Support for Indie Authors discussion

Yes, humor writers do occasionally comment on serious issues.

I read an article today (via Google+ Writer's Discussion Group) that noted a drop in income for authors industrywide. The article is unimportant per se, just a poll with statistics, but it highlights a problem that we generally don't discuss. Here was my reply to another writer's (DL Keur) comment:

"DL Keur pointed out the AWFUL truth that many do not want to face: Publishing is an industry in the midst of great change, and many of these changes are going to be painful for those who cannot adapt.

Traditional publishers missed their opportunity to transition to a business model that leaned heavily toward electronic distribution. Amazon would never have been a powerhouse if they had. However, the communication age cannot be stopped and now we’re at the Model A stage of online publishing and distribution.

Publishing, self-publishing, distribution and even quality control are in transition. Over the next decade or two, the publishing industry is going to need to address uncounted issues. How they will shake out is anyone’s guess, so the best thing an author can do currently is pay attention."

Are many of us missing the Big Picture in our own industry?

Any thoughts?

We've already seen this happen with newspapers, radio and magazines. Books and television are next, and the more they dig their heels in and refuse to adapt to changing technology, the deeper the hole they will find themselves in when they do decide to get with the program.

This is where I think the Kindle Scout program could really be the start of something grand for publishing as a whole. Instead of books being weighed on the merits of a 1-paragraph blurb or a query letter, they're voted on based on people actually reading them to determine if they're worthy of being published.

Who knows? In a few years, the market might not be saturated with Twilight and Harry Potter clones quite so much, and actually become diverse again.

I see my E-books on pirate websites all the time. It really is infuriating. The bright side is I get read. I have no money for marketing so getting read is a big deal. Also there are 4+ million books on Amazon. A lot of this is because of self publishing. Once again this is both good and bad. Editors in the big houses are not screening our work for political correctness or to try and fit a narrative. Some of best books I have read this year are self published.The bad part is you don't get shelf space in the major retailers and there is massive competition. You must become your own marketing machine. In the end however, I feel that all cream will rise to the top. 50 Shades author was on her third book before the first one was noticed. My advice is keep your head down, try to improve and keep writing.

Jack wrote: "I see my E-books on pirate websites all the time. It really is infuriating. The bright side is I get read. I have no money for marketing so getting read is a big deal. Also there are 4+ million boo..."

I know what you mean about seeing your work on pirate websites, though I'm not as sanguine about the exposure benefits as you.

I tend to read self-published or indie publisher books because the prices from big publishers on kindle are extortionate. Some books I will buy, despite my grumbles (I didn't like paying £13.99 (13.99!) for Tom Holland's latest, but I trust him to give me a good book and it is marginally cheaper than the hardcover I would have bought instead; but I'm not going to take a chance on someone I don't know at that price when I can pick up an indie for much less.

Another thing is the e-library-book market is growing and therefore the face of Libraries as "distributors." Amazon, was also smart to create the Kindle Lending Library. More indie authors are being discovered and read. I think this plays into the big picture.

Nowadays many things become 'paperless', like government returns, correspondence, newspapers (hope toilets won't follow suit though), so naturally books turn digital and the digital share steadily grows.
We witness entire industries become extinct in front of our eyes: Photoshops, international telecom operators, killed by Skype, Viber & others. Examples are abundant. No doubt trad publishing is 'bleeding', but it's still there and they learn to adapt. Some will survive and prosper.
What's there for us?
Well, prima facie we have more choices now with viable and available self-publishing route. On the other hand, traditional venue became less accessible, since agents and publishers are unwilling to invest into debut and unorthodox writers and prefer to side with established authors or where they r confident to make profit. Indie path, easy as it is, allows everyone to offer their work to the public, but only a small percent would be able to make a living of it. And those who choose it or don't have other choice need to learn 'modern publishing' and desirably to have some budget and time to promote their own content.
Knowing the big picture might not help when having small money -:)

Nik wrote: "Nowadays many things become 'paperless', like government returns, correspondence, newspapers (hope toilets won't follow suit though), so naturally books turn digital and the digital share steadily ..."

I'm not sure I agree that some traditional publishers will "prosper". I think they're more likely to go extinct. Remember Border's Books? That was an entire distribution chain that disappeared overnight. Few industries can take that kind of hit, especially if there are more to come, and prosper long term.

Then, if the online publishing industry does settle into a rational and productive business model, there is another basic economic question: If an author is wildly successful, should they settle for 10% from a traditional publisher when they can get 70% from an online publisher? Basic economic models say, "No."

