Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

Interesting article in The Globe and Mail about the demise of professional writing -- or, more specifically, the ability to earn a living. What's your thoughts on this issue?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/b...

M. A. Demers
Author, Baby Jane,
The Global Indie Author: How anyone can self-publish in the U.S. and worldwide markets, and
To Kindle in Ten Steps: The Easy Way to Format, Create and Self-Publish an eBook on Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing

Seems pretty bitter. I like to think of the indie revolution as leveling the playing field. And even people with very little money can afford even traditionally published ebooks now. These guys need to grow a pair. Just my opinion.

That reads an awful lot like the gloom and doom pronouncements from newspaper based comic artists when web comics first appeared. The model that has worked for decades is changing rapidly and it's causing understandable concern, and a fair amount of overreaction.

The internet, Amazon, Smashwords and ereaders have changed the game, and right now no one is really sure what the rules are, or what the final result will be.
I do not believe that this is the demise of the professional writer. Journalism will continue in new forms, writers will still be driven to write, because their muse demands it, and readers will still crave well written books to entertain and to educate. (We just may not be willing to pay 13.99 for a digital copy of a book we know full well cost a tenth of that to produce.)

The invention of the printing press suddenly meant anyone with access to one could widely distribute their works, and it changed the world we live in today. The internet, indie publishers and ebooks are going to do something of the same thing.

That article does not match my experiences at all. I suspect the market is changing shape completely and the big guys, or at least the way they operate, doesn't work any more. From what I've seen the ebook "revolution" is increasing the amount of readers out there and revitalising the potential market. The problem for the established publishers is not so much their difficulty in thriving in that market, but more that they can't block out the small competition.

It used to be that if you were not picked up by a major publisher, then your book would not see the light of day. Now they can't block those books from appearing. They fear their the lack of control over the market.

To say there won't be professional writers in the future is just scaremongering.

Whenever there has been something new in the publishing world, that makes more content available to more people, there has been panic and fear-mongering from those who want to maintain the status quo.

They can shove it up their collective arses.

The printing press, penny dreadfuls, comics, blogs, self-publishing.

All of them had their detractors. All of them outlived their detractors.

I agree. It does sound bitter...bitter because Morrison can't keep up with the changing face of publishing. But then he writes literature, which isn't the mainstream that sells well.

Writers will be professional in the future, and they will better be able to support themselves because they are cutting out the middle man--the publisher--which took most of the profit. Writers have been starving for decades because of publishers. Now they stand to make a real profit.

I've read articles like this before and it just proves what I'm thinking: the publishing world is changing and some refuse to ride the wave.

Exactly! We saw the same thing happen in the music industry:

Records would destroy artists (no need for live performances)
Cassettes would destroy record sales.
Writable CDs would destroy CD sales.
MP3s would destroy the entire industry.

Somehow I think there are still a lot of artists out there making millions, and a lot of small groups etc. selling music too.

I had a beautiful story to tell but I couldn't have ever had the chance to share it with anyone if I didn't self publish. Think of all the great books that have been written and never saw a bookshelf. The publishing world has become a money grabbing industry. They see you coming with your book and scrutinize it until it costs you thousands of dollars before it gets published. Thank God for self publishing!

Morrisons work is obviously not what readers are looking for.

Poor man complaining. If he were a professional he'd adapt, and get on with it. :)

I'm with Suzanne--just get on with it. Or more specifically, get over it. I'm tired of listening to the whining I am sure my grandparents heard from the buggy-whip industry when Model T's started rolling off the assembly lines. Life is change, folks. As writers, we certainly ought to understand that. Change is what we write about. I am waaaaay too old to have to figure all this stuff out, but that's the price of admission to the dance. As that great philosopher Gandalf the Gray said (rough quote) "We don't get to pick the times we are born into. All we can decide is how we will respond to them."

Interesting article, but definitely slanted on the big publisher's side. While it mentions Hocking & James signing up, it doesn't mention Eisler, Konrath, & others ditching the big 6 to publish on their own because time to market, pricing, & support are a mess. The Luddites raised similar arguments at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution & we've heard the same arguments over & over again as Paul mentions in #7.

