# Self-Publishing is Inevitable



## Edward G (Jul 24, 2012)

I think it's inevitable that authors will have to become publishers. In the past, authors had to learn to type; then they had to learn to use computers, then the internet, and soon, to be an author, one will have to know how to publish via Kindle and CreateSpace as well. They will have to learn formatting, layout, etc. They will have to outsource what they can't do: editing and cover design. And they will have to learn to market, but hey, they have to market today as it is. 

The new author’s toolbox will include the know-how to publish—it only makes economic sense.

In the Huffington Post today, Stephen Power shared some thoughts on how publishing can stay alive. To me it sounds like the death rattle of an industry that has to go the way of horse-drawn carriages in the face of automobiles. Here's a link:

Stephen S. Power: Three Ways Publishers Can Avoid Extinction


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2012)

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

How many decades have we been hearing about the death of trade publishing now? Self-publishing is a valid choice for some writers and not for others. I don't think those who choose trade or indie publishers need worry about having no place to go.


----------



## Fin (Jul 24, 2012)

I doubt traditional publishers are going anywhere. Even if physical books cease to be made, the companies will most likely move to e-book publishing. Just like newspapers, they'll just move online. There's nothing to worry about.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2012)

Yeah. I agree with Shadow and Fin.

Publishing houses are not dumb. They are smarter than most self-published authors, because their expertise is the publishing industry. As a result, they are going to use e-publishing better than the average self-publisher.

I believe it'll still be the same game, just in a different venue (online, instead of physical). The publishers will still be the dominating force.

And writers, in my opinion, will continue to solicit publishers because they are the ones with the deep pockets and the six-figure checks.

I think it's great that technology today allows writers the option of self-publishing. I see nothing wrong with it, and tons of potential. I just don't think it spells the demise of publishing houses, though. They are very resourceful and know their stuff.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2012)

Hush! All of you, stop talking right now!  If we can convince all the new writers that the only way to go, the only way they will ever be read, is to self publish, then just think of what that will do to the slush pile for the rest of us!

So, to all you young writers out there; go forth and Lulu your butts off!  Don't bother with an agent -- they don't do anything except suck your blood anyway -- take that first draft, make it into a pdf and slap it between covers.  You'll get rich in no time.


(The above is just for fun, folks.  Remember I'm a guy who self-published his first book.)


----------



## Potty (Jul 24, 2012)

As a consumer... I generally only buy a book on the kindle if I've seen it in waterstones. To me it's like a quality guarantee, I know that whatever is in waterstones has gone through a heck of a lot of "rite of passage" type thing so I know that I'm not buying the work of some keyboard jockey who has gone: 

"wpeugewi;ba;a;pdudi;pv!" Awesome, I've written my book... Why won't the publishers accept it?... They must be idiotz! I R gunna self publish and get riches!

*disclaimer* I'm aware there are good works that have been self published, but there are a lot of works that aren't so good too.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2012)

Lol.

Stop posting lines from my manuscript.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2012)

Fin said:


> I doubt traditional publishers are going anywhere. Even if physical books cease to be made, the companies will most likely move to e-book publishing. Just like newspapers, they'll just move online. There's nothing to worry about.



Most trade and indie publishers are already well into the ebook format. They're definitely not dumb. eaceful:


----------



## Fin (Jul 24, 2012)

Potty said:


> "wpeugewi;ba;a;pdudi;pv!" Awesome, I've written my book... Why won't the publishers accept it?... They must be idiotz! I R gunna self publish and get riches!



Hahah, anyone remember this guy? Or does that just make me plain mean?


----------



## MJ Preston (Jul 24, 2012)

I think it really depends on where a writer is in their career. Take Tom Clancy or JK Rowling as an example: They are well established and doing quite well with traditional publishers. For up and comers self publish is a more viable route than it was in the past and doesn't have quite the stigma it used too.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2012)

MJ Preston said:


> I think it really depends on where a writer is in their career. Take Tom Clancy or JK Rowling as an example: They are well established and doing quite well with traditional publishers. For up and comers self publish is a more viable route than it was in the past and doesn't have quite the stigma it used too.



Actually, I'd say just the opposite is true. Those authors who have already built a name for themselves with trade publishing have a much greater chance of success self-publishing than do those just starting out. The main question for established authors is whether they want to take on the publishing side of things. Some do, some don't, and some can afford to hire the staff to do it for them.


----------



## movieman (Jul 24, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Those authors who have already built a name for themselves with trade publishing have a much greater chance of success self-publishing than do those just starting out.



But those authors who are 'just starting out' only have about a 1% chance of success if they submit to trade publishers and much less than a 1% chance of seeing a six-figure advance. 'Succes' is much more likely to mean a $5,000 advance and 'we're not talking your calls any more' after two books show poor sales.

The big names benefit the most from trade publishing because they get the big marketing push and much better deals than an unknown mid-list writer. That doesn't mean they won't self-publish on the side, but they have no great incentive to do so.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 24, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
> 
> How many decades have we been hearing about the death of trade publishing now? Self-publishing is a valid choice for some writers and not for others. I don't think those who choose trade or indie publishers need worry about having no place to go.



Oh, indi-publishers will always be around. No advance, no editing, no marketing, no distribution, no way to get a hold of anyone when royalties aren’t paid—if any are actually earned. Sure, indi will always be around. But there’s no point in it.



Fin said:


> I doubt traditional publishers are going anywhere. Even if physical books cease to be made, the companies will most likely move to e-book publishing. Just like newspapers, they'll just move online. There's nothing to worry about.



Except that e-books are not actually an asset. There’s nothing to hold their price up—there’s no way to justify their price. But a big publisher can’t subsist on books that sell for 3.99. A self-publisher can get rich with a .99 cent book.

