On Robin Sullivan’s Author Comparison
Several people have e-mailed me about Robin Sullivan’s Midlist Author Comparison, wherein she compares my writing income to that of e-published author David Dalglish.
Tangential disclaimer: back in January, I pointed out some errors in Sullivan’s guest post at J. A. Konrath’s place. She recently responded that the errors were part of Konrath’s introduction, and were his mistakes, not hers. Konrath’s post was edited within 24 hours of my post, but looking at it now, it does appear that the mistakes I pointed out are Konrath’s, not Sullivan’s. My apologies to Sullivan for that.
Sullivan’s new post has its own erroneous details, like “Thomas Buckell’s” survey on advances, or my book “Step Sister Scheme” being book #2 of the Faery Taile Project. But the numbers she gives regarding my writing income look correct. I assume the numbers she cites for Dalglish accurately reflect his self-reported sales as well.
Her conclusions:
- “Jim’s six books has taken him 4 ½ years and he still is not earning a living wage. His income is impacted substantially by his foreign sales … and without that his income would be dismal …”
- “David’s six books took 1 year to get to market and while his income initially appeared to be modest within 10 months he has grown to a substantial six-figure income that certainly would classify as a ‘living wage’ … if the current trends for both of these authors continue there will be a significant gap with David outperforming Jim by a substantial margin.”
- From her post at Absolute Write, “It took Jim 4 years to release six-books and he can’t make a living wage on his writing. David Dalglish has been at it less than a year and gone from making a few thosand a month to making a six-figure income.”
I initially planned to ignore the post. I’m getting more and more bored by the “Indies vs. Traditional” thing. I’ve got a friend whose updates have turned into nothing but advertisements of his own books, retweets of other self-pubbed authors, and slams on commercial publishing. It’s tiresome.
My guess is that people who want to believe Sullivan’s conclusions will do so. But here are some of my thoughts as I read her post…
- If Dalglish’s numbers are correct, then he and his books are doing quite well, and I’m happy for him and his success.
- A comparison of two individuals doesn’t do much from a statistical standpoint (though I recognize the difficulty in gathering larger samples of this sort of thing).
- Sullivan’s conclusions are based in part on the assumption that both Dalglish and myself are representative of the “midlist.”
- Her analysis of Dalglish’s data appears to omit a few months.
- Her projection of Dalglish’s future income assumes his February/March sales rate will continue.
Some of her comments about commercial publishing also jumped out at me:
- “Typically when published through a traditional publisher a book can take 15 – 18 months to be released and they generally stagger offering from an author at 12 month intervals. For those who write a great deal this can be problematic.” Counterexamples: see Seanan McGuire, Jay Lake, Elizabeth Bear, and many others.
- “[I]ndustry standards are that only 20% of authors earn out their advances so in many cases the advance is the ONLY money they will see.” More statistics without citations. If she’s correct, doesn’t that imply that 80% of traditionally published authors end up with more money than if they were getting a strict per-book rate?
- “The traditionally published author will get an advance but it is woefully small … I’ve done a ton of research on this and it really hasn’t changed much over the years but generally ranges from $5,000 – $10,000.” She only cites Buckell’s survey … but that survey appears to contradict her numbers if you read past the section on first novel advances.
Draw your own conclusions.
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 9:50 am
My only conclusion: I, too, would like to see a more comprehensive statistical analysis of the prospects for success and income in the two formats. But even such an analysis won’t take everything one would need to know to make a decision into account. What else goes into the relative success of a self-pubbed e-author versus that of a traditionally-published author? There are other factors, surely, that influence success in the two arenas: time spent self-promoting, marketing reach, etc, etc.
If success in e-pubbing takes turning all of your electronic comminication feeds into an endless stream of e-pub book ads and traditional-pub slams… that’s not an attractive lifestyle to me. I’m interested in a more wholistic relationship between writer, written work, and fan, if that’s achievable, as well as in making a living on writing.
Still, a more thorough statistical analysis would be helpful… If someone can get the raw data, I can even crunch the numbers (besides being a writer, I’m also a stats nerd). But how could one compile that data?
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 9:58 am
There are a lot of variables to consider, definitely. Amanda Hocking talked about taking a “traditional” deal in part because it would give her more time to actually write, freeing up some of the time she had to spend being a publisher. On the other hand, it’s certainly *possible* to be successful as a self-published author these days, and I think it’s easier to do so than it was 10 years ago.
The closest I’ve seen to real data are the lists Konrath, Sullivan, and others post of successful e-pubbed authors … but those are limited in their usefulness, just like if I posted a list of the top twenty commercially published authors. It proves that it can be done, but not how often or how easily or anything like that.
Personally, I’m happy with where I’m at right now. I’ll keep watching and learning, but I’m reaching a large number of readers, making a comfortable (for me) supplemental income, and having a good time of it.
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 10:03 am
I rather felt the same about such lists… proving it can be done is not the same as proving anyone can do it (which is the horn that Konrath keeps tooting). Maybe that’s so… but it’s doubtful, and I have to wonder for every name on the list of successful self-pubbed authors, how many names would there be on the list of failed self-pubbed authors (even restricting that list to the last, say, 5 years when e-pubbing took off).
I’m no where near ready to launch a writing career, so I’m content to sit back and watch and learn as well.
tobias buckell
April 4, 2011 @ 10:11 am
What proof or statistical background does she use to say Dalgish is a midlist (or average) example?
The average example for a novel is more like $100/month per book in earnings over a one year span, from all the data I’ve got (50 sources). She’s doing a crap comparison, putting an outlier up against Jim.
It’s time for me to do my own version of the average advance survey for eBooks to get a good 200 point data survey. I’ll do it next monday, I think.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 10:14 am
“What proof or statistical background does she use to say Dalgish is a midlist (or average) example?”
Good question.
“It’s time for me to do my own version of the average advance survey for eBooks to get a good 200 point data survey. I’ll do it next monday, I think.”
Can’t wait to see it, Thomas!
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 10:20 am
Wait… Thomas Buckell?
Scott Nicholson
April 4, 2011 @ 10:22 am
Really, the only data anyone can trust is his own data. And the only bet I would make on any of this is that none of it will look the same in two years. There’s also the “time it took to write” the books. It’s not as simple as just dumping them in a pipeline. There’s a lifetime of commitment to craft, as well as the years spent on the book production.
I don’t make the case for indie or trad because I don’t know what’s best for anyone else. It’s harder to be happy than anything else, so that should be the top goal.
Scott Nicholson
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 10:25 am
I’m being a smart-ass. Tobias was referred to as Thomas Buckell in the original post.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 10:27 am
“And the only bet I would make on any of this is that none of it will look the same in two years.”
No argument here!
And while the means of delivery will continue to evolve, I don’t believe people will ever stop wanting stories, meaning I’m going to keep putting most of my energy into creating new ones.
Scott Nicholson
April 4, 2011 @ 10:28 am
Tobias, I’d be happy to participate if I can do it anonymously. I have great personal experience in both worlds (though admittedly my NY data is a few years old and so much has changed)–but talking about money and sales can too easily sound like bragging or whining to me, for the most part (education aside)–and the numbers carry this weird ego suggestion of value or worth of the work that I don’t like. The ones doing great are happy to talk about it, the ones doing poorly say “This doesn’t work.” There’s a vast range of millions in between. I know people making more in indie than John Locke and JA Konrath that you never hear about, because they don’t talk about it. I know awesome writers who can’t sell a copy of their own work to save their lives.
Scott
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 10:29 am
Ah. And since I haven’t yet clicked that link to read the source… I instead make a minor ass of myself. Oops. 🙂
tobias buckell
April 4, 2011 @ 10:37 am
Right, which is why anonymous survey of the field would be valuable, it’ll stop loud self promoters from intimating that their outliers are easy to attain, but shed light on what solid midlist is actually. Since I do eBooks for a medium sized press I have a fairly good idea of what it is, but those figures are ones I can’t share, that would violate confidentiality, but it leaves me very neutral about it all. I think if an author who has some sort of name can get their backlist up, then it’s a must-do, but as a primary route, not so much. But its different for each writer too. The math changes based on all sorts of things. Frex, I wouldn’t sell any of my original novels this way, but I could see my way to doing the last two books of my Xenowealth series this way… maybe…
Rachel Aaron
April 4, 2011 @ 11:20 am
My only comment to add to the collective wisdom about Ms. Sullivan’s post is that I think she inflates the amount of work needed by a traditionally published author for promotion. I, for one, have never had to produce my own ARC. My publisher (Orbit) did that, and they were very generous with handing them out. Maybe I’m an outliers, but it didn’t seem at all odd. Now, I probably would have done better with sales had I done more promotion, but that’s one of those things you can keep saying until all you’re doing is promotion.