Jay wrote: "If an author is wildly successful, should they settle for 10% from a traditional publisher when they can get 70% from an online publisher? Basic economic models say, "No." "

Especially when you consider the wildly popular authors can still command $7.99 to $9.99 for an ebook.

But that's kind of a big 'if'. I agree that an author with a 'known brand' can do independently very well and for him/her makes no sense to share with publishers unless it's for foreign rights or stuff like that.
But I'd give you my example. As an indie, I start with approximately minus 800-1000 pounds, spent on editing and auxiliary expenses and I can't be sure I'd ever make it back, while my friend and co-author with whom I did the first book, starts with plus 3,000 pounds, received as advance from the publisher on his non-fiction book. Even if it doesn't sell well, he's ok. And if it does - well then the publisher would be much happier than him. Unfortunately the former option is more probable

Nik wrote: "But that's kind of a big 'if'. I agree that an author with a 'known brand' can do independently very well and for him/her makes no sense to share with publishers unless it's for foreign rights or s..."

I see your point, but I don't think I explained mine well. The online publishing industry is quite literally in the Model A stage. When they work out the bugs, a brick and mortar publisher will not be able to compete head-to-head.

And who says that online publishers will never offer advances to attract an author with a large following. If the business model makes sense, I can't see them not offering an advance.

Sure, what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm less sure the division between online and brick and mortar publishers would stay though. Everyone will be online. Like pretty much all newspapers have internet sites today. And sure an author with a sizable following would be courted and lured and whatever. I hear that even today if you show few K sales as an indie, you can close decent contract with anyone you want..

I heard a bit on the radio over last weekend about writer's earnings taking a plunge by like 20%. That was the bad news.

The even worse news was that the median writer's earnings went from $10,000/year to $8,000/year. Meaning, writers as a whole have always been paid shit.

The hurdles we face, though, as indie authors not coming out of traditional publishing are pretty huge.

I heard a great podcast with Kristin Kathryn-Rusch last night where she was speaking encouragingly about indie publishing. But she said every writer really needs to hire a copy editor and a content editor (to make sure there are no massive blunders in continuity or plot, etc.)...and to pay for all the other services required that we can't do professionally ourselves. Easy for her to say considering all that she's done and all that she's published traditionally. Having a fan base first is an amazing head start.

Problem is, as mentioned above, we start in the negative with each book and my never see our investment recuperated.

A decent custom made book cover's going to cost something like $100 - $600 on average. Good copy editing in the $800 - $1,500 range. Content editor? Dunno, but I'd guess at least (probably more) than the copy editor.

So say we use the low figures above. You're talking about spending $1,700 not including ANY marketing costs.

If you're earning $2 per book, you'll have to sell 850 copies just to break even.

Pretty sure none of my books have sold that many in total.

On top of that 850 copies, you'd have to sell 4,000 books a year just to earn the minuscule $8,000 median annual wage of a writer.

BTW, that's about 11 books a day. Not impossible, but most of us certainly don't sell that many...Or maybe I just suck... ;(

Can't agree more, Micah. That's the naked truth. And still very few would make it big. The chances are higher than the lottery, btw -:)
I say it makes sense to invest the launch costs (roughly 2k), as you've calculated, is reasonable when you have fun writing and enjoy the feedback of those people, who like what you offer, but it would be a bit preposterous to count on writing initially as a biz or expect to make a living

Micah wrote: "I heard a bit on the radio over last weekend about writer's earnings taking a plunge by like 20%. That was the bad news.

The even worse news was that the median writer's earnings went from $10,000..."

Micah, I agree the personal economics are often dismal and daunting.

My policy starting with the second year was to recoup my small investment and not spend any money on writing that didn't actually come from my writing. Currently I'm about five bucks ahead, with a few dollars still owed to me. I'd say that if you're breaking even on what amounts to a hobby, you're doing very well.

Great comments all!

However, let's refocus on the big picture. What are your thoughts on publishing as an industry. Whether we like it or not, the future is a comin'.

Jay wrote: "Great comments all!

However, let's refocus on the big picture. What are your thoughts on publishing as an industry. Whether we like it or not, the future is a comin'."

Jay---did you mean Indie as opposed to regular publishers?

Steve wrote: "Jay wrote: "Great comments all!

However, let's refocus on the big picture. What are your thoughts on publishing as an industry. Whether we like it or not, the future is a comin'."

Jay---did you m..."

Whatever you'd like to comment on. We have to face the possibility that brick and mortar publishers will indeed become extinct. Is Amazon's dominance going to place all authors at their mercy, or will competition arise in the online market? Is there a fair and rational means to improve the quality of self-published books? Is the world market a better market, or does it mean more competition for authors? Is the newbie aspiring author an idiot for jumping into this fray?