It’s not that traditional publishers don’t know how to publish it’s that the traditional market is broken.



KyleColorado said:


> Yeah. I agree with Shadow and Fin.
> 
> Publishing houses are not dumb. They are smarter than most self-published authors, because their expertise is the publishing industry. As a result, they are going to use e-publishing better than the average self-publisher.



Oh really? How? With advertising? Do you know how expensive that is? The only way the big six make money with e-books is by artificially jacking them up to the price of hardbacks to try desperately to get people to buy the hardbacks. E-books are a cancer to big publishers. 

When I go looking for a book to review. I go to whatever Kindle area I’m interested in. I select the last 30 days for publication date and then I look at the covers and titles. Something cool, I look at the price, under 4 bucks, I read the description, good description I download the sample; sample reads good, I buy the book. If I review it, I get the paperback copy or hardback copy, but only for a prop during my video review, so that doesn’t count.

The operative term in all of this is “under 4 bucks.” I have never once said, “Hmm. I wonder what Simon and Schuster is putting out?” 

That economic force is going to drive authors toward self-publishing. They can make a book for me under 4 bucks.



> And writers, in my opinion, will continue to solicit publishers because they are the ones with the deep pockets and the six-figure checks.



Do you realize that’s an advance (assuming  for the sake of argument that six-figure checks still exist for new writers, what I call the Stephen King Dream)? When you don’t earn out your advance, you will have to self-publish from then on out. The more authors a company goes bust on, the quicker the company goes bust. Better to take no advance at all. Heck, better to just self-publish. You’re the one who’s going to have to market anyway because there’s no budget for that anymore. So, if you have to market and take no advance, why not just spend $500 bucks and get a cover and an edit and self-publish?
And that’s what I’m talking about.



Terry D said:


> Hush! All of you, stop talking right now! If we can convince all the new writers that the only way to go, the only way they will ever be read, is to self publish, then just think of what that will do to the slush pile for the rest of us!
> 
> So, to all you young writers out there; go forth and Lulu your butts off! Don't bother with an agent -- they don't do anything except suck your blood anyway -- take that first draft, make it into a pdf and slap it between covers. You'll get rich in no time.
> 
> (The above is just for fun, folks. Remember I'm a guy who self-published his first book.)



I was going to say! I’m holding your book right now. Actually it’s on my desk next to my keyboard as I type, and it was a good book. 
My point is that an author is going to have to become a publisher, too. Because the big six cannot economically turn a new writer into a profit machine.



Potty said:


> As a consumer... I generally only buy a book on the kindle if I've seen it in waterstones. To me it's like a quality guarantee, I know that whatever is in waterstones has gone through a heck of a lot of "rite of passage" type thing so I know that I'm not buying the work of some keyboard jockey who has gone:
> 
> "wpeugewi;ba;a;pdudi;pv!" Awesome, I've written my book... Why won't the publishers accept it?... They must be idiotz! I R gunna self publish and get riches!
> 
> *disclaimer* I'm aware there are good works that have been self published, but there are a lot of works that aren't so good too.



That’s true. The slush pile has moved to Kindle. And it is that only competent and “talented” authors will rise to the top. But they will rise regardless whether they self-publish or traditionally publish. But they will make more money if they self-publish. Stephen King would make more money if he self-published. But in his case, he would have to set up a big company to do that, because he would have to distribute everywhere in the universe, and granted, for those kinds of writers, the traditional big six publisher makes more sense. 

But I’m talking about the newbie. I’m editing a MS right now that is very good, and this person has never been published. She may want to seriously consider self-publishing if she gets the runaround from agents, because she’ll probably make it anyway.



MJ Preston said:


> I think it really depends on where a writer is in their career. Take Tom Clancy or JK Rowling as an example: They are well established and doing quite well with traditional publishers. For up and comers self publish is a more viable route than it was in the past and doesn't have quite the stigma it used too.



Consider Terry’s book up there. It is very well done. No one would even know it was self-published, except for the fact that it has no publication page. I would rather read a good self-published novel than a corporate bestseller. I think my reviews bear that out. Eventually, I think there will like a major award for self-publishers.



shadowwalker said:


> Actually, I'd say just the opposite is true. Those authors who have already built a name for themselves with trade publishing have a much greater chance of success self-publishing than do those just starting out. The main question for established authors is whether they want to take on the publishing side of things. Some do, some don't, and some can afford to hire the staff to do it for them.



I agree. And if I were Stephen King, I wouldn’t bother with self-publishing so long as I was getting the dollars I wanted. But I think a lot of midlisters have gotten fed up and gone the self-publishing route, and I say more power to them. The more popular e-books become, the more self-publishing will make sense. The real drawback is distribution. If one wants big money, their books have to be widely available, and that means traditional printing, and that means a big upfront cost. But let’s not forget Amanda Hocking made a million dollars self-publishing e-books before she sold out to a big six for a couple more mil.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 24, 2012)

movieman said:


> But those authors who are 'just starting out' only have about a 1% chance of success if they submit to trade publishers and much less than a 1% chance of seeing a six-figure advance. 'Succes' is much more likely to mean a $5,000 advance and 'we're not talking your calls any more' after two books show poor sales.
> 
> The big names benefit the most from trade publishing because they get the big marketing push and much better deals than an unknown mid-list writer. That doesn't mean they won't self-publish on the side, but they have no great incentive to do so.



Well said.


----------



## MJ Preston (Jul 24, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Actually, I'd say just the opposite is true. Those authors who have already built a name for themselves with trade publishing have a much greater chance of success self-publishing than do those just starting out. The main question for established authors is whether they want to take on the publishing side of things. Some do, some don't, and some can afford to hire the staff to do it for them.