And perhaps this is petty of me, but I couldn’t help but notice that (since Ms. Sullivan mentioned this herself), her husband, author of a successful self pubbed fantasy series, just signed with Orbit for what I believe PW would call a “very nice deal”. Now, I would never expect anyone to turn down good money on the table, but if traditional publishers are truly the crumbling edifice of author abuse and neglect they’re painted as, why on earth would Mr. Sullivan leave land of milk and honey that is a successful e-published title and hitch his star to a traditional publisher? Since the advance is an advance on his future earning through a traditional royalty method, surely he could have made all that money and them some on his own through self publishing at a higher royalty rate by NOT selling his rights IF, indeed, publishers were everything his wife (and, one would assume, Mr. Sullivan) seems to think they are?
I’m not actually against self publishing at all, mind. But it’s not for everyone, and I get my hackles up when the people it IS for try to paint the traditional route as negligent at best, abusive at worse, when it’s been neither for many people (including her own husband).
So, grump.
jonathanmoeller
April 4, 2011 @ 11:35 am
Like everyone else, I read the back and forth of the Great Electronic Publishing Flamewar of 2009-2011, but in the end I concluded I would get no accurate data until I tried it for myself, since most people are too emotionally invested in their positions to provide objective data or analysis. So I decided to turn my out-of-print book “Demonsouled” from Five Star into an ebook by this summer, along with the unpublished sequel I wrote back in 2005. “Demonsouled” has been out of print for four years now, and its prospects of ever returning are quite low. So by turning it into an ebook, along with its sequel, I risk very little – the time I spent writing and editing the books is already a sunk cost. (The odds of the sequel getting conventionally/legacy/traditionally published are even less than zero, so in that case I risk nothing at all.)
So I am curious to see what will happen. (Poking things with a stick to see what will happen is, of course, the foundation of all scientific enterprise, as many scientists fleeing recently poked bears will tell you.)
Besides, my gig in Real Life requires me to be an expert on all things technological, so I’m gonna have to thoroughly educate myself on ebooks sooner or later anyway.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 11:43 am
Looking forward to hearing how it goes!
Steven Saus helped me with the basics of .epub, and he’s got some info up on his web site. I believe http://ideatrash.net/search/label/ebooks takes you to his posts on the process.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 11:46 am
I’ve never had to produce my own ARCs either. Was that suggested? I missed that piece. But yes, while DAW isn’t sending me on national book tours, they have given me print ads, ARCs, bookmarks … I’m not their top seller by any means, but they’ve certainly done some promotion for my work.
“I’m not actually against self publishing at all, mind. But it’s not for everyone, and I get my hackles up when the people it IS for try to paint the traditional route as negligent at best, abusive at worse, when it’s been neither for many people…”
Yep. There’s some sweet stuff going on with e-books and self-publishing, but as soon as someone comes along to argue that traditional book deals are for suckers, and why would anyone ever do this, I pretty much just roll my eyes and look for a more useful discussion.
Greg Baldino
April 4, 2011 @ 12:29 pm
You know, I’m noticing an interesting trend going on here.
I’ve had a number of conversations with writers and publishers about ebooks, and print on demand, and webmedia- in particular to the latter, the economic model of webcomics where you make your money by giving your product away for free.
Pretty much everyone I’ve talked coming from the print side has said more or less the same thing: “It looks interesting, I’m sure there are possibilities, let’s look and see how this is developing.”
I’ve even spoken with digital publishing companies who have said that they’re still working out what the future of the market is going to be and what ramifications -both good and bad- will come from it.
But whenever I see someone talking from a digital self-publishing point of view, they more often than not come off as borderline evangelical.
(Also to clarify: Here I’m talking about self-publishing books online, not serialized webcomics, which are an entirely different beast of production)
I suspect that what is missing from a lot of these diatribes against “traditional publishing” in favor of ebook self-publishing is the modifying phrase “For Me” located right after the qualitative indicator. Example: Self-Publishing eBooks is highly successful *For Me*!”
I might even add “By My Definition Of Success” after the “For Me.” One person might call success getting 20 good reviews on Amazon. Another person might consider it being able to make their house payment every month off sales.
What I seem to rarely encounter is a testimonial by a digital self-publisher with the story “My book sold to a niche audience that was small enough that a print publisher would have considered it a failure, but large enough that it was not a complete waste of my time and resources to write and distribute.”
Which it occurs to me is one of the inarguable advantages of ebooks: If it completely bombs, no one is left with a garage full of remaindered copies.
T.J.
April 4, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
So, once upon a time some famous author said there are three types of authors: those who write for a profit, those who write for themselves, and those who write to entertain.
From what I know about you, Jim, I’d say you’re the 3rd type. Really, I’m entertained by your writing. Randomly picking up Goblin Quest one day has been my best browsing-to-buy purchase I’ve ever made. And I maintain that it’s my favorite fantasy of all-time. Why? Because a) No one else is going to pick it and b) It’s got everything a fantasy needs, plus a large amount of mocking the traditions humor.
My wife loved The Stepsister Scheme so much that she convinced her sister to read it. That sister also loved it. You’re books are entertaining. In my opinion, if I ever get published, that’s what I want. I want people entertained and to keep coming back for more.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 1:10 pm
I’m always happy to hear that people are entertained by my books, but personally, I think I fall into all three categories. I’m definitely writing for myself — I write the kinds of stories I enjoy, the things that entertain and amuse myself. Fortunately, other people seem to like them too, and I love that 🙂
And while profit isn’t the main motive, and I think it would be a bad primary reason for anyone to go into writing fiction, I can’t say it’s not a factor at all, either…
T.J.
April 4, 2011 @ 1:13 pm
Usually, the better writers fit into the ‘write for myself’ and ‘write to entertain.’ And yeah, if you didn’t try to make a profit, you wouldn’t be an author, you’d be a hobbyist. Still, it’s not your primary reason. You just took my point and applied it to you correctly. Good job! Shutting up. (FYI: I have a cold. And usually, I end up overstating something. I apologize if that’s happened here.)
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
Well, howdy howdy, I guess. Thought I might as well dump a few of my thoughts here, since my name keeps getting repeated 🙂
First off, Jim, I hope you weren’t offended. I doubt that was Robin’s intent. I gave her some of my data, because she seemed interested, and I always post monthly totals over at the Kindleboards because I believe full disclosure is helpful for a lot of people at this point. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I’ll open up my books completely, all the good and bad.
As for comparing two “mid-list” authors, it is kind of difficult because we have so little information. Plus, how do we reach even the idea of me as a mid-list? I don’t know. I’m certainly not top tier (not when you compare me to the sales/income of someone like H.P. Mallory, John Locke, or Amanda Hocking). I think in “concept” I’m closer to a mid-lister. I’m by no means famous, and I don’t make money equivalent to the big dogs, but seemingly unnoticed I’ve made a steady stream of sales, and developed a core fanbase I can survive on. Honestly Jim, I think it’d be tougher to pull off what you’ve done than what I have, but maybe that speaks to the ease and benefits of self-publishing.
When it comes to income, yes, she did assume my numbers would continue, which in my opinion is fair. Three months straight I made 10k+ income, and 7k+ the month before that. That is just on Amazon, not even counting B&N or iBookstore (which accounts for about 10% of my sales). Could it go down? Of course. It also might go up, especially when winter returns. I’m releasing a sequel to what is easily my highest selling book, and it’ll definitely boost my sales for a time. Things are in serious flux, but I’m starting to relax a little, and believe that just maaaaaaybe this isn’t a fluke.
As for the evangelical feel many self-publishers have one commenter noticed…yeah, you’re right. But I think I know why. Once you self-publish a book, and it has success, it is so damn addicting. Realizing that once you finish your book, get it back from an editor…well, it’s time to go. Toss it out there, see if people like it. No agents. No waiting six months for responses. No one else other than readers telling you if you’re good enough. I know of people who endured the old rat race for years, and I’m stunned at their resilience. For whatever reason, I came in at the right place, at the right time. I know many better writers who sell less than I. I know people who work far harder than me, and they also sell less. Self-publishing is often a crap-shoot, but traditional publishing is hardly better. At least I have control over everything, my cover, my blurb, my description, my price. Sink or swim, it’s on me, and by golly, I’m having a ball.
Hopefully these comments will stay civil. I’ve certainly not declared war on the old regime, or any nonsense like that. I’m an idiot who self-published, and happened to have found an audience, that’s all. I think I saw you dipping your toe into these waters, Jim, and I really hope you find success. Even better, I hope in twelve months, you have a few more novels out there, and are blowing me out of the water. 🙂
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 1:23 pm
Please, no need to shut up!
I get asked “Who do you write for?” fairly frequently, so it’s something I’ve thought about a bit. Every time, I keep coming back to “I write for me, because these are the stories I want to read.” But I also love that connection with the readers. It’s an awesome feeling being able to create a story that people connect with, or even just to make folks laugh.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 1:26 pm
Have you seen Tobias Buckell’s post about selling his e-pubbed short fiction collection? http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2011/04/01/a-year-of-selling-tides-from-the-new-worlds/
Toby is one who tends to do a good job with reasoned, data-driven arguments and conclusions. He commented up above that he’s planning to do his own survey/study on e-books, and I’m really looking forward to what he comes up with.
