the mechanisms and expertise of traditional publishing, other than paper book distribution, are now available to any author. Want professional editors? Tons of great freelance editors are standing by. Need cover design? A graphic designer will be happy to help. Need money in advance to pay for all this? Take a gander at Kickstarter, or at the universities and nonprofits who currently support the publication of literary fiction and academia."
This paragraph in particular made me think of this. While freelance offers lots of people the autonomy it desires, it heaps a lot more costs on the back of the worker him/herself. In other industries, you would hear the decrying of the rise of contractual labor, in which companies are restructuring their workforce so they are free of responsibility. A freelance editor has to hustle jobs, pay for their own benefits (which often means less of them), and live paycheck to paycheck. A freelancer, is in effect, a single business and in seeking business success, every project can be a career-effecting. Will freelance editors shy away from literary risks in order to take safer projects? Also, where do successful editors come from? I would wager many of them gained their experience through traditional publishing. If becoming an editor means taking on increasing costs to oneself (along with increasing risk), then we should consider how the demographic of would-be editors will narrow socially and economically as a result.
Kickstarter? Academic Presses? Do you think people are going to kickstarter intellectual literary classics? Or Zombie/Vampire/pop-lit? (No preference for either, but you're surrendering to the whim of the masses--if you can stand out of an already saturated kickstarter pool, to appeal to increasingly cash-strapped, donation-weary clientele. As for academic presses--where do you think their money comes from, and what is the mission statement of the presses? Do academic presses have extra room on their lists they've been reserving all this time? I'm not saying these are bad ideas, but as the only systems to prop up an industry--are we going from stage-coach to train? Is that the most proper metaphor? Or would this be more like going train to plane, or train to bus? I don't think it's very clear that these mechanisms (by themselves at least), are necessarily positive, effective, or anymore sustainable than the publishing industry in its current form...
As for this:
"I mean, if Walter Isaacson came to me and said, "Nathan, I have secured exclusive access to Steve Jobs to write his bio, I just need $500,000 to write it in exchange for a share the profits," I would say, "I don't have $500,000." But I'm confident Isaacson would be able to find a member of the 1% willing to take the bet."
This seems like an endorsement of feudal-era patronage. Is this really advisable? Does this adhere to journalistic principles? What if the member of the 1% is an enemy of the biographee? Etc. etc.
At face value, I don't disagree that "publishing is not special," but I just wanted to raise some concerns about some of the mentioned alternatives. I don't believe the freelancification/guerrilization of industry is necessarily a good thing for ALL parties. Sure, the consumer will likely benefit in cost, as they do from all cheapening products, but let's consider the true cost of that cheapening: labor, benefits, wealth stratification. Perhaps the analyst is right: Publishing is NOT special, and perhaps lots of industries need protection from the extreme pursuit of the bottom line.