I agree with with what you are saying. Self publishing is still an uphill battle for new authors. I am just stating that it isn't what it used to be based on the original model where you pay someone to put your book into print. An established author certainly has a greater advantage entering the self publishing world as opposed to a newcomer who is unknown and without the readership.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2012)

Oh man. Here we go again.

Instead of going through that whole last mess, I'll pick one item - this idea that publishers are "going bust" if an author doesn't earn out their advance. The advance is the figure publishers estimate the _author _will earn from sales. In figuring that advance, publishers include their costs and _their _profit. Do you really think they're so stupid they don't know how to do this? This constant misrepresentation - or is it truly misunderstanding? - of how advances work is just one indication of the misleading information so many self-publishing cheerleaders keep putting out on the net. For heaven's sake, if you must denigrate trade publishers, at least get your facts straight first. :roll:


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2012)

MJ Preston said:


> I agree with with what you are saying. Self publishing is still an uphill battle for new authors. I am just stating that it isn't what it used to be based on the original model where you pay someone to put your book into print. An established author certainly has a greater advantage entering the self publishing world as opposed to a newcomer who is unknown and without the readership.



Oh, vanity publishers! What a racket. But rest assured - they're still alive and well. Now they just call themselves self-publishing companies or consultants, and offer to help self-publishers get their books ready for publishing/distribution in exchange for a fee.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2012)

I plan to try the traditional route with the book I'm currently wrapping up (1st draft, still tons of work to do).  I will set a time table to assess interest in the book from agents, and I will do the one thing I failed to do with my first book; I will be aggressive in that search.  I gave up on _The Legacy of Aaron Geist_ way too quickly after I finished it, and it disappeared into a drawer for a long time before I was convinced to self-publish.  _Chase_ will be out there marking his territory at many agent's doorstep until I'm convinced he won't find a home.  If that happens I won't hesitate to go the self publishing route again.  I'm very happy with the way _Legacy_ turned out and have been even more happy with the response it received from readers.

Yeah . . . I've got that six-figure dream too.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 24, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Oh, vanity publishers! What a racket. But rest assured - they're still alive and well. Now they just call themselves self-publishing companies or consultants, and offer to help self-publishers get their books ready for publishing/distribution in exchange for a fee.



So who pays for the editor at Penguin? Who pays for the cover artist? Who pays the marketing department? The author. Whether the author writes a check, or gives up 90% of the cover price of the book, one way or another she or he pays. Even worse, they don't pay for just the work done on their book, a successful author pays for all the other books that don't earn out their advances. Now, all of that is fine so long as everyone is happy with the money they are getting from a work. 

But let's not forget that all publishing is subsidy publishing. The author gives up a great deal of money for all the services a publisher like Simon and Schuster provides.

Personally, I'd rather pay a one-time fee to an editor, pay once for cover design and then be able to do whatever I want with my book--because it will be my book.

And okay, sure: If I could get a $100,000 advance and walk away, it would be worth it. Shoot, I'd ghostwrite for that. And anyone who is getting that kind of love from the Big Six without any readership for their books should take the money and run.

But more likely, they'll get 5 grand in divided doses; they'll have to do the marketing; they'll have to do the revisions; they'll have to give up their next two books for the same money, they won't get famous, they won't get a movie deal. They won't get anything. They'll get 5,000 books printed and even if they all sell, they won't print a second run. Oh, and they'll have to sign away the e-book rights forever.

Not to mention, there aren't that many bookstores left to sell their books. Only the biggest names get in the Walmarts, Targets, and the front door displays at Barnes and Noble. 

And then, OMG, the butt kissing that's required. Talk about selling your soul! An artist's soul at that! First you have to kiss the buttocks of God only knows how many agents before one will represent you. Then you have to butter up the publisher at some lunch meeting somewhere, then you have to accept whatever they want to do with your book with a smile on your face, and then you have to meet their deadlines. Before you know it, you're feeling just like an employee again. And honestly, don't we all write with the dream of never having a boss again for as long as we live?
:ChainGunSmiley:

Just my thoughts. I got to stretch now and go to taekwondo. 

Hasta,

Ed


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2012)

Edward G said:


> Oh really? How _(will traditional publishers continue to make money)_? With advertising? Do you know how expensive that is? The only way the big six make money with e-books is by artificially jacking them up to the price of hardbacks to try desperately to get people to buy the hardbacks. E-books are a cancer to big publishers.
> 
> When I go looking for a book to review. I go to whatever Kindle area I’m interested in. I select the last 30 days for publication date and then I look at the covers and titles. Something cool, I look at the price, under 4 bucks, I read the description, good description I download the sample; sample reads good, I buy the book. If I review it, I get the paperback copy or hardback copy, but only for a prop during my video review, so that doesn’t count.
> 
> ...



They'll continue to make money the same way they always have: by publishing books from the big name authors.

Your own buying habits are interesting, but they are not representative of the general buying public.

People buy the names of the authors they recognize and trust. King, Patterson, Steele, Koontz, Grisham, Sparks... These are brand names that go through traditional publishers, and they rake in money by the boatload.

And I'm quite certain people will continue to buy their books, in whatever format (electronic, or physical) they can get their hands on. Either way, the money funnels right into the traditional publishers' pockets.

I don't mean to knock self-publishing. I think it's a great opportunity, and those who pursue that route have the potential to have great success. But I also don't see traditional publishing houses going away any time soon. Not as long as the popular authors continue to publish through them.


----------



## MJCaan (Jul 24, 2012)

Personally, I think there will always be a place for the traditional publishing houses.  But I think that self publishing is at least starting to chip away at the stranglehold the houses have on the industry.  For someone that had no chance of being published five years ago, they now have an option; and as we've seen, you don't have to be a brilliant writer to make a mark in the ebook industry.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 25, 2012)

There is absolutely a place for self-publishing. There always has been. Unfortunately, there are some who can't accept that self-publishing and trade publishing can co-exist. I don't know, maybe they need to justify their choice by insulting all the authors who are trade published (which they do every time they tell people how trade publishers rip everyone off). 

