# Amazon store: a chance to get your foot in the door?



## theoddone

Basically, I'm starting this thread because I want to have a conversation about self publishing using Amazon. I'm hoping to hear some responses from people who have published on Amazon who can offer their insight.

At this moment, I honestly believe self publishing is the only way to go. That may not be the case for you, or many other people, but I feel that is the best option for me. When I was 15, I finished my first novel. I spent three years searching for a publisher only to be turned down again and again and again. Most of them did not give me a flat out "no"; many of the publishers offered me "deals". Basically, they were closet vanity publishers (I believe that's the name of it), where you pay them 1,500 up front and an additional 100 or so a month and they publish your novel for you.

To say the least, it was very discouraging. After years had passed, I became friends who someone who's mother worked as an editor for a company that published manuals. She had been in the publishing business for a long time and told me something that has become a fact for me today: "publishers don't have time for something _innovative_. They want what is going to sale." I'm sure that is not the case for every place, but in most situations, this is true, especially in today's market.

I would like to hope what I write is more _unique _that the millionth vampire love story to hit shelves... Anyway, I knew no publisher would give me the light of day, not just because of my book, but I'm also a small town nobody.

She also suggested to me that I try self-publishing through Amazon. There's a lot of competition, so there is no guarantee that you will be a huge success, but it also lets you show publishers in the future, "hey, I published this and here are the sales and reviews and-"

I also became very interested in self-publishing because I am one of those people who wants to keep ALL the rights to my novel. The thought of a publisher telling me to change something in my story _or else_ is unsettling.

Well, I have not written anything worth publishing yet; but, I still am focused on using Amazon.

What's your publishing story?


----------



## Seedy M.

Self-publish through, print, places like Lulu. It doesn't cost anything and appears, not only on Amazon, but on B&N, Kobo, Apple, etc. eBooks, Smashwords has the same deal. You get a free ISBN with either, so your work can be sold on most markets.


----------



## shadowwalker

Well, a) most first novels don't sell (not first ones queried necessarily, but first novels written). It takes a lot of writing and reading before the majority of writers are at a publishable level. So don't let that have too much influence on your decision; and b) your friend's mother worked for a company that published manuals. That's a far cry from fiction as far as what they're looking for (especially the crack about 'innovative'). Don't let her comment have too much influence on your decision. 

What you need to do is stop worrying about getting your foot in the door and start learning about publishing, both trade and self. Hint: If you see someone bad-mouthing either one (for example, using terms like dinosaur for trade or loser for self), or who make claims that sound too good to be true, go elsewhere - those folks are not going to give you the facts. Once you have a book that you really, truly believe is worthy of publication, then you drop the author hat and become a business person, and that means knowing the business you're going into - including _all _the options.


----------



## theoddone

Seedy M. said:


> Self-publish through, print, places like Lulu. It doesn't cost anything and appears, not only on Amazon, but on B&N, Kobo, Apple, etc. eBooks, Smashwords has the same deal. You get a free ISBN with either, so your work can be sold on most markets.



That's also what I love about self publishing: because you own the rights, you can publish in more than one place. Thanks for the list.


----------



## theoddone

shadowwalker said:


> Well, a) most first novels don't sell (not first ones queried necessarily, but first novels written). It takes a lot of writing and reading before the majority of writers are at a publishable level. So don't let that have too much influence on your decision; and b) your friend's mother worked for a company that published manuals. That's a far cry from fiction as far as what they're looking for (especially the crack about 'innovative'). Don't let her comment have too much influence on your decision.
> 
> What you need to do is stop worrying about getting your foot in the door and start learning about publishing, both trade and self. Hint: If you see someone bad-mouthing either one (for example, using terms like dinosaur for trade or loser for self), or who make claims that sound too good to be true, go elsewhere - those folks are not going to give you the facts. Once you have a book that you really, truly believe is worthy of publication, then you drop the author hat and become a business person, and that means knowing the business you're going into - including _all _the options.



You are accurate on that, for sure: new writers will have a rough time becoming even barely "known" or "noticed". I did not just get that opinion from my friend's mother, but also from lots of research I did online. I read lots of stories about publishers and read comparisons between traditional and self; so, the opinion has also become my own. Plus, I'm not speaking for every novel, but most of the popular novels fit into a popular category and are very similar to one and other. It's not exactly innovative to write young adult dystopian write now...