Jeff L
April 4, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
At a higher level, the entire comparison is bunk. You simply can’t compare one author to one author and use that data to represent a trend of an industry.
There are simply too many factors, not the least of which is pure luck. Sometimes an author just hits a gold mine (classic example – J.K. Rowling). Is Harry Potter something totally new or original? Not really. Or the Twilight books. Sometimes, something just is in the right channel at the right time and you get a spike of sales that elevates on author into the stratosphere, while similar and better authors don’t hit the same level. No one has ever been able to give me an explanation for this other than the aforementioned luck. Actually, I have an even better example. Oprah’s Book Club.
Also, is Mr. Dalgish a full time writer? Perhaps he was unemployed for a while and had more time to promote his own books, attend cons, etc? Could it be something as simple as the names he is closest too on a store bookshelf. (I remember one author of humorous fantasy only half jokingly suggesting changing to a pen name so his books would be next to Terry Pratchett.
One data point does not make a trend, its simply a comparison.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 1:35 pm
Hi David, and welcome! Thanks for stopping by!
I’m not offended. Like I said in the post, I’m happy to hear about your success. Go you, and I hope it does continue! Personally, I think the more writers we have doing well, the better it is for all of us.
Part of my uncertainty with trends is based on my own experience. I’ve found a big spike in sales for the first month or two after a new release, which tapers off with time. I know e-publishing doesn’t always follow the same trends, in part because you don’t have physical stock being shelved and then returned. On the other hand, there was a similar spike and dropoff when I e-published Goblin Tales.
So I don’t know. It might be that your sales are simply the result of snowballing word-of-mouth as you get more titles out there, and will continue. That would be great, if so. But I’m a pretty data-driven geek, and would want to see the longer-term trends.
I don’t know how Sullivan defined “midlist.” If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I’d point out that the term is meaningless with self-publishing, since there’s no “list” to begin with. I assume she meant that you and I were both “middle-of-the-pack” writers. But I’m not sure how she made that determination, or whether it holds true.
I do understand the addictiveness. I had a lot of fun putting Gobiln Tales together, despite some highly frustrating moments. And having access to up-to-the-minute sales figures is just dangerous 🙂 Personally though, I don’t have the time or the skill-set to do all of this on an ongoing basis.
I’m planning to stick with DAW for the foreseeable future, but when and if my books go out of print, I’ll definitely be looking at e-publishing those to get them back out and available for readers.
Best,
Jim
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 1:35 pm
“Also, is Mr. Dalgish a full time writer? Perhaps he was unemployed for a while and had more time to promote his own books, attend cons, etc?”
I’m a full-time writer now, though I wasn’t when I started. I was either working at Pizza Hut, or later, as a para-professional with spec-ed students. I wrote Dance of Cloaks during nap time.
“Could it be something as simple as the names he is closest too on a store bookshelf.”
My advertising is pretty much limited to a few message forums, my website, and the occasional banner (which I haven’t done in months). And to clear something up, the vast, vast, vast bulk of my sales are digital. I’ve sold over 40,000 books. 400 were print. I basically have zero presence in bookstores.
Not going to deny I might be lucky, though. I’ve had more than a few lucky breaks during all of this, from how I landed my cover artist to exposure on review blogs. And I’m not normal, either. With self-publishing, I’m not sure there is a “normal” author, or “average” success anymore. Again, too much in flux, too much we don’t know.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 1:37 pm
(Oh, and I’m a dunce, missed the actual “reply” button so I could put it beneath the correct post…sorry)
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 1:37 pm
Dalgish is e-publishing, so unless I’m mistaken, the books-on-the-shelf factor isn’t involved.
I think he works as an example to prove that it’s possible for a self-published author to make a good income these days. But extrapolating from two individuals to try to make any sort of statement that one route or the other is the best way to go … I think that falls apart pretty badly.
Also, I need to e-mail DAW about a new pen name. In 2012, look for LIBRIOMANCER, by Terry Pritchett.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 1:39 pm
No worries 🙂
Jeff L
April 4, 2011 @ 1:58 pm
Thanks for the additional info. Have to admit I was not familiar with you, apologies if I seemed condescending or anything (re-reading it I could see how that could be the case).
My overall point, that luck can be a part as well as myriad other random factors which can affect sales, still seems to hold (in fact I would think you might agree). It would be an interesting piece of data to see if we could figure out what channel drives most of your sales, though I have no idea how to go about it.. That info alone would be a valuable tool until the effective channel clutters up.
As an aside, David, since you are willing to reveal sale numbers, would it be possible to get an estimate of out of pocket cost per book other than printing? (I.E. did you pay an editor, if so how much, cover artists, etc.). Feel free to say no, but to get a better point to point comparison we can subtract those from revenues, since in the traditional model those are covered by the publisher in most cases. In this case it might be more instructive to look at profits more so than gross revenues, as I think the interesting thing might be to look at margin…
Jeff L
April 4, 2011 @ 1:59 pm
I was going for the more generic aspect on that one 🙂
E.E. Knight
April 4, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
I may have passed statistics by the plaque on my teeth, but I do know that comparing any two sets of data points doesn’t tell you anything. So Sullivan’s post is like a badly-engineered bulb: more heat than light. But I’m very happy for Mr. Dalglish. I wish Jim’s books (full disclosure: I reviewed one for Black Gate and it was easy to find nice things to say about them) sold better.
I suspect if you compared all the ebook authors with all of the bottom half of traditionally published authors, traditional would still win by a substantial margin. I’m no enemy of ebooks, mind, they gave me my start.
Sure, the industry is changing. Publishing is always changing, it just happens to be cranked up to 8 at the moment. Maybe it’ll go to 11 within the next decade. I’m hopeful that in the long run authors will benefit by these changes. I agree with Spinrad that traditional publishers will have to do a lot better on ebook royalty rates.
Readers will win too, as it’s now feasible for some fine out-of-print titles to be returned to circulation by their authors, as was pointed out above.
My gut feeling is that ebooks will turn into the mass-market originals in short order. Publishers will put out a lot of titles in this relatively cheap format, and those that do well will move on to paper. I still don’t see paper going away any time soon. Ebooks seem to have topped out around 20% with me and have been hanging there for a while, after a rapid jump from 5% of sales with the advent of the Kindle and Nook.
Sheryl Nantus
April 4, 2011 @ 2:14 pm
I always find it interesting that it’s either the “big” NYC publishers OR self-publishing… when there are options inbetween.
I’ve been working with a small publisher for years now and am pretty darned happy. The books go to epub first and ten months later to print and I get 40% royalty on the ebooks and standard on the print. I have good editors, excellent cover art and distribution along with the marketing that comes with a decent mid-sized publisher. And there are plenty of them out there in various genres looking for new authors and willing to put their money behind creating and selling a good product to the public without ANY financial risk to the author.
Frankly, I can’t afford to self-pub. I can’t put money out on editing (a crap shoot at best, according to Hocking herself), cover art and then spam away in hopes of making the money back. I’ve self-pubbed reprints of short stories I’ve already made money on, so anything after that is gravy and it took little time to slap a cover up – but original work? I just can’t take the risk. I’d much rather try to get it sold to a publisher where *they* put the money up than try and justify spending hundreds of dollars on the hope that I might break even or make a profit in the ever-expanding epub market.
But that’s just my take. And I find it interesting that Konrath and his followers never take into consideration the existence of any other publishers than the NYC big boys.
Monday Links | Clary Books – Jennifer Powell
April 4, 2011 @ 2:35 pm
[…] These two are writers who have already proven themselves at their craft. Edit to add: Jim Hines responds a bit on his blog. Read the comments too as they are very useful. David Dalglaish jumps in and has some friendly […]
Moses Siregar III
April 4, 2011 @ 2:36 pm
I would’ve suggested Terry Pratchetta.
T.J.
April 4, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
I was thinking more Perry Tratchett. Or Tarry Pratchett?
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
I’ll run ’em all past my editor and see what she thinks!
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
Thank you! I’m actually pretty content with how my sales are going. And DAW doubled the advance for the next two books, so I’m hopeful this will mean bigger print runs, bigger publicity push, and other assorted rainbows and pots of gold.
Moses Siregar III
April 4, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
I’m a big proponent of epublishing, or at least the potential in epublishing if you’re willing to be both writer and publisher, but it should be stated that David is an exceptional individual.
1) He writes as fast as anyone. He got into this game last January 2010 and he already has a 5-novel fantasy series, the start of a new series (with Dance of Cloaks, his current bestseller), and other stuff (like some shorts).
2) He’s an incredibly talented storyteller.
3) He’s an incredibly cool, nice guy.
4) He’s got tremendous business sense. He understands his audience and his genre.
5) He’s also smart enough to get and pay for fantastic covers for his books.