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that there are two types of people who can't stand the fact that trade publishing is _not _dying on the vine - those who have simply fed into the SP hype and are parroting certain gurus, and those who can't, in fact, write well enough to get trade published and need someone to blame. I can't think of any other reasons for the vitriol. I know a lot of self-published authors who have no problem with trade publishing, and would have no problem utilizing both paths should the opportunity arise.

It's a puzzle, this hatred. It surely is...


----------



## Edward G (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm sorry--"hatred?"  Well…uh… true, there was the machine gun. 

But it's not hatred its demagoguery--huge difference.

Seriously though, I’m going to write a book—and self-publish it—and it’s going to be about all the reasons to self-publish. I already have the title, but I won’t say it, because it’s not on Amazon anywhere or on the web, and I don’t want to lose it. But the subtitle will be: “Why Authors Must Self-Publish!”


----------



## vcnavega (Jul 25, 2012)

In the history of mankind there was always
people trying to be successful as a writer. Few were able to. I don’t think
things have changed. Many have always tried. It doesn’t matter the means they
used to. It is kind of a lottery. Self publishing at least give us a sense of
actually making something for it to happen. But in the end, it doesn’t depend
much on us or on the method we use. We should do all we can, but I really don’t
know how destiny picks a writer to be successful, a musician to be successful.
Artists in general are not acknowledged only by their talent, sometimes they
are not acknowledged on their lifetime. Let us write, people! Let us write as
beautifully as we can. As for myself, I enjoy drawing the cover of my books.
And I don’t mind going after the papers for the copyright and ISBN. I pay some
bucks to BookBaby and they distribute to Amazon and other places in the net. I
am opened to ideas, but most of all I love to write.


----------



## Sam (Jul 25, 2012)

Edward G said:


> I'm sorry--"hatred?"  Well…uh… true, there was the machine gun.
> 
> But it's not hatred its demagoguery--huge difference.
> 
> Seriously though, I’m going to write a book—and self-publish it—and it’s going to be about all the reasons to self-publish. I already have the title, but I won’t say it, because it’s not on Amazon anywhere or on the web, and I don’t want to lose it. But the subtitle will be: “Why Authors Must Self-Publish!”



Good luck with that. 

Anyone who tells me that I 'must' do something, I tend to ignore them. This comes from someone who both self-published and is now a traditionally published author. One is not better than the other. They all require effort. One will not usurp the other either.


----------



## Potty (Jul 25, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Anyone who tells me that I 'must' do something, I tend to ignore them.



You must not give me all your money!

But seriously, I'm in agreement. Telling people what to do is bound to earn a certain amount of nose turning.


----------



## Baron (Jul 25, 2012)

Perhaps I could make a few bob by writing a book telling people why they should avoid books which present an unrealistic view.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 25, 2012)

It's surprising how many people who really haven't self-published anything (and seem to know so little about publishing in general) are so eager to tell others how (and why) they should.


----------



## movieman (Jul 25, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Oh, vanity publishers! What a racket. But rest assured - they're still alive and well. Now they just call themselves self-publishing companies or consultants, and offer to help self-publishers get their books ready for publishing/distribution in exchange for a fee.



Penguin now own two of them, don't they?


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 25, 2012)

movieman said:


> Penguin now own two of them, don't they?



I know of one for sure; could very possibly be two. I know they haven't endeared themselves to writers with these maneuvers.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 26, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> Anyone who tells me that I 'must' do something, I tend to ignore them.



So, ignore me. I'm still going to write it, and I'll show people how to make a million dollars doing it.




> This comes from someone who both self-published and is now a traditionally published author. One is not better than the other. They all require effort. One will not usurp the other either.



I read "Deriliction of Duty." I liked it. I think you're a good writer. I would recommend it to anyone interested in military thrillers. I'm curious: Do you consider Inspired Quill Publishing to be traditional publishing? I assume that's the publisher you're referring to, right?


----------



## Edward G (Jul 26, 2012)

Potty said:


> You must not give me all your money!
> 
> But seriously, I'm in agreement. Telling people what to do is bound to earn a certain amount of nose turning.



I agree, a _certain amount _of nose turning, but we writers always tell people what to do; it's our job. Whether it's a cookbook, a diet book, or a "must-read" novel, someone has to stand up with an answer.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 26, 2012)

Baron said:


> Perhaps I could make a few bob by writing a book telling people why they should avoid books which present an unrealistic view.



But didn't you self-publish "The Star War Factor?"


----------



## Edward G (Jul 26, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> It's surprising how many people who really haven't self-published anything (and seem to know so little about publishing in general) are so eager to tell others how (and why) they should.



You need to read my bio.

Sorry everyone: Next time I'll use the multiquote option. :redface2:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 26, 2012)

I think you'll find a much better reception, Edward, if you promote the benefits of self-publishing, without prophesying the death of traditional publishers.

My reasoning for this is, on this forum you'll encounter many writers for whom getting traditionally published is a goal they are striving for. So, to see someone come along and insinuate that there is no future in traditional publishing is of course going to meet with a little resentment.

I can tell you are passionate about the future of self-publishing and e-books, and I also think you are right in many regards, but I think you should keep in mind your audience--especially if you plan to write a guide on the necessity of self-publication.

It's usually easier to win someone by appealing to their interests, rather than by stomping all over their aspirations.

Point out all the benefits of self-publishing! But leave the traditional publishing naysaying aside. 