Like I said, I think self publishing can also be useful for establishing myself. I recall when I was searching for agents and publishers, almost all of them asked about "my past work". I was fifteen and naturally had nothing to show. I think it would nice, in the future, to actually have something.


----------



## shadowwalker

theoddone said:


> I read lots of stories about publishers and read comparisons between traditional and self; so, the opinion has also become my own.



Well, this is kind of what I meant by being careful about what you read. You don't want "stories" about pubishers or even comparisons between the two methods. What you want are facts. Read articles and blogs by trade professionals as to what they look for and how trade publishing works; read articles and blogs by self-published authors who do not pose comparisons but rather tell what they did, how they did it, and whether they felt it worked.



theoddone said:


> I recall when I was searching for agents and publishers, almost all of them asked about "my past work". I was fifteen and naturally had nothing to show. I think it would nice, in the future, to actually have something.



Not having 'past work' is not a deal breaker. Publishers look for new writers all the time; after all, their current authors are not going to be around forever. They may only have one book in them. They retire, they become ill, they die. They even go to a different publisher or decide to go hybrid  Having something self-published will only 'establish' an author if they have the phenomenal sales to go with it.


----------



## Sam

theoddone said:


> Basically, I'm starting this thread because I want to have a conversation about self publishing using Amazon. I'm hoping to hear some responses from people who have published on Amazon who can offer their insight.
> 
> At this moment, I honestly believe self publishing is the only way to go. That may not be the case for you, or many other people, but I feel that is the best option for me. When I was 15, I finished my first novel. I spent three years searching for a publisher only to be turned down again and again and again. Most of them did not give me a flat out "no"; many of the publishers offered me "deals". Basically, they were closet vanity publishers (I believe that's the name of it), where you pay them 1,500 up front and an additional 100 or so a month and they publish your novel for you.



You will find it almost impossible to convince any publisher to take on a teenager. With the greatest respect, the chances of a 15-year-old writing a novel of publishable quality is very low. There are a few exceptions, but it doesn't happen often. You were turned down on principle and probability. That shouldn't sway your feelings towards traditional publishing now. 

On another note: you *never *pay money to be published. Ever. Money always flows to the author. If a so-called 'publishing house' wants money from you, run away from them as fast as your legs will carry you. 



> To say the least, it was very discouraging. After years had passed, I became friends who someone who's mother worked as an editor for a company that published manuals. She had been in the publishing business for a long time and told me something that has become a fact for me today: "publishers don't have time for something _innovative_. They want what is going to sale." I'm sure that is not the case for every place, but in most situations, this is true, especially in today's market.



Of course they want what will sell. What good is an innovative novel that tanks and makes them little to no money? They are first and foremost a business. Businesses exist to make money. This isn't some conspiracy against writers. It's how the industry has always worked. 



> I would like to hope what I write is more _unique _that the millionth vampire love story to hit shelves... Anyway, I knew no publisher would give me the light of day, not just because of my book, but I'm also a small town nobody.



I'm not even from a town. I live in the countryside, middle of nowhere, and I'm a traditionally published author. That theory doesn't hold water. 



> She also suggested to me that I try self-publishing through Amazon. There's a lot of competition, so there is no guarantee that you will be a huge success, but it also lets you show publishers in the future, "hey, I published this and here are the sales and reviews and-"



Depends on the sales record. If you can show a publisher that you have an established platform as an writer, that will open doors for you, but few will take on a novel that has already been self-published. 



> I also became very interested in self-publishing because I am one of those people who wants to keep ALL the rights to my novel. The thought of a publisher telling me to change something in my story _or else_ is unsettling.



How do you deal with critiques and beta readers, then? Someone has to read your work to offer an impartial critique of it. You won't make it as a writer if you aren't open to change and dissenting opinion. 



> Well, I have not written anything worth publishing yet; but, I still am focused on using Amazon.
> 
> What's your publishing story?