Go where you will. I'm just looking for thoughtful responses.

Well, I don't think the traditional publishers will go extinct. They still make most of the money in the industry. And big name authors are probably right to stick with them. If I were a Steven King or even a John Scalzi, I'd be letting the publishers do all the grunt work, too. Marketing isn't fun. Arranging book covers is a pain (but I like the control). Editing on a shoestring is horrible. I'd far rather just write, blog, tweet, and fly around to book signings and conventions.

Basically what we're heading for is a two-tier system. Even traditionally published writers are likely to do some indie publishing. Back catalogs of old material that wasn't published, small novellas and short stories, genre bending works that trad publishers would not know how to sell...the indie option is perfect for that.

Here's the podcast I mentioned above with Kristine Kathryn-Rusch...the topic is primarily women in science fiction but she goes into a lot of detail about some industry changes and where indie publication fits in even for writers of her stature: http://jonathanstrahan.podbean.com/e/...

She talks about how the publishing industry changed in the '90s where they only wanted to publish best sellers. Her widely acclaimed Retrieval Artist series, for example, was growing and growing in popularity...but it got dropped because it wasn't growing fast enough. This year she's just published 8 new books in that series on her own indie imprint. Sales have been really good for her.

So we'll see more of a hybrid industry.

The real unanswered question is can some form of quality control be imposed upon the indie press, at least in certain quarters of it? No one knows the answer to that.

Micah wrote: "Well, I don't think the traditional publishers will go extinct. They still make most of the money in the industry. And big name authors are probably right to stick with them. If I were a Steven Kin..."

I hadn't thought of a two-tiered system being the eventual outcome. I'll have to contemplate that one for a while.

I also have no idea if indie quality control is even possible. In a country with guaranteed free speech and freedom of the press, everything from crap to bestseller is protected. Restrictions of any sort may just cause litigation.

Jack, I couldn't have said it any better or agree with you more.

As indie self-publishers, we have to strive to make our books as good, nay, better than traditionally published books, and that starts with editing.

Think back to ten years ago when you walked into Best Buy (or Circuit City, Fry's, or any other big name multimedia retailers). Remember the rows and rows of albums that were usually situated prominantly in the middle of the store? Now think of the last time you walked into the same store. They still have CDs and even a few niche market records on display, but the section is itty bitty and it's largely hidden behind a new section set up for everything from smart gadgetry to as seen on tv crap.

Now think about Barnes & Noble (which is the only surviving chain bookstore in my area at least). The same thing is happening. It used to be a store full of books with a couple of bookish odds and ends and gift ideas near the registers. It's now a toy store, gadget shop, Godiva chocolate retailer, purveyor of cheap humor books filled with content from your favorite websites of days past, celebrity cookbooks, with a few aisles still dedicated to books, but nowhere near the inventory they used to carry.

The changes are already happening. I don't think traditional publishers will die out. I think they will continue to give lucrative contracts to television personalities and and otherwise 'marketable' folks who are authors in the loosest sense. I think they will also scour the internet looking for the indie top dogs and try to woo them with sweet deals. Heck, they aleady have. It's up to us as to whether or not we are going to jump on the chance to give away our profits to have handlers or continue to prove that being independent works.

Jay wrote: "I also have no idea if indie quality control is even possible. In a country with guaranteed free speech and freedom of the press, everything from crap to bestseller is protected. Restrictions of any sort may just cause litigation..."

I'm not saying it's a certainty, not saying it would be good or evil, but I think there may be some kind of push for gatekeeping along the way. I see it mentioned in a lot of talks about indie publishing.

And it would not be a violation of anyone's rights if businesses like Amazon turned off the tap of free publishing for some indie authors. They're a business. They can include or exclude who they like.

Indie authors would still be able to publish elsewhere (forums, web sites, vanity press), just as they have always been able to do. Granted, those avenues were not as effective as our current system. But freedom of speech and the press does not guarantee you're publication's universal visibility.

Gatekeeping and "quality control" has always been imposed upon people aspiring to publish traditionally (Q: How many people in the traditional publishing world have the ability to reject a manuscript? A: A lot. Agents, slush pile readers, editors, marketing, etc.) and it's not caused any legal challenge. So I can't see any real legal issues with it in connection to indie authors.

Jay wrote: "I also have no idea if indie quality control is even possible. In a country with guaranteed free speech and freedom of the press, everything from crap to bestseller is protected. Restrictions of any sort may just cause litigation...."