Just a suggestion! I could be wrong but that's how I see it. Cheers


----------



## Euripides (Jul 26, 2012)

I don't own an e-reader. May neer own one. I like the tactile feel of books. I like the smell of books, especially old musty ones.....oh the feeling of opening a box of books from a dusty attic...and the memories that come flooding back at that first whiff of book-mold. Mmmmmm.

Although. Moving would be a lot easier and lighter if I had all my books in electronic versions instead of paper
Eh...a kindle sitting on a shelf just doesn't have the same panache as a stack of books.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 26, 2012)

I think it'd be funny if in the future we had digital books that looked and felt just like real books, with physical pages that you could turn, except the pages are made of flexible LCD screens, and the covers are made of a synthetic plastic that feels like paper, and the LCD screens look and smell like paper.

Essentially it'll be a book, but one you have to plug in and charge while you're sleeping, and one that also costs a thousand dollars. Lol.


----------



## Euripides (Jul 26, 2012)

I would need book-mold room spray....


----------



## Sam (Jul 26, 2012)

Edward G said:


> So, ignore me. I'm still going to write it, and I'll show people how to make a million dollars doing it.



Hate to burst your bubble, but making a million dollars in writing is a pipe dream. 



> I read "Deriliction of Duty." I liked it. I think you're a good writer. I would recommend it to anyone interested in military thrillers. I'm curious: Do you consider Inspired Quill Publishing to be traditional publishing? I assume that's the publisher you're referring to, right?



The definition of 'traditional publishing' is a company which publishes your book at no cost to you. So, yes, I would consider IQ a trad-publishing house. They may be new, but everyone has to start somewhere.


----------



## Potty (Jul 26, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but making a million dollars in writing is a pipe dream.



Says you... I'm going to make two!


----------



## Baron (Jul 26, 2012)

Edward G said:


> But didn't you self-publish "The Star War Factor?"


Thanks for the plug.  I don't see what it proves except that I haven't made a million out of it yet   I like the occasional drink but I'm not writing a book telling people they should become alcoholics.

I've also been published by the traditional route and am in communication with traditional publishers, agents and writers.  The publishing industry may well be reshaping itself but it's far from extinct.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 26, 2012)

Edward G said:


> You need to read my bio.



You've self-published 2 nonfiction books and 1 novel. You have a neat looking website. You've never worked for or done business with a trade/indie publisher, unless it was when one or more of your books were rejected (I don't know if you ever attempted that route). 

I suppose, all things considered, that makes you an expert in self-publishing. At least, it makes you experienced in self-publishing. Of course, whether any of your strategies actually work as far as money earned/sales achieved, is a different subject.


----------



## David B. Ramirez (Jul 26, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but making a million dollars in writing is a pipe dream.



It's certainly not likely, but it's not less likely now than it was before. Hocking got a 2 million dollar contract from St. Martin's just last year. And well, of course, there's EL James =P 

It is a lot more likely to make so-so money (or starving artist money) than to hit it big, but that's true of any creative field (music, acting, dance). Or professional sports.


----------



## MJ Preston (Jul 26, 2012)

The self publishing/indie world is a tough gig, I'm 47 years old and I have published one book and expect to publish a second one sometime in early 2013. My book has received some awesome reviews from independent sources. Here's a few.

Reader Reviews:



A  fast paced read that pulls no punches. An imaginative, dark, and  horrific thrill ride that does not let you go until the last page.  Highly
		recommended!
A  very impressive debut novel. The Equinox is an excellent combination of  modern horror/thriller and legends of old. I had a hard time putting it  down. He certainly leaves you wanting more. I look forward to future  projects by MJ Preston

Dark Discussions rated it as the "Best Straight Horror" to hit the bookshelves in over a decade.
It made the Quarter-Finals in the Amazon Breakthrough Awards.

Publishers Weekly Reviewer: This is a strong horror tale with descriptive prose and strong characters.
Amazon Breakthrough Reviewer: The  descriptions are great - very visceral and bring the reader into the  story quickly and strongly.  I was very impressed with this - I was  engrossed by the vivid details - nicely done! 

And still with all of the positive reinforcement I have to work my tail off to sell books because I am an unknown. My choice for going this route was based on the fact that I'm in my late 40's and don't have 10 years to find a publisher that is willing to take a chance on an unknown. 

For those who go the traditional route I hope you find your audience and keeping doing what you love.


----------



## David B. Ramirez (Jul 26, 2012)

MJ Preston, I think people also overestimate the effects of promotion and marketing. 

I've mentioned this in another post for another thread, but I've recently come to believe that even when somebody successfully markets himself and gets thousands of hits and likes on a Facebook page or blog, only a miniscule percentage will actually spend their dollars; so it's very hard to move sales along. I think small sample size can trick people into thinking that their briefly dropping the price on a book to free is what caused their later up-tick in sales, when the truth is so much of a book selling well is just out of the power of anybody (except Oprah, who can instantly make anyone a bestseller). 

Of course, writers need to do the best they can, including self-promotion, since a few sales more is a few bucks more, but so much of real success is just up to chance.


----------



## Baron (Jul 26, 2012)

Most of my sales have been generated by "word of mouth", both on the web and "in real life".  If people are prepared to spread the word about a book there's no better marketing tool, whether self published or traditionally published.  More sale are generated by people recommending a book to their friends than by any other method.


----------



## Nicky (Jul 26, 2012)

about how much money would a traditional publisher put into advertising the book of a typical first time published author?


----------



## Sam (Jul 26, 2012)

Nicky said:


> about how much money would a traditional publisher put into advertising the book of a typical first time published author?



Depends on the publisher, but most of their profits are used for the promotion of their established names. A first-time author typically doesn't get very much revenue for marketing.