I've been self-published half a dozen times, traditionally published twice, and writing for over fifteen years. I'm working on my thirteenth and fourteenth novels at the moment. I'm using self-publishing at the moment, because it does everything I need it to do, but I if wasn't swamped with other things I'd be submitting to publishing houses. I'd recommend that everyone self-publish at least once, if for no other reason than to get a feel for self-promotion and marketability, but it is not a panacea. You still have to put in more work that you would with a trad-publisher, because you're doing everything yourself. If anything comes across amateurish, you will pay in sales lost.


----------



## Sam

theoddone said:


> Basically, I'm starting this thread because I want to have a conversation about self publishing using Amazon. I'm hoping to hear some responses from people who have published on Amazon who can offer their insight.
> 
> At this moment, I honestly believe self publishing is the only way to go. That may not be the case for you, or many other people, but I feel that is the best option for me. When I was 15, I finished my first novel. I spent three years searching for a publisher only to be turned down again and again and again. Most of them did not give me a flat out "no"; many of the publishers offered me "deals". Basically, they were closet vanity publishers (I believe that's the name of it), where you pay them 1,500 up front and an additional 100 or so a month and they publish your novel for you.



You will find it almost impossible to convince any publisher to take on a teenager. With the greatest respect, the chances of a 15-year-old writing a novel of publishable quality are very low. There are a few exceptions, but it doesn't happen often. You were turned down on principle and probability. That shouldn't sway your feelings towards traditional publishing now. 

On another note: you *never *pay money to be published. Ever. Money always flows to the author. If a so-called 'publishing house' wants money from you, run away from them as fast as your legs will carry you. 



> To say the least, it was very discouraging. After years had passed, I became friends who someone who's mother worked as an editor for a company that published manuals. She had been in the publishing business for a long time and told me something that has become a fact for me today: "publishers don't have time for something _innovative_. They want what is going to sale." I'm sure that is not the case for every place, but in most situations, this is true, especially in today's market.



Of course they want what will sell. What good is an innovative novel that tanks and makes them little to no money? They are first and foremost a business. Businesses exist to make money. This isn't some conspiracy against writers. It's how the industry has always worked. 



> I would like to hope what I write is more _unique _that the millionth vampire love story to hit shelves... Anyway, I knew no publisher would give me the light of day, not just because of my book, but I'm also a small town nobody.



I'm not even from a town. I live in the countryside, middle of nowhere, and I'm a traditionally published author. That theory doesn't hold water. 



> She also suggested to me that I try self-publishing through Amazon. There's a lot of competition, so there is no guarantee that you will be a huge success, but it also lets you show publishers in the future, "hey, I published this and here are the sales and reviews and-"



Depends on the sales record. If you can show a publisher that you have an established platform as an writer, that will open doors for you, but few will take on a novel that has already been self-published. 



> I also became very interested in self-publishing because I am one of those people who wants to keep ALL the rights to my novel. The thought of a publisher telling me to change something in my story _or else_ is unsettling.



How do you deal with critiques and beta readers, then? Someone has to read your work to offer an impartial critique of it. You won't make it as a writer if you aren't open to change and dissenting opinion. 



> Well, I have not written anything worth publishing yet; but, I still am focused on using Amazon.
> 
> What's your publishing story?



I've been self-published half a dozen times, traditionally published twice, and writing for over fifteen years. I'm working on my thirteenth and fourteenth novels at the moment. I'm using self-publishing right now, because it does everything I need it to do, but I if wasn't swamped with other things I'd be submitting to publishing houses. I'd recommend that everyone self-publish at least once, if for no other reason than to get a feel for self-promotion and marketability, but it is not a panacea. You still have to put in more work that you would with a trad-publisher, because you're doing everything yourself. If anything comes across amateurish, you will pay in sales lost.


----------



## movieman

Sam said:


> On another note: you *never *pay money to be published. Ever. Money always flows to the author. If a so-called 'publishing house' wants money from you, run away from them as fast as your legs will carry you.



However, that line becomes far more blurred when you're self-publishing, because you're the publisher as well as the author. The important thing is to wear separate hats, and ensure that you only spend money (e.g. for editing, book covers, etc) when you have your publisher hat on.