The game has changed & big, established companies don't want to go outside their comfort zone. They're not structured to be nimble enough, so they're reactive rather than innovative. They've always taken a lion's share of each book & have obviously lied about publishing costs in order to maintain that in the ebook market. Some authors figured that out, realized they were getting no marketing or other support & split.

Advances have been ridiculous. I've been told they were discretionary, unevenly applied, & often some sort of status symbol, so making any kind of argument based on advances isn't going to cut it with me. The editor who could give an author a huge advance had bigger or something.

Big book publishers have had a piss poor business model & all the leverage for decades, just like the music publishers. Like them, they have to change quickly & they just don't know how to do it. They're hemmed in by big business, corporate structures that are making far too many decisions based on faulty numbers. Look at how many big tech companies lost out to the little guys in the Internet revolution. Same thing is happening again.

It will settle down & work out, but it will take a while. We need professional writers. They won't work unless we pay them, but where the revenues come from & how their writing will be delivered is still evolving, so it's tough to settle on proper payments with so much in flux. I have no doubt that it will work out, just like the music industry has settled down after a decade of idiocy.

If writers are selling books at £2 which took them 6-12 months to write, they are not going to be able to make a full-time living at it unless they hit the superstardom of E.L.James or J.K.Rowling. Writers undersell themselves and the value they place on their work for such low or even free prices for their work. But then if the aim is to get read, then why not just give your books out for free? I am torn between the two poles I must admit

Marc wrote: "If writers are selling books at £2 which took them 6-12 months to write, they are not going to be able to make a full-time living at it unless they hit the superstardom of E.L.James or J.K.Rowling...."

Writers who are making a full time living at their craft are few and far between. It's not the norm, though thanks to indie publishing and internet freelancing, there are more managing to do it than ever before.

I've spent countless man hours writing freelance articles that paid a flat fee of $50 and I would never consider it undervaluing myself. My work has been read by millions of people, and that spawned a network of contacts and readers I'm now using to launch my books. Writing professionally just means you get paid, it doesn't mean you get rich. (though I'm sure we all hope it happens someday!)

That is why the article irks me so much. Writing for a living has always been a combination of hard work and luck. That hasn't changed, in fact it just got easier in many respects. "The sky is falling, we're all going to perish," is an overreaction. I've been a professional writer for four years, and I'm not going anywhere, but then again, I'm not quitting my day job either.

It's one thing to write. We write because it's what we enjoy, what we are good at and we want others to enjoy it as well but then it comes down to this..can it be professional and can one earn a living? Yes it is possible but like everyone has said here all in good time, go with the flow and make the best of whatever you can. Whether it be smashwords or Amazon this seems to be an easy way to make a small income of profit. Promoting a book that is not internet is all about having the necessary tools and a good helping Publishing company.

There is and should still be professionalism in writing as long as there are writers like us who continue on the path and as long as theirs reasonable professional readers who will be considerate of others and appreciate their work.

I'm more concerned about in-depth reporting, the newspaper type writing than I am novels. I think the latter will do OK, but real investigative journalism is in trouble. It takes teams of people months ($$$$) to really understand some situations, but all the public seems to have the attention for is a 30 second sound bite from an idiotic talking head with an agenda paid for by his/her corporate sponsors.

I've pretty much quit listening to most news because it's so slanted, over-simplified, & they are stupid to boot. I saw a bunch of them on Jeopardy a month or so ago & they couldn't answer simple historical questions even when they were directly related to what they report. If it wasn't current & cool, they were clueless. It's sad & scary.

that's a vicious circle then isn't it Horace? Who have ramped up the public's disinterest in long form journalism if it isn't the sensationalist, instant gratification media talking about Tom & Katie's split or Scientology or what dress is worn on the red Carpet? The public get both the Press and the politicians they deserve.