6) He was prophetic enough to see where things were going, which led to him getting into epublishing very early.
7) On top of that, he’s had some “luck,” but considering everything else he’s done right, that luck is fully deserved. And nothing says “lucky” like writing a lot of enjoyable books for a targeted, popular genre audience, getting in early, and marketing yourself well while being a genuinely awesome person.
In other words, he deserves all the nice breaks that are going his way.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
No worries about condescension. You just seemed skeptical, which trust me, I’m used to.
I’ve tried a bit of everything when it comes to channels: forums, banners, reviews, giveaways, etc. It’d be pretty much impossible for me to know which did what with how overlapping they all are. I’ve had several big jumps, but the biggest came simply from the massive influx of purchases after Christmas, which has continued all the way to March. It looks like just now it is starting to slow.
Out of pocket costs: it really varies. When I first started, I went dirt cheap. I had no editor but myself (and it showed *grimace*), and I paid my artist $125. That was it. For Dance of Blades, I paid my artist $250 (cheaper since there’s no background; I paid him $350 for Sliver of Redemption’s cover). For editing, I’ve used Derek Prior for several books now, and this latest run is $425. I also paid someone to format my book cover (I have Peter, my artist, draw the artwork, but I use another professional, Terry Roy at Zapstone, to do the font, layout, etc, so it looks professional). Another $100. So, $250 + $425 + $100 = $775 to launch Dance of Blades.
For many self-publishers, this is just not something they are either able, or willing, or feel worthwhile to pay. I can only speak for myself, but I feel it is. But I’ve also got several books out, and a steady income from it, which means it is easier for me to justify. Dance of Blades will, in all likelihood, sell 3,000 copies its first month, if not more. I’m still iffy on what price I’ll launch it on, but I’ll make between $2.70-$4.00 per sale. All that editing, cover, etc, will easily pay off. $800 off a potential $10,000 first month just isn’t all that significant.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
*blush*
Jeff L
April 4, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
That’s great info, which lets me make some calculations on the whole ‘living wage’ issue.
Let’s say for example that you have 3,000 sales first month, 2,000 second, 1,000 third (please note that these are made up out of the air, no idea of your actual sales trends). After that, lets go with residual sales primarily. Averaging your return per book at $3.35 x 6,000 books = about $20K for the first three months. To keep with round numbers, lets say $1000 for exepnses, so $19K profit over 3 months. We’ll assume residual sales on average of 750 books (using David’d Dec/Jan with what appears to be no new releases) across all titles per month as well, for an additional $27K per year (I think that may be aggressive).
Using that as a baseline, if an author can produce quality work at the rate of 1 book per year and already has a few book backlist, they could show a realistic income of $47K. 2 books per year, $67-68K, 3 books per year, $90K plus (since as your backlist increases so can residuals). So on the surface, the original contention is valid (I’d call 56K a living wage even with self-employment considerations). However, I know very few authors who can generate 3 books per year of sufficient quality to get to the higher numbers. From reviews, David may be one of them.
Where the numbers fall down a bit is for first books. Using David’s numbers again (it’s nice to work with some actuals) a midly successful starting author may be looking at that net 19K first book with awe (David, who can be defined as moderately successful is looking at $12,000 revenue on 8K books projected (which is only $1.50 per book?) but realistically without the name recognition will be hard pressed to produce that and thats not really a living wage. So I think a certain amount of her assumption that e-publishing leads to a living wage earlier may be a bit optimistic, especially based on one data point.
Debora Geary
April 4, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
One thing that we don’t tend to see for indie authors is a big bump on initial release and then declining sales. David may with book #2 in his series, but I’d expect a month one bump and then flat or growing beyond that.
Part of that I think has to do with the way a book gets caught up in the amazon algorithms (you get visibility on other product pages and genre lists, and that tends to sustain a certain level of sales with a good book). Data from quite a few successful indie authors would suggest books can sustain a respectable sales level for a long time (we have data for over a year on a pretty good sized group of books).
Based on my personal data watching, once you get into the top 5,000 in amazon sales ranks and stay there for a month or so, the algorithms start to be the primary mode for sustaining your sales. I’m not knocking word of mouth or anything else, but often authors with books at this level can cease heavy marketing and continue to see nice results. While Robin only used one data point, there are a lot of authors in comparable positions to David – books with a mature level of sales that seem to hold steady over several months.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 4:16 pm
That’s interesting, thank you. I did see a spike-and-dropoff with Goblin Tales, but that’s a single data point, and a collection probably isn’t as representative as a novel anyway. My guess is the spike/dropoff is mostly reflective of my own initial promotional efforts.
So it seems like part of the trick is to get into that top 5000 and stay there long enough for the algorithms to kick in.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 4:16 pm
No, no, no. You must choose a side and DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH!!! Preferably with lightsabers. And maybe ferrets…
Sheryl Nantus
April 4, 2011 @ 4:19 pm
Ferrets with lightsabers!
*scribbles notes*
aha!
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 4:19 pm
Making a living wage on ONE book is very, very difficult. While there are some exceptions, the bulk of the big sellers have three to four books out, some far, far more.
As for your question of $12k for 8k sales, I’ll try to explain in more detail.
For books below $2.99, Amazon pays 35% royalty. So I have two books listed at the 99 cent mark. So for those sales, I make 35 cents. For books $2.99 to $9.99, Amazon pays 70% royalty. Most of my books are priced at $2.99, earning me $2 a sale. And then I have two works at $3.99, earning me $2.70. There’s also the tricky point of that sales outside the US get 35% regardless of price, which dips things down a little. Anyway, when you average it all out, $1.50 a book sounds about right.
Of course, you can probably see why sales figures can be incredibly misleading. Someone sells 10,000 books at 99 cents makes $3,500. Someone who sells 1,500 at $3.99 makes $4,050. They’re both tough to accomplish, and both have their advantages and disadvantages.
As for your math, $3.35 a return per book is really, really high. You’d need to sell at $4.95 to make that, and it is a select few who can pull it off. However, Robin’s husband is indeed one of those. And since you asked, I had two months where I had only three books for sale, two at 99 cents, one at $2.99. I made approximately $350 each of those two months. Honestly, that is realistic level for the vast bulk of indies.
One last thing: “However, I know very few authors who can generate 3 books per year of sufficient quality to get to the higher numbers.”
See, here’s the tricky thing…if you don’t have to wait on agents, or publishers, or a marketing crew, or anyone else, really…how long does it actually take to write a book? I write 2 hours a day, 6 days a week (hardly a significant amount of time viewing this as my only profession). During each day, I write an average of 3,500 words. So about 20k words a week, means in five weeks I have a 100k word novel. Five weeks. Now obviously there’s a lot of time editing, but even if I spend two months editing to my one month writing, I’m still cranking out four novels a year, which is indeed my goal. For someone writing full-time, three novels a year is most certainly doable. Part-time, or while running a separate 40-hour a week job? Different story, of course.
Debora Geary
April 4, 2011 @ 4:20 pm
That’s my hypothesis, anyhow. (I’m new to writing and old to data geeking). A lot of unknown indies see their books take off around the six month mark, once they’ve built up enough sales history to catch the tail of the algo. And yeah, I’d say a short story collection by an author with a loyal fanbase (and perhaps one that doesn’t tend to shop as much on amazon?) is going to give you a bit different curve than what most indies see for a novel. I guess my point is that drop-off once a book has *landed* seems to be fairly uncommon. I think we’re all still waiting for it :), but books seem to find their natural *level* and hang out for some unknown length of time.
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 4:20 pm
But isn’t that kind of problematic, relying on Amazon’s algorithm to keep your sales up. Or more specifically… there’s only room for 5,000 in the top-five-thousand so to speak. And that’s by book, I believe, not by author… so heavy-selling authors with many books in the back catalog take up more space in the top-5,000 than lower-selling authors or new authors with fewer books.
That kind of belies the point many self-pub drum-beaters are trying to make by suggesting anyone can do this. This suggests no, in fact, they cannot: only those few who are highly ranked enough to get the algorithm working in their favor can make very much money doing this. Maybe there’s more room in the self-pub winner’s circle than there is in the trad-pub winner’s circle, but it’s still an exclusive club.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 4:24 pm
Short story collections and novellas are far harder sells, especially at the $2.99 price point. If you’re just having fun with it, do another week of promotion at 99 cents and see how it does. Even if you only break even, the question is, how many that enjoy it end up buying one of your $7.99 novels?
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
That’s part of what I run into. For several reasons (health insurance being the biggest), I’ve got to keep a full-time job. So my output is pretty much one book a year. I would *love* to be able to go full time and write more books, but there’s no way to do it, even if my income were quadrupled, and still be able to provide health coverage for the family.
Jeff Linder
April 4, 2011 @ 4:28 pm
I misread the $2.70-$4.40 range as coming from you, my apologies on that and the revised numbers do blow up a bit of my assumptions.