Sam said:


> Of course they want what will sell. What good is an innovative novel that tanks and makes them little to no money? They are first and foremost a business. Businesses exist to make money. This isn't some conspiracy against writers. It's how the industry has always worked.



When a novel is successful, publishers say 'send us the same thing, but different!' In doing so, they completely ignore the fact that the successful novel was successful precisely because it wasn't the same old thing, but was a story they'd been telling authors for years they couldn't sell ('no-one reads lesbian werewolf westerns any more!').



Sam said:


> How do you deal with critiques and beta readers, then? Someone has to read your work to offer an impartial critique of it. You won't make it as a writer if you aren't open to change and dissenting opinion.



Beta readers can't tell you to change something, they can only suggest it. Publishers can refuse to publish a book if you won't make changes. I've met plenty of trade-published authors online with tales of woe about how publishers destroyed their books by forcing changes that made them worse. In a number of cases, they got the rights back, reverted to the original version and had much better sales through self-publishing.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> Beta readers can't tell you to change something, they can only suggest it. Publishers can refuse to publish a book if you won't make changes. I've met plenty of trade-published authors online with tales of woe about how publishers destroyed their books by forcing changes that made them worse. In a number of cases, they got the rights back, reverted to the original version and had much better sales through self-publishing.



This always confuses me. I've never seen or heard from any trade published authors who have gone through this. I mean, it just isn't logical and certainly makes no business sense. Why on earth would a publisher, with thousands of submissions to choose from, take on a book and then demand changes that would 'destroy it' rather than another book that doesn't require such drastic changes? The less editing that has to be done, the smaller the expense, and thus the greater the profit. Honestly, these stories always seem to come in the form of somebody else's experience that's heard about, or from some self-publisher who's of the 'trade publishers are dinosaurs' persuasion.


----------



## movieman

shadowwalker said:


> Why on earth would a publisher, with thousands of submissions to choose from, take on a book and then demand changes that would 'destroy it' rather than another book that doesn't require such drastic changes?



That point is that the book didn't need drastic changes, but the editor demanded them anyway.

A publisher is not a single entity, it's a collection of people, some more competent than others. For it to never screw up a product would make it unique in the business world.

In reality:

Not all editors are competent.
Not all editors care.
Some editors get laid off or leave, and then their books are dumped on another editor who'd never have picked them, and has no idea what to do with them.

It's just one book out of thousands, and publishers expect most books to sell poorly. Then they blame the author, any won't buy another of their books because the last one sold so badly.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> That point is that the book didn't need drastic changes, but the editor demanded them anyway.



But again, editors can demand all they want, but it's still the author's book. The author decides whether or not to make the changes. And the problem editor is not working in a vacuum - if the author really can't work with that editor, s/he or their agent can request someone else. At that point, the publisher will decide if the editor is incompetent or the writer a prima dona, and proceed accordingly.

And no, publishers do not expect most books to sell poorly. That makes even less sense than contracting a book so they can make drastic but unnecessary changes.


----------



## Marc

Sam said:


> On another note: you *never *pay money to be published. Ever. Money always flows to the author. If a so-called 'publishing house' wants money from you, run away from them as fast as your legs will carry you.



It's getting murkier in this respect. My contract states that if the publisher decides to run a print edition, the cost of the production of the book comes out of my royalties


----------



## shadowwalker

Marc said:


> It's getting murkier in this respect. My contract states that if the publisher decides to run a print edition, the cost of the production of the book comes out of my royalties



Then you're getting screwed.


----------



## Marc

shadowwalker said:


> Then you're getting screwed.



Of course. Random House offers a contract to a virtual unknown. They get the mine, I get the shaft.


----------



## shadowwalker

Marc said:


> Of course. Random House offers a contract to a virtual unknown. They get the mine, I get the shaft.



Your contract is with Random House? Because unless your agent was a total screw-up, I can't see this happening.


----------



## spartan928

Marc said:


> It's getting murkier in this respect. My contract states that if the publisher decides to run a print edition, the cost of the production of the book comes out of my royalties



Assuming you are getting a 10-15% royalty against the list or sale price of the book LESS printing costs, which certainly are at least 10-15% of the net price of a book, what's left for you? In fact, it would seem if production costs exceed your royalty rate they are going to dip into your ebook royalties as well!