In the UK such was our hunger for celebrity gossip and tittle tattle and the chance to look askance at bad behaviour by those in the public eye, that newspapermen and women judged they could illegally hack people's phones, including that of a missing schoolgirl who had in fact been murdered, misleading her parents that she was still alive as her phone kept having parts of its memory being cleared to make more room. It was this outrage, not the snooping into a celebrity's answerphone that finally brought the public indignation to a head.

6-12 months to write a book? I don't think it's practical to make a living writing novels if it takes that long to write each one. You'd be relying on high sales for each book you publish.

My plan involves writing 6+ novels per year (I could type up about 8000-10,000 words per day, but planning and editing take up a lot more time than the actual writing). I already produce one novel every 3-4 months with a full time job. I don't realistically expect to be able to pay the mortgage from selling books until I've got 10-12 novels out or more. My third is out imminently so I've got a way to go yet, but have 4 more novels planned in detail and 7 more as a loose outline.

I firmly believe that, unless you want to rely on luck, you need a comprehensive plan, focus and determination to make a living from it.

Paul wrote: "6-12 months to write a book? I don't think it's practical to make a living writing novels if it takes that long to write each one. You'd be relying on high sales for each book you publish.

My plan..."

ah well that's the difference between commercial fiction and literature as art. Each have their own markets. I wish you luck with your business plan.

Paul wrote: "6-12 months to write a book? I don't think it's practical to make a living writing novels if it takes that long to write each one. You'd be relying on high sales for each book you publish.

My plan..."

Heh. It took me four years to write the first one and I'm on track for about the same time period with the second one. If you do historical fiction, which I do, research is part of the process. It took Susan Kay ten years to write Legacy.

M.A. wrote: "Interesting article in The Globe and Mail about the demise of professional writing -- or, more specifically, the ability to earn a living. What's your thoughts on this issue?

http://www.theglobean..."

There's a certain amount of truth to it. I read an article by Kurt Vonnegut late last year that said the days of being able to support your family as a freelancer, as he did, are long over.

well when writers themselves value their own work at £2/$4.50 why should we expect the public to provide us with a living?

I would never think like that. The value I put on each book is the royalty-per-copy multiplied by the number of copies sold. If I have to sell 100,000 copies at £1, or 1000 copies at £100, really means little to me. I will price each copy at whatever price generates the most revenue.
In other words, the price of each copy is NOT the value I put on it. The value of each novel to me is the income generated each month.

Paul wrote: "I would never think like that. The value I put on each book is the royalty-per-copy multiplied by the number of copies sold. If I have to sell 100,000 copies at £1, or 1000 copies at £100, really m..."

I think there is a link because no matter what you value your book at, you will be undercut by someone else who puts less value on theirs and may end up distorting your market

I posted this question on various forums I belong to and have been moved by the responses to write a blog post. I don't think the article is all right or all wrong. To think the former is to ignore the part of publishers in the mess and to think the latter is to dismiss some very legitimate concerns.

Ah yes. The sky is falling. We're all doomed. Literature will die a grisly death. THE END IS NEAR!!!!!

Blah Blah Blah

Oh wait...there's not a shred of evidence to back this naysaying up. In fact, the evidence reveals the opposite.

Ok never mind. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Michael wrote: "Ah yes. The sky is falling. We're all doomed. Literature will die a grisly death. THE END IS NEAR!!!!!

Blah Blah Blah

Oh wait...there's not a shred of evidence to back this naysaying up. In ..."

what evidence is that then?

Marc wrote: "well when writers themselves value their own work at £2/$4.50 why should we expect the public to provide us with a living?"

I make more money from an ebook priced $2.99 than I would from a hardback published by a trad publisher. The economics are different. I think it's great to make fiction more affordable. I value my work just fine.

Well...

If all people were afraid of change we would still be living in mud huts.

I'm done.

J. wrote: "Well...

If all people were afraid of change we would still be living in mud huts.

I'm done."

Adobe... Who said anything about being afraid of change? My books only exist as e-books. it's about the value of writers and artists in general and society doesn't have to place a terribly high value on them if the writers and artists are busy cutting their own throats. But if that's what the market is saying then who am I to cavil?

Marc wrote: "J. wrote: "Well...