----------



## MJ Preston (Jul 26, 2012)

David B. Ramirez said:


> MJ Preston, I think people also overestimate the effects of promotion and marketing.
> 
> I've mentioned this in another post for another thread, but I've recently come to believe that even when somebody successfully markets himself and gets thousands of hits and likes on a Facebook page or blog, only a miniscule percentage will actually spend their dollars; so it's very hard to move sales along. I think small sample size can trick people into thinking that their briefly dropping the price on a book to free is what caused their later up-tick in sales, when the truth is so much of a book selling well is just out of the power of anybody (except Oprah, who can instantly make anyone a bestseller).
> 
> Of course, writers need to do the best they can, including self-promotion, since a few sales more is a few bucks more, but so much of real success is just up to chance.



I tend to agree David. 

Scott Sigler is a huge self-promoter and was a relative unknown until he Pod-casted two of his novels and this eventually landed him on the NY Times Bestseller list. Writers like Sigler are the exception, not the norm. Although we all think we are going to be the next Scott Sigler, JK Rowling, or perish the thought (Stephanie Meyer), the fact of the matter is that these individuals had one extra ingredient to their talent: Luck.

There is no set formula for becoming a successful author, other than writing a good book and gaining a large readership. I have yet to achieve that and don't know if I ever will. I write for myself first, my readers second and third to leave my mark on this world (no matter how insignificant to the world.) 

Someday I might have a Great Grandchild pick up one of my two or three books and say aloud. "Great Grandpa Preston was one twisted individual."

To which I will smile a ghostly smile and scare the living crap out of them.

Cheers
Mark


----------



## Nicky (Jul 26, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Depends on the publisher, but most of their profits are used for the promotion of their established names. A first-time author typically doesn't get very much revenue for marketing.



I probably know the answer to this but would they be open to the idea of the first time author putting some of their own cash toward advertising? or is there some contract clause that would prevent the author from doing this?


----------



## Sam (Jul 26, 2012)

Nicky said:


> I probably know the answer to this but would they be open to the idea of the first time author putting some of their own cash toward advertising? or is there some contract clause that would prevent the author from doing this?



Can't see why they would be against it. I offered to cover the costs of flying to London to do a book signing, and my publisher eagerly agreed.


----------



## David B. Ramirez (Jul 26, 2012)

An author can certainly spend some of their own cash. Publishers would love that. You can spend on e-mail blasts, mailing notices, etc. But there's definitely diminishing returns, so I'd hesitate on spending any significant money (like for real ads).

I also agree that the biggest factor is word-of-mouth. But this is kind of also the thing--word-of-mouth can't be generated artificially. When it happens, it just happens. Again, the only single entity that has repeatedly demonstrated the power to instantly generate significant sales is Oprah--but I think this is because Oprah herself is a chance phenomenon.

For self-promoting my book when it comes out... I'm probably going to spend on a trip to do a book signing tour, if the publisher helps organize it. But only because I travel anyway.

Is it spamming if I share personal plugging? Anyway, it's related. 

I have to express both my envy and admiration for a fellow client of agent Kristin Nelson. Marie Lu, author of Legend, got interviewed on TV, had some promotion before showings of Hunger Games, had a 50 foot banner of Legend at San Diego Comic Con, and got invited to the Entertainment Weekly party and has pics with Elijah Wood. This is the difference in promotion when your book starts to generate buzz so early--it builds momentum. Of course, Marie Lu is great at self-promotion, has the advantage of being very cute, and had some multi-media thing going because she wrote a Facebook game for Legend. 

She also has a great story, as Kristin couldn't get Marie's first novel sold AT ALL, which is unusual for her (Kristin has an extremely high rate of being able to get deals on her clients' books, even first time writers)... So Marie moved on, wrote another book, and it was huge so quickly.


----------



## Nicky (Jul 26, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Can't see why they would be against it. I offered to cover the costs of flying to London to do a book signing, and my publisher eagerly agreed.




thanks, i think that's about the first straight forward answer someone has ever given me on this site. again, thanks.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 27, 2012)

MJ Preston said:


> The self publishing/indie world is a tough gig, I'm 47 years old and I have published one book and expect to publish a second one sometime in early 2013. My book has received some awesome reviews from independent sources. Here's a few.
> 
> Reader Reviews:
> 
> ...



I'm going to check out "The Equinox." I'm looking for a decent self-published book to review on The Novel Report next, right after I do "Gone Girl." So, I'll download a sample of The Equinox today.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 27, 2012)

David B. Ramirez said:


> MJ Preston, I think people also overestimate the effects of promotion and marketing.
> 
> I've mentioned this in another post for another thread, but I've recently come to believe that even when somebody successfully markets himself and gets thousands of hits and likes on a Facebook page or blog, only a miniscule percentage will actually spend their dollars; so it's very hard to move sales along. I think small sample size can trick people into thinking that their briefly dropping the price on a book to free is what caused their later up-tick in sales, when the truth is so much of a book selling well is just out of the power of anybody (except Oprah, who can instantly make anyone a bestseller).
> 
> Of course, writers need to do the best they can, including self-promotion, since a few sales more is a few bucks more, but so much of real success is just up to chance.



Books sell by word of mouth, and by people seeing other people reading the book. Novels aren't sold on their value, the way toilet paper is sold, for instance. Instead they are sold on buzz. A book has to go viral. The only thing a publisher can do is let people who are likely to read the book know the book exists. If they can get a popular reviewer to review it, that helps, too. Also, they can be prolific. A novelist putting out a novel every six months is more likely to create buzz.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 27, 2012)

Sam W said:


> Depends on the publisher, but most of their profits are used for the promotion of their established names. A first-time author typically doesn't get very much revenue for marketing.



No truer words spoken.