----------



## movieman

shadowwalker said:


> But again, editors can demand all they want, but it's still the author's book.



Sure, they can refuse to make the changes, walk away from that publisher, and try again with the other four, who know they've already walked away from one deal.

Good luck with that.



> The author decides whether or not to make the changes. And the problem editor is not working in a vacuum - if the author really can't work with that editor, s/he or their agent can request someone else. At that point, the publisher will decide if the editor is incompetent or the writer a prima dona, and proceed accordingly.



The publisher isn't likely to want to waste a lot of time and effort switching editors for a book they've paid a $5,000 advance for. Much cheaper and simpler for them to just say 'OK, bye.'.

A book they paid a $500,000 advance for? Yeah, probably. But that's likely to get one of the best editors anyway... they can't afford to screw it up.



> And no, publishers do not expect most books to sell poorly. That makes even less sense than contracting a book so they can make drastic but unnecessary changes.



Then why is the average advance only a few thousand dollars?


----------



## Marc

shadowwalker said:


> Your contract is with Random House? Because unless your agent was a total screw-up, I can't see this happening.



Sorry, let me give some context. 

Penguin Random House created a digital mystery imprint called Alibi. I submitted and was offered a 3 book contract. The contract gives you two options. A standard contract with an advance and a 25% royalty on ebook. If it goes to print, same thing.  Or no advance but a 50% royalty on net for ebook. If it goes to print, also 50% on net but cost of production first comes out of royalty. No agent involved.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> Sure, they can refuse to make the changes, walk away from that publisher, and try again with the other four, who know they've already walked away from one deal.
> 
> Good luck with that.




Why should they walk away from the publisher? The publisher _requests_ changes, the author politely refuses, they go on to the next step. Not to mention that the author can't just walk away _nor can the publisher_ - there's a contract involved. Now, if the author is so sure their words are golden, and refuses to make any changes, quite possibly the publisher would be more than happy to return the rights, void the contract, and get reimbursed for the advance. But if the author is simply refusing to change certain things, and amenable to other reasonable editing, that's just part of the normal process.




movieman said:


> The publisher isn't likely to want to waste a lot of time and effort switching editors for a book they've paid a $5,000 advance for. Much cheaper and simpler for them to just say 'OK, bye.'.
> 
> A book they paid a $500,000 advance for? Yeah, probably. But that's likely to get one of the best editors anyway... they can't afford to screw it up.




If the editor was so demanding, so incompetent as you state, they would most likely be happy to get rid of the jerk. And again, they can't just say 'OK, bye.'. There's a contract, which is binding on both the author and the publisher.



movieman said:


> Then why is the average advance only a few thousand dollars?




You consider that an indication of doing poorly? What do you think is an indicator of successful - $50k? I would like to understand your logic in stating that publishers are going to spend a great deal of time and money on any book they feel will do 'poorly'.


Seriously, it appears you've been spending too much time on self-publishing forums. Or at least, on the wrong self-publishing forums. Trade publishers are not ogres, trampling over the poor little authors. Nor are they filled with stupid people - it's why they're still in business.


----------



## shadowwalker

Marc said:


> Sorry, let me give some context.
> 
> Penguin Random House created a digital mystery imprint called Alibi. I submitted and was offered a 3 book contract. The contract gives you two options. A standard contract with an advance and a 25% royalty on ebook. If it goes to print, same thing.  Or no advance but a 50% royalty on net for ebook. If it goes to print, also 50% on net but cost of production first comes out of royalty. No agent involved.



Okay. Had to do a quick google about their imprint(s) - and got a lot of articles criticizing the contracts. I'm just always skeptical when there's talk of "net cost" and deductions for what the publisher should be doing anyway.


----------



## Sam

Marc said:


> It's getting murkier in this respect. My contract states that if the publisher decides to run a print edition, the cost of the production of the book comes out of my royalties



That's out of your royalties; not out of your own pocket. 

Usually, they do that anyway, only more subtly. They take up to seventy (and eighty, in some cases) per cent of your sales. What else does that cover if not their printing and distributing costs, with a little profit on the side?


----------



## Sam

movieman said:


> Then why is the average advance only a few thousand dollars?