That said, I know many authors who can produce a book every 3-4 months. The number of authors who can produce quality content at that pace is a much shorter list, I suspect. Having a well conceptualized world will help in that respect until you have to move on to the next venue.
My goal here is to come up with realistic numbers. Robin’s original article seemed to imply to me (through no fault of yours) that a ‘mid-list’ e-pub author can spool up to a living wage quickly, but my feeling is that would be by far the exception to the rule..
Debora Geary
April 4, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
Amazon does things like put a list of books “other customers who bought this book also bought” on a page. When I talk about the algorithms, that’s the kind of thing I mean. I’m not sure that’s really a lot different than *relying* on your book to sell from the fantasy shelves in the local bookstore – there’s limited shelf space there as well.
And you only need one of your books at that level to pull attention to your entire set of books, although most authors with one book at that level tend to have several.
I’d never argue anyone can do this (and I suspect that’s true of many less vocal indies). Writing is hard, and most books aren’t very good (whether you plan to head indie or trad). Marketing is work, and I think a lot of the small press authors work as hard as indies. There’s some luck involved.
That said, there are a lot of indie authors making reasonable incomes from writing, finding readers, and developing their craft. I never sent my book to an agent – as a busy mom of two little ones, it was easier to pay an editor, format, and hit publish. I have a book in the top 5,000 less than a month after publishing it – and I don’t think there’s anything blazingly special about me or my book.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
I’ve seen many authors vault themselves into the 200s or lower using promotions. If the book isn’t good enough, though, or is hard to classify, or has a bad cover, it’ll generally sink back down to what it originally started at. From what I’ve seen, many books have a “comfort” level. Dance of Cloaks’s, for example, is 700. For months and months now, it’s been at that level, sometimes bumping to 900 or so, sometimes down to 500.
So it’s less relying on Amazon, and more, that’s what your book is. People with books not ready for primetime, for whatever reason, will sink back down. Good books may languish, but once they get launched, through a review, or a sale price, or an ad, they will tend to keep their momentum, at least for a lengthy period of time. So that’s actually the toughest part of self-publishing. Once you hit a certain level, you can just sit back and enjoy so long as you keep producing more quality work.
Sean O'Hara
April 4, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
“However, I know very few authors who can generate 3 books per year of sufficient quality to get to the higher numbers.”
One of the comparisons going around now is that indie publishing is the new pulp fiction, and as we all know, the successful pulp writers were guys who could churn out manuscript pages a bushel per week. I think it’s a reasonable premise that indie publishing is going to work for people who write at Asimovian rates but will be untenable for anyone who takes the better part of a decade to write one book.
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 4:36 pm
See, that’s all someone like me is looking for: a little bit of realism to counteract the rhettoric. If it’s just as hard, in some ways, to be successful self-pubbing as traditional-pubbing, that’s worth knowing about – you’re still relying on the vagaries of some agency outside your control, whether that’s an algorithm pairing you with an appropriate book after you’ve caught the algorithm’s attention, or competing for shelf-space on a bookstore’s shelf.
It just seems to me that some people are shilling this as if it were a get-rich-quick scheme, and that sets off my alarm bells. I find it a little bit creepy, and I’m forced to wonder what it is that these guys are selling; i.e. what do they get out of selling this get-rich-quick scheme of theirs?
And then my cynical, business-savvy side realizes that the controversy they create keeps their sales numbers in the upper-ranks of the algorithm, thus ensuring their continued revenue streams.
Which is not to say that the quality of their work isn’t a factor, but more and more I suspect that being controversial for controversy’s sake is at least one part marketing ploy…
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
I love the pulp fiction comparison, and I think it is very apt. I’d proudly label myself as one, if I felt worthy to join the ranks of someone like Robert E. Howard.
Jeff Linder
April 4, 2011 @ 4:43 pm
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. In the pulp days, there were very few venues for Science Fiction and Fantasy, compared to what is available now. While there was plenty of quality in some of the pulps that I have read, there was some real crap out there too. I hope that’s not the route indie publishing ends up with.
Moses Siregar III
April 4, 2011 @ 4:47 pm
I agree with David that it’s very hard to make this work with just one novel. However, David and I both know a guy named Valmore Daniels who usually makes $2,500-$3,000 a month with mainly just one Sci-Fi novel. So it is possible to do all right with just one book. There are also some 99 cent single-novel authors who do very well, including our friends Victorine Lieske and Monique Martin.
I’m hoping to be one of those one-book wonders after I release my novel in May, but that is tough to pull off. So I hope to epublish my second novel by the end of the year. For what seems like a good number of indie authors, getting three novels out has been the ticket.
Debora Geary
April 4, 2011 @ 4:48 pm
There’s no little reply button on Stephen’s last post, so this is @ Stephen :).
My take on the numbers is this – if you have a book that is good enough to catch a decent audience, you can make more $$ self-pubbing. There are more factors in your control, less initial gatekeepers, your book has longer shelf-life, and you can respond more quickly when the rules change (which they are very frequently right now).
I think every author needs to assess the routes available to them, and figure out what your best options today are. I don’t think self-publishing is the gold rush for everyone, but I think it’s a really viable option for many writers with good books – and I think perceptions, rather than data, cloud how many (on both sides) are making their decisions.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
“While there was plenty of quality in some of the pulps that I have read, there was some real crap out there too.”
Indie publishing is already like that. If you ever want to have some fun, go to http://www.smashwords.com and view the current list of the most recently uploaded. It won’t take you long to see what I’m talking about.
And I’m not so sure about the “more venues” bit either. When you look at magazines, especially, it seems the market for fantasy and sci-fi has drastically shrunk. But I’m a young’un, and can’t claim any sort of expertise on this subject.
Stephen Watkins
April 4, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
I agree… I’d rather be able to make a decision based on data than based on an emotional stake in one camp or the other. And right now, the data is just a little murky – and that’s true of both sides of this game. I take that back; the data is a lot murky. One or two data points here or there, a few anecdotes, doesn’t make for a lot of real data. Tobias’s survey, mentioned in the post, takes a huge step in the right direction, but it’s still an incomplete picture (though maybe as complete as one can really hope for or expect), so I’m hopeful his new survey evens the playing field in terms of available data on the two sides of the issue.
David Dalglish
April 4, 2011 @ 5:18 pm
Per request…
http://daviddalglish.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/epicbattle.jpg
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
I’ll probably eventually play with a $.99 price point to see what happens, but I don’t want to do that right away. (I remember what happened when Apple put out an iPhone, everyone rushed out to buy it, and then they immediately dropped the price and pissed off the early adopter crowd.)
I’m hoping sales of the e-book will lead to sales of the other books as well. Too soon to tell, but it certainly couldn’t hurt!
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 8:44 pm
I think the markets have changed. There are more reputable and SFWA-qualifying online short fiction markets these days, and fewer successful or big print markets. Looking back ten years or so, I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the number of short fiction markets, though. But I could be wrong — this is from memory, not any sort of scientific polling.
Jim C. Hines
April 4, 2011 @ 8:44 pm
Awesome!
David McAfee
April 4, 2011 @ 9:22 pm
Ferrets and lightsabers? Dang it! That was my next big story idea. You ruined it, Hines! 😉
April 5, 2011 Links and Plugs : Hobbies and Rides
April 4, 2011 @ 11:49 pm
[…] Jim C. Hines On Robin Sullivan’s Author Comparison. […]
SF Signal: SF Tidbits for 4/5/11
April 5, 2011 @ 2:38 am
[…] A Generic SF Novel.Matthew Gallaway on 7 Six Writers Tell All About Covers and Blurbs.Jim C. Hines On Robin Sullivan’s Author Comparison.Sarah Herbe on Focusing on a Theme.Jon Sprunk on In the Flow.Cory Doctorow on With a Little Help: […]
steve dsvidson
April 5, 2011 @ 5:57 am
I found this from Sullivan’s post a bit troubling:
“They mention that hundreds of thousands of authors publish books so the chances of making it big this way is nearly impossible. My counter to this is that the hundreds of thousands of authors that submit queries are in exactly the same boat.”
I don’t think there’s an equivalency. Traditionalists submitting queries DON’T flood the market and aren’t competing with the published authors. Indies publishing their work do flood the market and potentially detract from the sales of other indie and traditional authors.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 6:51 am
Hey all, great discussion and I’m glad that I’ve been able to generate a bit of buzz for these two authors. First and for most, Jim, it was totally not my intention to “pick on you”. I’m very grateful that you share your income as so many in traditional publishing do.
I think people are reading way more into this comparison then I ever meant it to be. They seem to think this is some declaration that I’m anti-traditional publishing (which I’m not). Or believe that self-publishing is the only way to go (also not accurate). I actually have a foot in all three paths, I run a small press, I’ve self-published five novels in the Riyria Revelations for my husband, and have been offered a six-figure deal with Orbit and been working with them and are VERY happy with what they’ve done and I’m looking forward to a great relationship with them. To clearly state “my position” on which is right…I don’t believe any one is better than the other. I think each author has to evaluate their abilities and goals and then match those to the path they select. Period.