Free speech guaranteed by the US Constitution applies only to the government. Businesses have no obligation to market anything we write.

I'm not sure quality control is such an issue and intuitively oppose restrictions apart from exposure of minors to problematic content and similar stuff. As the content is usually a matter of taste, who would judge what's legit and what's not? It'd be a censorship of a sort. And I don't see how vendors benefit from that. For them the more u publish the better. They give only a platform and sometimes earn along the way on paid services. If U don't sell, they r indifferent, if u sell they have a nice share. Why to restrict?
The consumers/ readers are also sufficiently protected by return policies of most vendors and usually have an option to read an extract before purchasing anything.

Poor editing or lack thereof might be a problem, but then again such problem would become evident after a couple of reviews.

With multilayered filters of quality control of regular publishing, one would expect to find only masterpieces in a bookstore, but it's far from being so.

Ken wrote: "Jay wrote: "I also have no idea if indie quality control is even possible. In a country with guaranteed free speech and freedom of the press, everything from crap to bestseller is protected. Restri..."

Ken, I agree that free speech and marketing are two separate issues, but free speech does not apply only to the government. Numerous businesses have ended up before the supreme court to protect themselves from censorship.

Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine had the best quote on this issue: "If you're not going to offend somebody you don't need the First Amendment."

Nik mentioned the spotty quality of books being sold in brick and mortar bookstores, most from traditional publishers. However, not mentioned is their reject pile. If poor quality still seeps through, what was rejected?

Is it only up to the market to reject an indie book that is a compilation of errors? Or, does the current online publishing industry have some obligation to reject the 'barely readable' and provide consumers with a reasonable quality product?

Christina wrote: "Think back to ten years ago when you walked into Best Buy (or Circuit City, Fry's, or any other big name multimedia retailers). Remember the rows and rows of albums that were usually situated promi..."

Good point on the change in brick and mortar bookstores. If you read the latest quarterly report from Barnes and Noble, book sales had negative growth, while coffee, toys, notions, etc. accounted for all of their sales growth.

Are even excellent books no longer able to attract consumers without a big star name or a major marketing campaign? Are indies forever consigned to a niche market of fans?

This has a direct impact on income for authors, so how this shakes out will impact all of us.

Jay wrote: "Ken wrote: "Jay wrote: "I also have no idea if indie quality control is even possible. In a country with guaranteed free speech and freedom of the press, everything from crap to bestseller is prote..."

You asked about the reject pile, Jay. I do a lot of reading about publishing and working in the industry in general, and though I can't find it, one of my favorite pieces comes from an editor that worked at a traditional publisher.
The thing I loved about it, when she explained their reject pile. Your book could be rejected for something as simple as 1.5 spacing when they specifically request double. They have 50 instructions for you to follow before you submit, and if you miss just one, your book is rejected.
Things like this make me wonder what classics we've missed, all because someone wanted to be a gatekeeper. Don't gatekeep in my opinion, get it all out there.

Riley wrote: "Jay wrote: "Ken wrote: "Jay wrote: "I also have no idea if indie quality control is even possible. In a country with guaranteed free speech and freedom of the press, everything from crap to bestsel..."

Excellent point! The criteria for rejection is often so ludicrous that it defies explanation. I'll bet we have missed an absolute ton of excellent books because somebody was too lazy or narrow-minded to see past their bureaucracy's myopic list of acceptance specifications.

Jay wrote: "Ken, I agree that free speech and marketing are two separate issues, but free speech does not apply only to the government. Numerous businesses have ended up before the supreme court to protect themselves from censorship...."

I think that involved the government, Jay. Falwell sued for libel, and the Supreme Court ruled in a way that related it to free speech. Falwell, and anyone else who sues for libel, was using the government to suppress Flynt's free speech. You can do that only under certain conditions: you cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, and you cannot maliciously print or publish lies about another person without consequences. The only place you can get away with any of that is on the floor of the House and Senate, while speaking in a public role.

Ken wrote: "Jay wrote: "Ken, I agree that free speech and marketing are two separate issues, but free speech does not apply only to the government. Numerous businesses have ended up before the supreme court to..."

What does the floor of the House or Senate have to do with governing lately? :)

I see your point. Even if someone did yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you'd have to go to the government for redress. Fair enough.

My point was that anyone--citizen, business or government--can commit the original offense.

Boy, we strayed off the mark here, didn't we! The future of publishing will probably not be decided by the Supreme Court.

Still, have no fear. I'll sort out all these government issues as soon as they declare me king! :)