Why do the 'dragons' in _Dragons' Den _only offer up to £100,000 investment in entrepreneurs when they're multi-millionaires? It's called minimising risk. They don't know the person from a hole in the wall, have only twenty minutes to make a judgement call about them and their product, and they have no idea whether it will sell as well as they want it to. 

You do not give large quantities of money to an unproven entity. If publishers gave more than a couple of thousand dollars' advance to every author who came to them, they would go out of business before the printer had time to warm up. 

It's clear that your animus towards traditional publishing is the only thing fuelling your argument here.


----------



## movieman

shadowwalker said:


> Why should they walk away from the publisher? The publisher _requests_ changes, the author politely refuses, they go on to the next step. Not to mention that the author can't just walk away _nor can the publisher_ - there's a contract involved.



Contracts are broken all the time. At that point the publisher has paid litlte to no money to the author (most of the advance probably won't be paid until the book is published), they haven't spent much money, and they've only offered a $5,000 advance in the first place, so they don't really care about the book. Certainly not enough to bother suing.



> Now, if the author is so sure their words are golden, and refuses to make any changes, quite possibly the publisher would be more than happy to return the rights, void the contract, and get reimbursed for the advance.



Which is precisely my point. But you just said they can't do that.



> If the editor was so demanding, so incompetent as you state, they would most likely be happy to get rid of the jerk. And again, they can't just say 'OK, bye.'. There's a contract, which is binding on both the author and the publisher.



How often do employees get laid off because they're incompetent? In a small publisher with only a few employees, that might happen. In a big publisher that's just another subsidiary of a multinational media corporation, they're another small cog in the wheel, who blames the author or the readers when the book doesn't sell. Incompetence is the norm in big business.



> You consider that an indication of doing poorly? What do you think is an indicator of successful - $50k?



$50k would have been a typical midlist advance ten years ago, which would mean OK sales, enough for the publisher to keep publishing more books by that author even though they're not a best-seller. A tenth of that is definitely poor sales. $5k doesn't even pay for the writer's time in writing the book, unless they did a Lionel Fanthorpe and pumped it out in a weekend.

If the publisher won't pay more than $5k for an advance, that means they're just going to toss it out there in the hope that it gets lucky and becomes the next big seller. If they expected it to be a big seller, they'd be offering a heck of a lot more than that.



> I would like to understand your logic in stating that publishers are going to spend a great deal of time and money on any book they feel will do 'poorly'.



But you're the one claiming they will spend a great deal of time and money on the book. I'm the one saying they won't. If they offer the author a $5k advance and the author keeps refusing to make changes, you think they'll keep negotiating. I think they'll cut their losses and dump it, then blacklist the author.



> Seriously, it appears you've been spending too much time on self-publishing forums. Or at least, on the wrong self-publishing forums. Trade publishers are not ogres, trampling over the poor little authors. Nor are they filled with stupid people - it's why they're still in business.



No, I've spent too much time talking to trade published writers. And know what goes on inside big business.


----------



## movieman

Sam said:


> Why do the 'dragons' in _Dragons' Den _only offer up to £100,000 investment in entrepreneurs when they're multi-millionaires? It's called minimising risk.



Which is exactly my point. They don't expect it to be a success, but they're willing to throw a small amount of money at them in case they are... you spray small amounts of money around, and make your profits on the few that succeed.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman, you're answering my answers with worst case scenarios and an obvious lack of reality. I have also spoken with a great many trade published authors, as well as professionals in trade publishing and self-published authors - and everything you're saying comes quite obviously from the arena of the cheerleaders for self-pub/trade publishers are dinosaurs, an arena which, thank heavens, is gradually shrinking. You've grasped the worst exceptions with a fervor that is remarkable, albeit detrimental. Carry on, sir, as you no doubt will, facts notwithstanding...


----------



## spartan928

shadowwalker said:


> movieman, you're answering my answers with worst case scenarios and an obvious lack of reality. I have also spoken with a great many trade published authors, as well as professionals in trade publishing and self-published authors - and everything you're saying comes quite obviously from the arena of the cheerleaders for self-pub/trade publishers are dinosaurs, an arena which, thank heavens, is gradually shrinking. You've grasped the worst exceptions with a fervor that is remarkable, albeit detrimental. Carry on, sir, as you no doubt will, facts notwithstanding...