To give some perspective, I was forced into self-publishing when the small press that had been publishing my husband’s books ran out of money and couldn’t get his second book printed on schedule. They made the announcement in March and we had signings and book clubs setup for April so the only way to get it on the market in time was to self-publish. In order to maintain our desired 6-month release cycle we continued with that route as any other choice would have introduced huge delays.
In the fall of 2010 I was “taking stock” of publishing in general. Through my own experience with self-publishing, and from all the data I gathered from speaking with other authors it became quite apparent to me that while it offers some great freedom, it did not appear to be a path to a “living wage”. But then I wondered if traditional publishing was any different. I did a lot of research found surveys like the ones done by Jim and Tobias and realized that midlist traditionally published authors were not fairing much better. At that time I actually picked David and Jim and looked at them side by side as two guys who were “doing well”. Neither was at the top, neither at the bottom. They both were obviously talented and had successes to be proud of but neither was living the dream of the “rich and famous” (not that most writers ever will).
But…in November 2010 there was a dramatic occurrence the likes of which I’ve never seen before and quite frankly it shocked me. My husband’s sales increased ten-fold. Pretty remarkable to be sure and if he was the only one I would have thought it was a fluke – but he wasn’t alone. I saw dozens of other self-published reporting similar results. Suddenly I personally knew 40 – 60 authors that were making some serious money.
There has been a lot of attention between the traditional and self, especially with the success of Amanda Hocking, John Locke, and Joe Konrath. While I’m happy for all their successes I look at them as outliers and not what most authors can hope to achieve. What I care about, what I think is most germane to “most writers” is what about those in the “middle” – again not the people selling a few books a month or the ones selling 100,000 but the “average joes” of the writing field. This brought me back to David and Jim so I revisited them and posted their most recent results.
Many accuse me of “cherry picking” to skew my results. You can believe what you will, If David’s numbers would have gone down rather than up I would have still reported them. As for Jim…well he’s the only one I could find that posted numbers.
As I said many people have read more into my post then I ever intended. I will say that part of the reason for posting is to show that the self-publishing climate has changed and while it wasn’t a good choice (from a financial standpoint) in the past, it CAN BE now. No, I don’t think it is right for everyone. But I just wanted to show that there is now an OPTION that I don’t think really existed prior to November 2010. Yes, David is just one example of this but so is Michael Sullivan, and H.P. Mallory, and J.R. Rain, and B.V. Larson, and Nathan Lowell, and dozens and dozens of others.
As to why Michael is “going traditional” if self-publishing is “all that”. Well, it’s not because of the money. I truly believe that he would make more money staying self-published. But as I said, each author has their own goals and desires. One of the major reasons is getting Michael’s books into as many hands as possible and the expanded distribution system of a traditional publisher can do that. Now, maybe I’m wrong and he’ll eventually make more money traditionally published and like Jim, I plan on sharing Michael’s income because I think authors that do so are doing a service.
So, there you have it. Some further details. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Robin | Write2Publish | Michael J. Sullivan’s Writings
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:05 am
Never meant to imply that “anyone” can do it. My intetion was just to demonstrate that “some” have done it. If I tried to create a list in July 2010 it would have no one on it – today it would have 60+ people on it – next year maybe its back to none again…my intention is to share information I’ve seen – I’m not making claimas about the ease or difficulty people had in obtaining those results.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:07 am
I wasn’t looking for a statistical average – just trying to match similar number of books, similar release schedules, and trying to select someone who is neither at the top or the bottom.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:15 am
I don’t apologize for the comment that authors in today’s climate need to self-promote regardless of self or traditional. I do believe this is true. Now that being said…I traditionally published author could choose to do nothing and still have some success because of the efforts put forth by their publisher. This is NOT an option for self-published author and why self-publishing is not for everyone. If you don’t have the skill or desire – then you’ll fail self-publishing if you don’t do this.
Plase tell me where I’ve implied that traditional publsihing is “truly the crumbling edifice of author abuse and neglect” I do think IF you are willing to do the extra work required by self-publishing, AND you are good at it you will make more money with self-publishing. I believe we’ll ultimately lose money with the tradtional deal – but it’s not all about the money. Traditional publishing has better distribution and I’m willing to take the cut in pay to achieve that and the other advantages it brings to the table.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:20 am
Couldn’t agree with you more…self-publishing is not for everyone…I think the “evangelical” aspect comes because people are so amazed by some of the results they are seeing (and no – not “anyone” will see similar results) I would have NEVER thought I could sell 60,000+ copies of books through self-publishing – my goal was to hit 5,000 and I thought that would take years.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:23 am
Perhaps “midlist” is not the proper word. I really was just looking for a level that I think most accomplished authors could achieve. In other words not the astronomical successes of a Hocking or Meyer, nor some guy that sells 10 – 15 books a month.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:27 am
Sorry, my intention was not imply the comparison of two people as some greater trend in the industry. I do think that self-publishing success is more common now than it was say 1 year ago (when I saw virtually none). But totatlly agree that there are many factors that come into play with success in ANY road to publishing. But that’s not to say it will continue a year from now – the industry is changing quickly and no one knows where it will end up.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:31 am
Maybe I didn’t do a good job at it but this is exactly one of my points that David is an example of self-published author. I did not mean it to be an extrapolation. I just wanted to let people know that there is now an OPTION that didn’t exist in the past. That option will not be a good fit for everyone but for those that it is a good fit for I wanted them to know that others who have come before them are doign well.
Jim C. Hines
April 5, 2011 @ 7:34 am
To what end, Robin? If, as you said up above, your intention was just to demonstrate that some people could do this, I think David’s numbers pretty much prove that it’s possible. What was the point of then comparing his numbers to mine?
Jim C. Hines
April 5, 2011 @ 7:38 am
“…the industry is changing quickly and no one knows where it will end up.”
Robin, this seems to contradict your post when you extrapolate from just two months of David’s income, saying, “He now earns over $10,000 a month in sales and with his next book coming out I see no reason for that not to continue.”
If the industry is indeed changing as quickly as you say, then don’t you think it’s reasonable to question whether such trends will actually continue?
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:41 am
I run a small press so I don’t believe in one or the other – My biggest seller (next to Michael – which I classify as self-published) is Nathan Lowell and he is doing very well with two books out. During the Christmas season he sold 6,000 books a month at $4.95 and in the “off season” he is selling 3,000 books. So yes there are three paths and they have good reasons for selecting them.
Robin | Write2Publish | Michael J. Sullivan’s Writings
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:44 am
I can’t say that I’ve made up my mind on the “flood” of bad books from self-publishers yet. My logical side tells me to agree with you – and theis could be a big problem. My business side says – junk is pretty easily recognizable and it won’t sell.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 7:56 am
Tobias – I apologize for using the wrong name in response to your survery – I’ve corrected the error on my original post.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 8:11 am
Because I think it points out that midlist authors, from what I’ve been able to determine, really are being underpaid. Do I think “big publishing” is screwing them? No…although I take issue witht he 52.5% / 17.5% ebook sharing. It just goes to show that the industry is not as lucrative as many thing it is. I wanted writers who don’t know ANYTHING about the business what someone else has received.
Is your income typical of midlist authors? I think it is…but if that is not true please enlighten me I’d love to point to other data – I think the more data the better. I give lectures (for free) and the amount that most authors think they can make a year is way out of step with what I’ve seen reported.
I meant it when I said that I was shocked that someone at your level, published through a major publisher was making so little. For the number of books you have out, and the quality they represent you should be making six-figures each year!
People do not go into writing to “get rich” they do it because they love to write. It frustrates the hell out of me that someone can produce the body of work that you have done and yet not be able to quit their day job, provide health insurance for their family, and write full time.
There is no question (in my mind) that trying to write full time with one book is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. But for someone from a major press…with SIX successful books…for them to HAVE to keep their day job – is in my mind a travesty.
Jim C. Hines
April 5, 2011 @ 8:41 am
Robin,
So another goal of your post was to show that traditionally-published midlist authors are underpaid?
Please also note that you’re comparing a full-time self-published author (David) to a part-time commercially-published author (myself). Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to be able to quit the day job, primarily for health insurance reasons.
I appreciate the though, and I certainly wouldn’t turn down a six-figure income. But it’s not something I expect, nor do I think it’s a realistic expectation in most cases.
Stephen Watkins
April 5, 2011 @ 9:32 am
I don’t say that you do (although I do specifically call out Konrath for it, because he has said that)… but it’s part of a growing narrative that self-pubbing is somehow like easy money. I think we need a lot more data, considering how recent this phenomenon is, to know how it’s really going to shake out.