MJ Preston said:


> I tend to agree David.
> 
> Scott Sigler is a huge self-promoter and was a relative unknown until he Pod-casted two of his novels and this eventually landed him on the NY Times Bestseller list. Writers like Sigler are the exception, not the norm. Although we all think we are going to be the next Scott Sigler, JK Rowling, or perish the thought (Stephanie Meyer), the fact of the matter is that these individuals had one extra ingredient to their talent: Luck.
> 
> ...



I agree with you and disagree. It's not luck. But it is talent. I will believe this until the day I die that a good story written by a clever, competent, and pithy author, and then properly edited, will rise to the top. It will get noticed; the buzz will start, and the fairy dust will fly.




Nicky said:


> I probably know the answer to this but would they be open to the idea of the first time author putting some of their own cash toward advertising? or is there some contract clause that would prevent the author from doing this?



You won't have any choice. Think about it: If a publisher isn't going to promote your book, you're book won't sell to anyone unless you do something about it. That's why authors always want the larger advance because it seems likely that a publisher will promote the work more if they've invested more up front. But keep this in mind: promotion and advertising only do so much. If you had millions of dollars to invest in advertising, it wouldn't matter if no one liked the book. If people do like the book, it will grow wings with or without a lot of promotion. The key is to let the people who would read that kind of book know that kind of book exists.


----------



## Baron (Jul 27, 2012)

It never ceases to puzzle me that people who write books telling others how to make millions from writing novels aren't doing it themselves instead of telling others how.

It's true that there has never been a better time for writers to self publish and promote their work.  It's also true that the slush is deep.  Kindle preview helps a little but a great many people are going to rely on the traditional publishing houses to sort the wheat from the chaff for a long time yet.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 27, 2012)

Edward G said:


> You won't have any choice. Think about it: If a publisher isn't going to promote your book, you're book won't sell to anyone unless you do something about it.



Wrong again. Well, unless you're talking vanity publishers. Legitimate trade/indie publishers do not expect/demand that authors spend one red cent on promotion or marketing (two different things, btw). Books get marketed by publishers because they don't want to have spent all that money on editing, covers, formatting, printing, etc and watch it blow away in the wind. But much of what authors expect to see is not done that much because it isn't cost effective. Book signings, for example.

Authors are like homeowners putting their houses on the market. They want - sometimes demand - open houses. They think that will sell their house. In fact (and I speak from experience in real estate sales), the open house is an advertisement for the brokerage and their full stock of property. Very few houses get sold because of the open house. Rather - just like book publishing - it's the work done behind the scenes that sells that house.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 27, 2012)

Baron said:


> It never ceases to puzzle me that people who write books telling others how to make millions from writing novels aren't doing it themselves instead of telling others how.



Perhaps you've stumbled upon the secret, Baron.

The trick to making millions of dollars from writing is to write a book about how to make millions of dollars from writing. Millions of people will buy it in hopes of becomming millionaires, thus making the original author one himself.

Genius!


----------



## Edward G (Jul 28, 2012)

Baron said:


> It never ceases to puzzle me that people who write books telling others how to make millions from writing novels aren't doing it themselves instead of telling others how.



It's called teaching. Perhaps I don't write good enough novels. That doesn't mean others don't. Perhaps I have a way of shedding light on a good idea. Perhaps I'm better at editing and reviewing other's work. Maybe I make a better caddy than a golfer, a better director than an actor.



> It's true that there has never been a better time for writers to self publish and promote their work. It's also true that the slush is deep. Kindle preview helps a little but a great many people are going to rely on the traditional publishing houses to sort the wheat from the chaff for a long time yet.



Readers don't buy books based on who published them. My friend here at work just proclaimed to me that he's reading King's, 11/22/63. I told him I read it, and it's pretty good. We didn't discuss the publisher at all. I have no idea who published that book. Who cares? It's Stephen King. That's how books are sold. A crap book will not sell. A good book will.


----------



## Fin (Jul 28, 2012)

Edward G said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You kind of missed the point on that one. The point isn't _which_ publishing house published them, it's that they _are _ traditionally published. Chances are, if it's traditionally published, it's not going to be complete trash. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for a lot of self published work.


----------



## David B. Ramirez (Jul 28, 2012)

...I would like to point out that a crap book can indeed sell. A LOT.


----------



## Sam (Jul 28, 2012)

David B. Ramirez said:


> ...I would like to point out that a crap book can indeed sell. A LOT.



And then some.


----------



## Nicky (Jul 28, 2012)

David B. Ramirez said:


> ...I would like to point out that a crap book can indeed sell. A LOT.



that's awesome news. i think i'm writing one of those right now.


----------



## movieman (Aug 2, 2012)

Fin said:


> Chances are, if it's traditionally published, it's not going to be complete trash. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for a lot of self published work.



Last I looked, '50 Shades' had about as many one-star reviews as five-star. Everyone I know who's read it said it was awful and they couldn't even finish it.

I do agree that you're more likely to find a completely unreadable book from a self-publisher than a trade-publisher, but I haven't come across one on Amazon for quite some time. Most people who think they can throw out any old crap and make money seem to have gone looking for a new get-rich-quick scheme.


----------



## fwc577 (Aug 7, 2012)

Fin said:


> You kind of missed the point on that one. The point isn't _which_ publishing house published them, it's that they _are _ traditionally published. Chances are, if it's traditionally published, it's not going to be complete trash. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for a lot of self published work.



One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I personally find Twilight complete garbage.  I cannot read a story where the main character cries, comes to tears, or gets sad about 15 times in the first chapter.  I read to escape reality not enter one more depressing than the one I currently reside.