It's like every topic you see on a writing forum. People dig in on a position and it's difficult to see beyond. Today, there is a plethora of means to get your writing out there, but conversely, smaller bits of public attention to grasp onto. Amazon sounds appealing with their 70% "royalty", and that's phenomenal mathematically, but you have a team of one in the authors camp which isn't for everyone. No matter which route one chooses, it a long hard road. To each his/her own.


----------



## shadowwalker

spartan928 said:


> No matter which route one chooses, it a long hard road. To each his/her own.




Absolutely. But the decision on which route to take and/or when should be based on facts, not exceptions, anecdotes, and false assumptions.


----------



## saoir

theoddone said:


> That's also what I love about self publishing: because you own the rights, you can publish in more than one place. Thanks for the list.



Exactly. That's why I chose to self publish my book in the last couple of weeks. I chose the cover, the title, what I wrote, where to publish and where not to publish. And I keep most of the proceeds. I'm not going to waste years of my life waiting for self appointed 'curator' of quality to decide they want my book, and then keep most of the proceeds. No thanks. I want to publish now and get on with my next book.


----------



## Seedy M.

saoiur - I have found smashwords and lulu to be excellent for getting your work on other sites. Many sites will deny you "advertising" your work anywhere else, but that is easy to get around. Make the end of your book have a  paragraph much like. "CD Moulton's works are available both as eBooks and in print on most major outlets." What I find in comments from people who bought something is that they automatically do a Google (Or yahoo, etc.) search and find that I have a lot of other things that might interest them. As authors, we should concentrate on getting people to use Google or whatever, not just one outlet's site. Let Amazon and Hatchette and Apple and whatever have their own internal wars. It doesn't affect you.


----------



## saoir

Seedy M. said:


> saoiur - I have found smashwords and lulu to be excellent for getting your work on other sites. Many sites will deny you "advertising" your work anywhere else, but that is easy to get around. Make the end of your book have a  paragraph much like. "CD Moulton's works are available both as eBooks and in print on most major outlets." What I find in comments from people who bought something is that they automatically do a Google (Or yahoo, etc.) search and find that I have a lot of other things that might interest them. As authors, we should concentrate on getting people to use Google or whatever, not just one outlet's site. Let Amazon and Hatchette and Apple and whatever have their own internal wars. It doesn't affect you.


All good advice thank you. I only have one book for now but hopefully soon he will have a brother 
We have to be cautious about it however as Apple and Amazon have a history of blocking books that have links or mention competitors ..


----------



## Seedy M.

On mult5iple outlets I've found that Amazon isn't worth the trouble and Apple is becoming that. B&N is and has been my major seller for some time. Kobo and Sony and several others are far batter. If you work has merit (admittedly an ego trip on my part) the library sites will promote your work. It is a good feeling when you get a notice that your work is now available _and selling_ to library sites!
Apple has been fairly good to me for awhile, but is changing in ways I find disturbing. What some of their "rules" amount to is censorship, which I admantly reject. Bureaucracy has no place in arts.


----------



## Seedy M.

A bit of an update that you may want to consider. I just got my 1st -3rd quarter reports. B/N sold 1,068 of my books. Amazon sold 17. It's a good example of the psychological war on purchasers coming back to slap the manipulator in the teeth. Amazon tried to monopolize eBooks a couple of years ago by putting in a lot of rules that exempted them from handling certain publishers. It was at the time they started the Kimble format that only their readers would use. That was a rather blatant ploy to cut others out of the market, but it resulted in formats that many other readers could handle.
It was authors who bore the brunt of that war. Despite their claims, they do not sell more than half the books sold. They do not carry every book ever published.
It is to their detriment that people communicate so well on the net. Their ploys didn't work.
If you get the idea I don't much care for Amazon, you could be right.

P.S. putting _C. D. Moulton's works are available on most major outlets_ and _Search Yahoo!, Google, etc. for C. D. Moulton_ on the last page of a printed book or at the end of an eBook will help tremendously. They can't object so long as you don't name a specific outlet or, a definite no-no, put a link on the work.