I mean, for those of us who weren’t on the cutting edge already, and didn’t have a book ready to go when this thing exploded all of a sudden…
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 10:26 am
There are two issues here – what do I expect from David’s income. Which I do think will increase – he is just starting to gain a following and he has a second book coming out shortly that should definitely boost his sales by a significant amount – so my prediction for him is that he will indeed continue to earn at a six-figure rate. My impression is that in traditional publishing you have a “spike” when a book is first released and then it tapers off. The self-published model is a bit different. It usually takes awhile (6 months or so) to start out but once a following starts, they start reading other works of the author and in general their income increases. As long as the author continues to put out additional books to consume, his income continues to increase. Yes, he may go down…but probably more in the $80,000+/yearly category then the say…
a $10,000 or $20,000 range.
As to the industry as a whole? A lot could change – the royalty rate of Amazon could change. They could refuse to sell self-published books. They could make a deal with big publighers to feature traditional books more prominently than self-published. This is just one of the reasons why Michael is taking a traditional publishing contract – to diversify and have some income potential on both sides of the fence.
Robin Sulliavn
April 5, 2011 @ 10:35 am
Yes, Joe and I disagree on this point that “anyone” can have similar success. And I totally agree that all this very recent – as I mentoned it really only started (from my observation) from November 2010. For the record I don’t think self-publsihing is “easy money”…specfically I don’t think there is anything “easy” in publishing no matter what route you take.
Those who have books “ready to go” now – are in an interesting situation because print is declining and ebooks are accellerating. In a print dominated world, publishers hold a significant advantage. But their business model does require a fairly long time between signing and being on the shelf so signing anything at the moment is a bit scarey. Part of the problem is until recently they (publishers large and small) were the “only game in town” and their business pracices (i.e. what their sharing rates are and the way the contracts are structured) have not yet changed to reflect that authors have another option now. It will take a few more Barry Eislers and Bob Mayers who turn down contracts before they do some adjustments. But I do think that the contracts will start to shift to be more “author friendly” and that will be a good fallout of the self-publishing revolution even for those who neither have the desire or inclination to participate.
Moses Siregar III
April 5, 2011 @ 11:12 am
Robin and I talked about this recently in an interview that we’re going to be publishing on Adventures In Sci Fi Publishing (podcast), but there does seem to be an option for self-publishers who want to just write and do almost nothing more. Assuming you get a good cover, title, and description for your book, if you simply write a lot of good books in a popular enough genre, you might not have to do any promotion at all other than the bare minimum that any author is likely to do anyway. B.V. Larson is an example like. He’s doing extremely well with almost no self-promotion. Amanda Hocking, contrary to popular misconceptions, is also pretty much in the same category. It’s true that she’s very busy with interviews now, and that she initially sent her books to a lot of book reviewers (that’s the main thing she’s credited as to how she got the word out), but she didn’t get to where she is because of promoting herself through social media or blogging. A year ago, she had very little social media presence.
KatG
April 5, 2011 @ 8:43 pm
Wow, just wow.
“Typically when published through a traditional publisher a book can take 15 – 18 months to be released and they generally stagger offering from an author at 12 month intervals. For those who write a great deal this can be problematic.”
This is incorrect. The amount of time it takes a publisher to release a book and the amount of time they stagger between titles varies widely. These numbers are particularly inaccurate for category SFF in which serial publishing of several books at once or within a few months from each other is a regular approach.
“Industry standards are that only 20% of authors earn out their advances so in many cases the advance is the ONLY money they will see.”
That’s false. If that were true, publishers would go out of business.
“The traditionally published author will get an advance but it is woefully small … I’ve done a ton of research on this and it really hasn’t changed much over the years but generally ranges from $5,000 – $10,000.”
This is not the average advance range for established mid-list authors. The advance is an estimate of what the publisher believes the author will earn in royalties on sales, which for a mid-list author is relatively easy to calculate based on past sales for that author and prospects for the new work. It is done to give authors an income while waiting for net sales to come in and in the case of most mid-list authors, to give the author an income while the author is writing the books. It is money from sales, not from the publisher’s magical bag of cash.
Publishers have costs and outlays that are large in scope and related to multiple formats with multiple market factors — that Amazon does not have by simply acting as a sales platform and that an individual author does not have, plus the entire gamble of investing in authors in the first place, and that’s part of the bargain in a partnership between publishers and authors — each is putting something in. Electronic royalties do need to be reconfigured in contracts because of the new market with a different cost and profit structure, which is still only a minority part of the market, and that’s going on, but this continual misinformation that publishers are trying to cheat authors in return for doing nothing is getting really old.
Publishers were never the only game in town. There were self-published authors who made quite a bit of money, but it required time and cost. Electronic publishing has made this easier by giving a new venue with a quick distribution system, but it doesn’t change the fact that self-published fiction — like every other sort of fiction — has the same sales pyramid: a small group at the top, a mid-size group in the middle and a large group at the bottom.
You picked a top performing self-published fiction author, without factoring in the cost of his time acting as a publisher or how much money he’s giving to Amazon on his sales for doing relatively little on Amazon’s contract terms, whose sales are for a small batch of devices serviced by two or three centralized vendors heavily promoting all of their electronic offerings to help sell their devices (free marketing), and compare him to a print fiction author with a growing audience with a day job whose sales are mostly through bookstores and who is able to snag a much more international audience, who was kind enough to share his sales figures with people, throw in a number of incorrect facts about publishing, and admit you don’t even know what the term mid-list means in publishing. You ignore the fact that fiction authors never directly compete with each other in the marketplace and so comparing their sales to one another is pointless, and don’t mention that your husband signed a deal with a publisher until it’s outed. That’s just brilliant.
I’m quite sure that you didn’t mean anything malicious about this, Ms. Sullivan, but you weren’t really going for a factual analysis either. And you owe Jim an apology, in my opinion.
If you want to show authors what the brave new world of electronic self-publishing is, then gather up the sales figures of electronic-only self-publishing fiction authors — everyone of them on the Kindle or as close to it as you and your cheerleaders can manage. And then present the full range of figures to people, along with the costs involved, the amount of time the authors had to spend on non-writing duties, etc. Give all of it, not just the sunshine, including the mid-sales sunshine.
That’s really the main picture that matters for an author considering self-publishing. What publishers are doing with electronic royalties for the 5-10% of their market is really rather irrelevant for the self-publishing market, especially at this point. Because authors don’t pick publishers. They solicit them or not. Publishers pick what authors they want to invest in and make a partnership with. Sometimes they pick self-published authors who they think will sell well for them and make an offer. And the author can then decide whether he wants that sort of business partnership and on what terms or not, as your husband did. Which has little to do with the business practices in self-publishing in which authors are operating their own publishing businesses without a partner and have to make their own bargains with vendors like Amazon. The terms of those bargains are much more relevant and important to authors looking at how to self-publish than talking about Jim’s sales figures.
Robin Sulliavn
April 6, 2011 @ 7:04 am
If you don’t think it “it’s a realistic expectation in most cases” and you are involved more heavily than I am in the traditional publishing world. Then this confirms that making a living as a midlist author is difficult – even with multiple books released. I think this is a pretty important piece of information for new authors to be aware of so that they don’t have unrealistic expectations as to the income they can expect.
Robin | Write2Publish | Michael J. Sullivan’s Writings
Jim C. Hines
April 6, 2011 @ 7:36 am
“If you don’t think it ‘it’s a realistic expectation in most cases’ and you are involved more heavily than I am in the traditional publishing world.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. But I do agree with you that making a living as a midlist author is difficult, and that new authors should indeed have *realistic* expectations as to what they’re getting into.
Robin Sulliavn
April 6, 2011 @ 7:42 am
Regarding the release schedules of books what I was talking about here is the time from the time an offer is made (bor a new new book – not one that was already signed and planned for) until the book hits the street. I’ll agree that “some books” are fast-tracked – heck my husband’s books are one of these (and yet it will still be 12 months before the first one is released). In general a release has to be placed into one of the 4 seaons release scheudules (that by definition only go out quarterly). At the time of sigining the “next” one is usually full so it wil have to be placed into the one after that. Catalogs for a fall release close in February. Cover art needs to be created before the catalog can be created and reveiw sites such as Publishers Weekly need ARC’s 4 – 5 months before relese. Michael agreed on the “terms of his deal” in mid-November. Orbit started cover design and editing immediately (even before contracts were signed – in fact we got the contracts just a few weeks ago so it has taken over 4 1/2 months just to get that done. And again….this is for a book that is being fast tracked. When I was doing a lecture on contracts I gathered 30 of them from various authors and all of them had language that indicated 18 to 24 months from delivery of an ‘acceptable contract’. I also interviewed 30 authors about signing to release the shortest was 15 months and the longest was 36 months. If you follow Publishers Lunch Deals you’ll see that the deal date to release date usually spans more than 1 year – But…I’m always looking to learn more on such subjects so tell me where I can find information about typically shorter releases and I’ll be glad to incorporate that into future postings on the subject.
