Self-Publishing

[rowyn]

J. A. Konrath: "You Should Self-Publish"

In the last few years, I've read a lot about self-publishing. I've watched some very hard-working friends enjoy a modest degree of success self-publishing. I definitely believe that there are situations where self-publishing makes sense.

Even so, this essay struck me. Because it's the first time that I've seen someone who

a) Was traditionally published and moderately successful in print
b) Decided to switch to self-publishing
c) Now believes that not only was self-publishing the right decision for him, but that it is the best option for basically all authors, whether they have been traditionally published before or not.

And that last made me go "Whoa". Here is an author contending that traditional publishers are offering authors virtually nothing of value beyond editing and cover-painting services that an author can contract elsewhere. That the whole "cachet of having been vetted by the elite of the industry" is a myth. That e-book readers do not care whether your book is self-published or traditionally published. That traditional publishers are not really doing anything to promote sales beyond placing your book in stores, which you can do yourself in the e-book world.

And that is just ... whoa. A big claim to make.

I do not know if I am convinced; Konraths's numbers, especially the assumption that sales will remain level over any given period of time, struck me as overly simplistic. It also seems to me that publishers at least have the potential to add considerable value to the process, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Still, food for thought.

Comments

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

<.<
>.>

You're just posting this to try to convince Bard, aren't you? n.n

[rowyn]

Bard is already convinced! I think I am trying to convince myself. c.c

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

Huge logical flaw: He says that you're losing money when your book is awaiting publication.

He assumes that book sales will always be steady, that there is no life-cycle for ebooks. And he bases his numbers on his own experience, which means the data set is TINY and less than 24 months long.

I've been self-publishing successfully for five years now. Sales of the first book I put out have tapered significantly. It's new books that pay the bills, though the back-list is definitely helpful in normalizing the spikes and troughs of the book release cycle.

I think that electronic publishing is our eventual future, and that traditional publishers will have to change a lot to remain relevant, but I also think Konrath's argument is flawed to the point of being negligently misleading.

[rowyn]

Yeah, that's what I meant about not like his assumptions. To have sales stay steady means that you need a constant stream of new readers. Selling new books to your existing readers is probably easier than garnering new readers to buy your old ones.

OTOH, Konrath does have a point that the future of print sales in two years is looking more uncertain than ever right now.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I have found that once in a while, I see one sale of a book, and then a day later every story in my backlist goes at once, so I figure those are new readers who liked something they saw and went for the rest. But it's not as predictable as people buying the new things I put out. Nevertheless, a big backlist is a nice thing to have.

I think discoverability is the next big hurdle. Konrath isn't a good example of how to solve that problem; traditional publishing gives a big boost to visibility that translates readily to self-publishing, so they never had to contend with the "no one knows who I am or that I even exist to buy my books" challenge.

[rowyn]

I'll note that in later entries, Konrath lists and interviews a number of authors who did not start with traditional publishers, which I think is the main reason he regards it in error to assume his success is due to his background in traditional publishing.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I think it would be excellent if he would be correct. But—*puts on Business Manager hat*—I think, looking at how things are working out for me, that it's not all roses.

The thing I keep in mind is that a lot of traditionally published authors aren't making a living either. They're making grocery money or part-time money. Measuring that way, self-publishing can easily be just as successful. Where I'm not sure it can measure up yet is whether it allows for the outliers, like bestsellers.

[rowyn]

The thing I keep in mind is that a lot of traditionally published authors aren't making a living either.

That's what I was thinking, that the question isn't "will self-publishing make you rich?" but "would traditional publishing actually be *any better*?" Obviously, there are way more self-published authors making virtually nothing than ones selling thousands of books. But that doesn't answer whether the authors that aren't selling self-published would be able to get a traditional publisher, or if their books would sell if they did. Or if the authors who are selling thousands of copies would sell tens of thousands through a publishing house. I'm not even sure how you'd answer that question; maybe by finding a large random sample of authors who'd taken both routes, in both orders.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think that random sample is going to happen. All you can really do is decide to take the plunge or not. I think keeping your options open in every direction, and considering what each option can do for you from a marketing perspective (and what it will cost you to try it) is the only way to go at this point. Unfortunately, that's time-consuming and requires both the knowledge and the willingness to take some business sensibility and apply it to what is still a creative process.

Writers are still artists. The temperament is not often interested in nuts and bolts.

[verminiusrex.livejournal.com]

As with many things involving technology and the internet, one success story doesn't mean that business model works for everyone. I think that for big name authors the publishers will remain vital to their success, but for the far greater number of lesser authors the technology of ebooks and self publishing allows them to get their books out like they wouldn't have been able years ago.

Much like the retailers that feared the internet would lead to the downfall of their physical stores or the people who thought that email would lead to the end of snail mail, I think that it won't end the old ways of doing things but will significantly impact how the industry is run. The playing field has been leveled and the publishers are no longer the only means for an author to reach their audience. The publishers can either adapt to the new technology or watch their market share slowly shrink over the next decade.

[rowyn]

Oddly, I think the publishers have less to offer big-name authors than they do to newcomers. An author with a large proven audience doesn't need a marketing engine and can afford to contract an editor and an illustrator.

To stay relevant, publishers need to show that they can market books much better than an independent author, because that's the big piece that's not so easy to contract for. It's something publishers *should* be able to do well, but I'm not sure they *do*.

[verminiusrex.livejournal.com]

Self-publishing is still a niche, whereas the publishers are established mainstream. They have distribution sources and bulk pricing that self-publishing can't compete with, yet. I'd say it is a matter of publishers holding the traditional market where people know to look for books, but the self-publishing is edging into their market.

And the established authors working with publishers do have something to lose by going self-published, because they lose the visibility of the bookstores. Move any item from one outlet to another and you can easily lose many readers because they either don't know how or don't want to get their books from online rather than the local bookstore. I'd use the example of Howard Stern going from regular radio to satellite radio and losing much of his listening audience, but I don't know if they exactly equate. Any drastic change in a business from ease of acquiring to raising the price causes a business to lose customers immediately, although it may gain more in the long run.

[mach.livejournal.com]

Hehe, You know me. I'll put it this way.

Provided the page count is good, and there's a sample to read online. I typically buy e-books that are clearly self-published. The reason is most of the big names don't have the stuff I want, and the stuff I do want isn't necessarilly the best written, but tells the best story.

Publishers are great gate-keepers, you know you're getting a level of quality. But like free software is to non-free, there are niches to be filled. And often the quality is very high, due dilligence is requred.

Also, it should be noted, your stuff on Amazon doesn't really show in bright neon that it was self published. So, Amazon becomes a great leveler in my opinion. Very neat times.

Recently I bought 6 e-books. All were in the paranormal/romance/gay sub-genre. *grin* Were-(wolf, cat, lion etc) guy on guy action. Fun stuff. Some was crap, some was amazing. But all of it was *FUN!

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

AHHH Romance novels! n.n Nothing messes up my search for niche literature more than rule 34.

... okay, sometimes I buy them anyway.

[rowyn]

What niche are you actually looking for, if it's not rule 34? n_n

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Various things. The last one was searching for 'demon and dragon' and finding 'The Demon's Dragon' or maybe it was The Dragon's Demon I don't know. It was... a romance novel. A creepy one. n.n

[rowyn]

Yeah, I realized that nowadays I don't buy many books, and most of the fiction I read is online self-published serials. Which I enjoy as much or more than the average book from a traditional publisher, so the whole thing where "self-published=bad" doesn't ring true to me any more.