If all people were afraid of change we would still be living in mud huts.

I'm done."

Adobe... Who said anything about being afraid of change? My books only exist as e-books. ..."

Marc, I guess I have learned to look at things differently. This article makes sense from one point of view but I find it a bit narrow minded and written from a position of fear. Fear of loss. Replace novels/writing with tv/pictures. Just because there is a lot of free stuff around to watch doesn't mean that no one goes to the theater when a great looking movie comes out, or that actors, producers, or writers don't make money. It is just silly. The cream will always rise and people will pay. We all need to stop worrying about it all and just turn out the best product we can. That in the end will be our own individual salvation.

M.A. wrote: "Interesting article in The Globe and Mail about the demise of professional writing -- or, more specifically, the ability to earn a living. What's your thoughts on this issue?

http://www.theglobean..."

I have to agree with J.L., it does seem bitter. Options are a good thing for authors and the future certainly seems to hold a lot of options. As long as authors hire professional editors, formatters, and cover designers when needed, then the indie revolution could be a good thing.

Marc wrote: "I think there is a link because no matter what you value your book at, you will be undercut by someone else who puts less value on theirs and may end up distorting your market."

I don't think, in reality, being undercut by other authors is a significant problem. Readers are swayed by many more things than just price. One thing I've learnt by experience is that pricing too low gives the wrong impression and can damage sales numbers. I've spent the last few months experimenting with different prices and already find that $2.99 sells better than 99c. There are lots of free books out there already. Even in paperback form, very cheap books have been around for a very long time. It certainly doesn't stop more expensive books selling. If people like something, they are usually willing to pay for it.

I agree with your findings, which just goes to suggest to me that some readers ARE influenced by pricing in their choices. I think the freemium model is running out of steam.

I read the article and my first thought was the the big boys didn't grab the ebook market when they could have. If they'd have been smart, they would have taken on many of the authors who queried them and published electronically instead of sending all those rejection letters. This would have giving more authors a chance to be out there and the publishers would still be making their percentage.

Paul wrote: "I would never think like that. The value I put on each book is the royalty-per-copy multiplied by the number of copies sold. If I have to sell 100,000 copies at £1, or 1000 copies at £100, really m..."

Self-Publishing Writers should Aspire to Write Well, Not Fast - Just something of a different take on what we're discussing.

Sharon wrote: "Paul wrote: "I would never think like that. The value I put on each book is the royalty-per-copy multiplied by the number of copies sold. If I have to sell 100,000 copies at £1, or 1000 copies at £..."

I don't want to repeat something I've discussed on one of the other groups here, but that, Sharon, is exactly the reason I am considering taking book 1 of my series of novels off sale. It's not a bad novel, but it's certainly not up to the same quality as the following two. It's just not indicative of my writing quality now. Whether or not I should rewrite it at some point in the future is a trickier decision.

I guess I feel more emotionally attached to it as it was the first book I properly finished etc., and also it took almost 10 years from starting it to being published. The truth is I put a lot more work, experience and polish into book 2 and more again into book 3. Book 3 is the first one we're I've actually had positive feedback from my editor and proofreaders.

I think the important thing is to be aware of your faults and weaknesses and either work around them or, better still, overcome them. I don't want to reach the point when my writing stops improving.

Paul wrote: "I think the important thing is to be aware of your faults and weaknesses and either work around them or, better still, overcome them. I don't want to reach the point when my writing stops improving. "

Absolutely concur, on all counts.

Susan wrote: "(We just may not be willing to pay 13.99 for a digital copy of a book we know full well cost a tenth of that to produce.)"

I just found the link to this thread in my inbox and started breezing through the comments. Susan's words caught my attention.

What does the cost of production have to do with the price of the book? I don't want to get into a discussion of what price point sells or what is 'fair'. We could also diverge into the online v brick and mortar but that's not really my point.

Look at all the things we willingly pay extravagantly for that actually have little intrinsic value. I mean a cup of coffee is still pretty much a cup of hot water. MacDonalds fancied up the marketing and added a dollop of whipped cream and some sprinkles and now their hot water has doubled in price.