As to earning out I’ve seen this number (1 of 5) quoted many times. Joe Konrath knows hundreds of authors and this is a rate he quotes often. A 2009 NY article reports 30% (7 out of 10 do not). Please show me your data that the earn out rate is grater than 20 – 30%. Just because a book does not earn out does not necessarily mean that a publisher lost money on the book.
For advances I was using “first time authors” as my audience was not for “established” authors but authors seeking their first entrance into the publishing world. Sure once you have a book under your belt your advances can increase – Tobias’s survey shows this but for a first time author the average first time advance is $5,000.
Either you didn’t read my post – or you refuse to believe what I said. I selected Jim and David in the fall of 2010. When David was not making the type of money he made in February and March. The fact is that MANY self-published authors saw explosions from November on – and David is just one of those. He is not at the top there are many doing better than he is: Michael Sullivan, B.V. Larson, H.P. Mallory, he himself admits that he is “middle of the road”. If I had compared using one of these other authors then you could cry fowl. David hasn’t been in the Top 100 – no where close to that. He sells well now and I expect that to continue but when I first “looked into” his sales they were quite modest.
I did take into account how much he pays to Amazon. I calculated his income AFTER Amazon took their cut. True, I did not account for the money he has invested but I’m sure that he has more than made that back. I’ve reported his sales since I started looking at him – which was Augus 2010 on. If we look at the “entire” length of his publishing journey – including all costs and all income I’m sure he’ll be in the black.
Robin | Write2Publish | Michael J. Sullivan’s Writings
Jim C. Hines
April 6, 2011 @ 8:12 am
“When I was doing a lecture on contracts I gathered 30 of them from various authors and all of them had language that indicated 18 to 24 months from delivery of an ‘acceptable contract’.”
Yes, most of my contracts include a similar clause. But the fact that the publishers give themselves up to 24 months to produce the book doesn’t mean they actually take that long. My first book was out within 10 months of signing the contract, and I don’t think any of them have taken more than 12 months from delivery.
“For advances I was using ‘first time authors’ as my audience…”
I’ve read and re-read your blog post, and you do not make it clear that you’re talking first-time advances. Perhaps that’s something that should have been stated in the post?
You keep arguing that you picked David in October, and that makes him a fair and representative “midlist” self-published author. By that logic, if I was doing a comparison back in 1997 and picked J. K. Rowling as a midlister who was, at that time, still getting started … then when I published my comparison in 1998 when her career started to explode, would it still be a fair or accurate comparison?
KatG
April 6, 2011 @ 9:12 am
Yes, publishers have contractual term periods in which to publish and are constrained by their schedules for the books they invest in. But that’s not what you said. You said, this is how they publish all their books, conveniently ignoring what publishers are often doing that contradicts it, and that we’re talking about physical print books which have an entire consignment system built in with book vendors that is completely different from electronic publishing.
Mid-list authors are not first time authors just getting deals, so again, you’re presenting misleading information on advances. Mid-listers are in fact an enormous range — from authors selling 10,000 copies to authors selling on the lower rungs of bestseller lists. You are also presenting false information because you are equating advances (investment gambles)with actual earnings and ignoring the entire returns system in print that advances were designed for. You’re talking about two very different business models as if they were the same and should just line them up. You are subtracting Amazon’s costs from sales as a production expense, which is not what I was talking about. I’m talking about whether Amazon is taking too much of a cut from the business deal per unit in return for what it does as an electronic printer/sales vendor. Nobody seems interested in assessing that, but as there are more vendors and options in the growing electronic market, it’s going to be a real issue.
Again, fiction authors don’t compete with each other, so comparing Jim’s sales figures to the guy you cherry picked, with or without his sales surge, to Stephen King or to Joe Schmoe who’s sold ten copies is equally pointless. You reduced Jim to an employee of the publisher (living wage) which is not the case at all. What he is, is a businessman with a creative product to sell who faced different options to attempt to pursue revenue. He sought an agent to work with and a licensing publishing deal with a publisher willing to invest in him and outlay costs as an option that worked for him to produce and sell that physical product before there even was a viable electronic book market. So what your sales comparison is doing is saying that Jim is a lousy businessman compared to the guy who self-published last year and benefited from Amazon selling the hell out of the Kindle for Christmas 2010. So again, you owe Jim an apology in my opinion.
Again, self-publishing, for which I was an advocate before there was a viable electronic book market, is another option for author businesspeople for generating revenue, one that did not wink into existence, but instead has improved its abilities in the wake of developments in the electronics industry. In one sense, the market is limited — it serves a smaller group of tech elites who can afford the equipment and are squirrely about what they’ll pay for content. And so we are indeed looking at authors pursuing multiple business arrangements of different kinds, as your husband is doing, some of which may involve a business partner such as a publisher or electronic publisher, who makes a cash investment in the author’s product, and others different business deals good and bad with sales vendors for a different product. A lot of interesting things and issues are going on — Robert Sawyer just made a deal with Microsoft on his new novel WWW, and some self-published authors may be doing this sort of thing too. Publishers are working on bundling, which would be harder but not impossible for self-publishing authors to do. As the U.S. and Europe tech elite shrink, China and India become growing markets that author businesspeople are going to have to deal with and translations become an issue. The Greek Seaman incident showed that self-published authors are going to have to learn how to deal with the more reviews they are now getting and showed up the formatting issues still going on in this transitional time.
But instead, you’re running skewed and incompatible sales comparisons, contributing to the idea, intentionally or not, that fiction publishing is like high school, with the publishers as the mean school principal, and the published authors as the popular jocks who are stupid compared to the ingenious self-publishing nerds. It’s not an accurate presentation of what’s going on in the market and when it comes to fiction authors — who are not in competition with each other for sales — it isn’t helpful. What is helpful is looking at how much growth there is in sales on the Nook, how much marketing support authors are getting out of iBooks — stuff that matters.
Robin Sulliavn
April 6, 2011 @ 9:56 am
David’s sales in October and March are no where near J.K. Rowlings. You keep thinking he is at the “top” of the list – and if I were going to do that I would have picked another author to compare against – Michael Sullivan, B.V Larson, H.P. Mallorry etc. The fact is he was the best fit match. If you think his numbers are extra-ordinary maybe you should see what some of his peers are making because they also are doing very well.
10 months from sigining (which is how long from submission?) 12 months from delivery – which is how long from agreement? You are really splitting hairs now. For someone who has a book that they are “done” with time to market in traditional publishing is years IF they have an agent already. If they are still querying tack on some more months. My point is time to market in self-publishing is a fraction of traditional – do you dispute this to be the case?
Jim C. Hines
April 6, 2011 @ 10:09 am
Robin,
I’m not going to spend much more time arguing this with you.
I never said David’s sales were near Rowling’s. My point was that picking someone who seems, in your personal opinion, to be “midlist” — and then comparing that person’s numbers months later when their sales have skyrocketed, while still arguing that they’re “midlist” — is a pretty significant distortion.
“My point is time to market in self-publishing is a fraction of traditional – do you dispute this to be the case?”
Nope. Heck, if you wanted, you could self-publish the very same day you finished a manuscript.
I personally think that would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, but I certainly won’t deny that it’s possible to be as fast as you’d like with self-publishing.
“10 months from sigining (which is how long from submission?) 12 months from delivery – which is how long from agreement? You are really splitting hairs now.”
Robin, please read your own comment. You were throwing out numbers that indicated the fastest “signing to release” you’d ever heard of was 15 months. Responding to your claims by pointing out that mine was 10 months hardly seems like splitting hairs.
Your comments are coming across as more defensive than anything, and I’m losing whatever point you’re trying to make. You might want to step back and take a break before continuing.
Robin Sulliavn
April 6, 2011 @ 10:29 am
“Yes, publishers have contractual term periods in which to publish and are constrained by their schedules for the books they invest in. But that’s not what you said. You said, this is how they publish all their books, conveniently ignoring what publishers are often doing that contradicts it, and that we’re talking about physical print books which have an entire consignment system built in with book vendors that is completely different from electronic publishing. ”
No…I said….
“typically the first book goes to press in 15 – 18 months with subsequent books released 1 year after the preceding”
Not sure how “typicall” turned into “all”.
Robin Sulliavn
April 6, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
So if his sales would have stayed steady or gone down, you would have no objection? The problem is that they went up?
I’ll agree that “midlist” is probably not the correct term. (Especially since midlist is such a wide range of people. But the fact remains that David is not some superstar like Hocking he’s not all that different from dozens of other authors I follow – some are higher…some are lower…so yes he’s “middle of the pack” at both his October and February numbers.
Jim C. Hines
April 6, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
The problem is that you’ve not shown any convincing evidence that David’s current numbers in any way represent the “middle of the pack.”
I’m not convinced that his older numbers necessarily represent the middle of the self-published pack either, but I’m even less persuaded that his current sales do.
I follow folks like Gaiman, Rothfuss, Harris, Scalzi, and others with similar levels of success. Someone in the middle of that particular group would in no conceivable way represent the “middle of the pack.”