----------



## spartan928

The most recent stats I have are from September 2012; Amazon had a 30% market share of all books sold. Ebooks represented 25% of the total book market with the rest 21% hardcover, 35% trade paperback and 12% mass market paperback. Amazon is big in the scheme of things but far from a monopoly. In fact, Kindle reader market share dropped from 44% in that year down to 39%.


----------



## TIG

There is another consideration. When I first started in publishing many (too many) years ago, I was told by someone very successful that the best way to view the publishing process is as a manufacturing role. The books or magazines are products, which must be made to suit the audience's demands in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible.

For many writers, their work is personal, it's a creative process, something they've nurtured. It's art. For the reader a book can also be art, and they can appreciate the labours that have gone into its creation. The bit in the middle, the bit where the work leaves the writer and travels to the reader, is business, and it's just like any other manufacturing/sales business out there. When writers forget that and don't accept it's a business, then problems arise.

It doesn't really matter what you want out of that business transaction. It could be money, it could be distribution, promotion or even love. Each to their own. However, the reality remains that you are looking for a deal that delivers what you need. You want people to read your books, and a publisher can make that happen. In some non-mainstream sectors, certain publishing houses are the 'go-to' people for readers, and if you want to sell books in that sector then you realistically need to be with them. Self-publishing might be easier, it might be quicker, but it ultimately will not be as rewarding. You need to forget art and creativity, and understand that being in the most effective market is good business.

Alternatively, if the sector you wish to publish into is somewhat niche and doesn't have a leading publishing house or two, then self-publishing does have some merits. Mainstream publishers are geared up for a certain type of business. If you fall outside that they won't touch you. Yes, they might recognise the quality of your work, and they might spot that good sales could be achieved with your, but it's not what their business does. A quality fishmonger won't sell shoes, no matter how well they're made, and publishing is the same. Where a void appears, self-publishing can serve you well, and may even highlight demand which might be picked up by other companies.

However, if you see self-publishing as an opportunity to remain an artist then you'll be disappointed, because artists can't sell! If you can't adopt a business mind, then either route will probably not deliver the results you want. Enjoy writing your book, but be prepared for a dip in the drity pool of business when it comes to getting it out there.

Who knows; you might actually enjoy it!


----------



## spartan928

Hey TIG I resent that remark! LOL..just kidding, I'm in sales for a living and an artist. Who'd have thought? Truth is, you can't paint with a broad brush. I've encountered many people whose perception of sales, marketing and promotion is negative. They're dirty, unsavory tasks for someone else to do. Yet, for some they aren't. That aspect of the writing experience can be rewarding and, heaven forbid, fun. It's all a matter of perspective to the individual, just like writing. I'm working on a novel now and teamed up with an excellent illustrator friend of mine for the cover and some small interior illustrations and the experience is great. I don't believe I will submit this particualr piece to trade publishers because I'm looking forward to promoting it and having that experience. I consider this part of my own personal growth so it's enjoyable, but I can understand why many don't. I have a background in marketing and commercial art, whereas many do not and learning from scratch can be very tough and more hassle than it's worth. Some of the comments in this thread are very insightful, thanks to the OP for starting.


----------



## Tyler Danann

A lot of intelligent postings here, from both sides of the battlelines! 

What I'm curious is if Amazon forbid their authors from going in with other entities like B&N / Lulu / Smashwords etc?

I have mind up with Amazon and CreateSpace (part of Amazon) but I wouldn't mind jumping ship with the way Amazon have gone in the past few years...


----------



## Seedy M.

My books are on Lulu and Smashwords. They are carried on B/N, Amazon, Apple, Kobo and a dozen others. I understand that publishing through Amazon means they want exclusive use. While my personal feelings are that Amazon is all hype and little else, the fact they will _possibly_ promote your work on their site, even that is not guaranteed, meaning you might have limited yourself to a site that may or may not promote _vs_ a site that places your work in many places, but it is up to you to promote.
If they promote, you will enjoy fair sales. If they don't, you're stuck with no more sales than you would have if you used any of the others plus with no way to promote yourself.
All the "contracts" I've read with Amazon gives them all kinds of rights and you none. Hay cuidado!


----------