Look at a pair of Oakley Sunglasses. They routinely sell for a hundred bucks or better and believe me, injection molded products are pretty cheap. I doubt they cost half a buck to make.
Nike, Reebok, Adidas get big bucks for shoes and the quality for a sweatshop product that probably costs them five bucks is not markedly better than the bin shoes with the laces tied together. People complain about how unfair that is but they seem to being doing fine.
Is a pair of Tommy Hilfigger underpants with the guys name emblazoned on it like a billboard much better than a pair of Fruit of the Looms from WalMart? These designers should be paying people to wear their advertising but we proudly shell out the dollars for their products.

OK, end rant. Carry on.

To use your McDonalds example, people assume that the restaurant, the staff, the cup, lid and spoon all cost something to provide. If they turned up outside your house with a tank of coffee and expected you to bring your own cup, you would expect to pay less. With a paperback you get something tangible for your money, something you can display on your bookshelf, something you can sell on down the line. With an e-book the reader has to provide their own reader, there is nothing to show off how extensive their library is in their living room and they can't resell it afterwards. I think readers are justified in expecting the ebook version to cost them less. If we can charge them less AND make a higher percentage for us too, then everyone wins (except the traditional publishers!).

I largely agree with your other examples, but it all comes down to perceived value. With creative things (ie paying for more than simply function) people are often willing to pay a premium, and the same applies with books once you are a known author. However, when you are one of a huge crowd of unknowns, pricing your novels (or at least your entry novels) to match international bestseller authors probably isn't going to help you make any sales.

And yet people will go to a movie and spend ten bucks to get in, buy seven dollar popcorn, walk over sticky floors to get to seat with gum stuck to it, sit behind someone texting on their cell and endure two hours of watching a movie based on a Saturday Night Live skit or a 50's TV show or a comic book while having the soundtrack blasted at them at 100 db.

They walk out and they got nothing but the prospect of watching it later on cable and providing their own flat screen 'reader' and sound system.

Granted I have no objection to the royalty rates paid for e-books and I don't have to deal with return retentions and giving up 15% of 10% to an agent that thinks he is doing me the most gracious of favors by accepting me as a client.

Paul wrote: "I don't want to repeat something I've discussed on one of the other groups here, but that, Sharon, is exactly the reason I am considering taking book 1 of my series of novels off sale. It's not a bad novel, but it's certainly not up to the same quality as the following two. It's just not indicative of my writing quality now. Whether or not I should rewrite it at some point in the future is a trickier decision...."

My daughter is reading the first novel Patricia Briggs wrote & she wrote a note in the beginning of it when it was republished to the effect that she added some description, but otherwise didn't rewrite it because it would have been an entirely different novel. From what my daughter said, it sounded as if she also struggled with this question. Apparently it took her 5 or 10 years to write it, she's not terribly happy with it, but it did launch her career so she's fond of it never the less.

Ken wrote: "And yet people will go to a movie and spend ten bucks to get in, buy seven dollar popcorn, walk over sticky floors to get to seat with gum stuck to it, sit behind someone texting on their cell and ..."
That's because there are different types of people out there, different media appealing to different markets. But it doesn't appear that the cinema's are doing all that well either. Almost 2/3rds of the ones around here have closed completely, the rest are trying to rely on gimmicks to keep people buying tickets.

Mark wrote: "Then imagine producing a novel that offers readers something they can't find anywhere else within a most different reading experience. Quality costs big-time, perhaps more than most people can imag..."

The key here is that with the majority of ebooks there is almost no per-copy production cost. The closest we get to that is transaction fees for each purchase. Obviously there are costs involved in creating the original, but there is no fixed way or correct way of recovering that cost. If a book costs twice as much to create then I would always aim to sell twice as many copies BEFORE considering doubling the price. Obviously it often ends up as some sort of compromise.

I don't think I would ever consider the price to directly be a measure of quality. A more popular author may charge more, and they may have become more popular due to the quality of their writing, but those things are often not linked at all.