On the flip side of that I find Amanda Hocking to be trash.  I picked up one of her books about zombies and it clearly looked like someone crapped out a story on a page and didn't really give a damn about what she was writing.  She escapes a government facility protecting the last survivors of the zombie apocalypse after it gets over run, then she runs into a circus tiger that she rescues and suddenly is her pet, then she bumps into a former member of a famous band from before the apocalypse.  It was so eclectic that I just couldn't read it.  Everything happening seemed so random and incoherent.  As a result, I will never read another title published under the name Amanda Hocking again.

To sit there and say that books coming from Trad pubs are likely to be better is just ridiculous and unless your searching for self-pubbed ebooks based on some russian roulette principle of just buy whatevers I can and I might find something good seems downright nuts.

If I am looking for books on Amazon the first thing that needs to catch my eye is the cover.  Today with the number of people unemployed in the graphics design industry it is pretty easy to find someone who can do a good cover ranging from $100-$500 (anything less and I don't trust it being anything but bland and generic which won't sell your books).

Then if the book cover catches my eye I will check out the description.  If the book actually sounds interesting in the description then I will move onto whatever sample they provide.  If I enjoy the provided sample then I will go ahead and get the book unless it is over $6 for ebook at which point I will look for it online if I really want to read it (boohoo for those who decry piracy, they forget their is this thing called a library which will most likely have the book available anyways.  Something the music industry doesn't have an equivalent of).

The only difference between the crap that trad publishers throw out there and the crap that self pubs throw out there is the trad pubs have people who can make excellent covers, who can write excellent verbs, and can touch up a story and tell you if things need to be changed and made more interesting.

If someone self-pubs, pays $30 for a cover, writes their own blurb and puts it on the internet for $0.99, then chances are high they are going to fail in the self-pub world.

If someone is good enough to be say a midlist writer or even just a competant writer who knows what a story needs, he pays $100-$500 for a cover, writes a good blurb and gets opinions on how to make it better, then puts it up on the internet for $3.99-$4.99 his chances of success are far higher.

He is still in the price range for impulse buyers.  If his cover is good and reflects his genre well it is going to get more views on the actual page.  If his blurb is decent to good and his chapter one is well written and the rest of the book is decent then he will see more success than most.

TLDR: The idea that trad pub creates good and self pub is a junk pile is just ridiculous.  Most stuff that is junk won't make any lists you probably look at to help find books.


----------



## Sam (Aug 8, 2012)

fwc577 said:


> One man's trash is another man's treasure.
> 
> I personally find Twilight complete garbage.  I cannot read a story where the main character cries, comes to tears, or gets sad about 15 times in the first chapter.  I read to escape reality not enter one more depressing than the one I currently reside.
> 
> ...



The point here is not that traditional publishing = good and self-publishing = bad, but that publishing a book with the latter is inherently easier than the former. While I agree with you that _Twilight _should never have seen light of day, Meyer had to go through the process the same way every other writer does. She had to send three chapters, a synopsis, and a cover letter, and then wait for a response. She could have bypassed that entire process by deciding to self-publish. 

Imagine, for a moment, that every aspiring singer (whether good, bad, or just plain delusional) had access to a recording studio to create a single or an album. Then imagine it grew exponentially and became one of the most-used facilities out there. How many of those rejected _American Idol _and _X-Factor _wannabes would try to live out their dream through it? The music industry would become rife with singles of 'artists' who can't even sing (mind you, a lot would do better than the stuff that passes for music now). Yes, there'll be a jewel in the rough out there, but with so much rough, how will you ever find it? 

Self-publishing allows anyone to publish. Joe Blog down the street has never read a book in his life, hasn't put pen to paper in fifty years, and decides to write a 100-page novel. It doesn't matter that his syntax is woeful, storytelling all over the place, and prose littered with mistake after mistake: self-publishing companies don't screen anything. If he wants to print it and call it a 'novel', provided he puts money in their pocket, who are they to say he won't be the next John Le Carre? 

Self-publishing opens the floor to everyone.


----------



## Baron (Aug 8, 2012)

Sam W said:


> The point here is not that traditional publishing = good and self-publishing = bad, but that publishing a book with the latter is inherently easier than the former. While I agree with you that _Twilight _should never have seen light of day, Meyer had to go through the process the same way every other writer does. She had to send three chapters, a synopsis, and a cover letter, and then wait for a response. She could have bypassed that entire process by deciding to self-publish.
> 
> Imagine, for a moment, that every aspiring singer (whether good, bad, or just plain delusional) had access to a recording studio to create a single or an album. Then imagine it grew exponentially and became one of the most-used facilities out there. How many of those rejected _American Idol _and _X-Factor _wannabes would try to live out their dream through it? The music industry would become rife with singles of 'artists' who can't even sing (mind you, a lot would do better than the stuff that passes for music now). Yes, there'll be a jewel in the rough out there, but with so much rough, how will you ever find it?
> 
> ...



Ever checked out some of the music on Myspace, Sam?


----------



## fwc577 (Aug 8, 2012)

Baron said:


> Ever checked out some of the music on Myspace, Sam?



Haha, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Hell, Even look at that Rebecca Black - Friday song.

Recording studio's can be rented for damn cheap these days and they are everywhere.  A friend of mine is a rapper and if I wanted I could get in the studio at a rate of 100/hour and lay down vocals.  The actual music can be done on a computer using various programs such as soundforge etc.  If I've already written the music and I'm just recording the tracks it's possible I might only need an hour or two in the actual studio and my production costs end up only being about $200 + my time.  This is actually cheaper than hiring an editor and paying for cover work unless you find people doing it on the extreme cheap.

Then I can list it on Amazon and Itunes at $0.99 per song.

I think the fear that some have of being absorbed into the slush of Amazon is kind of unfounded and a myth at this point.  If you have a good cover, good blurb, good sample chapter, and your book is decent you should get sales.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 8, 2012)

fwc577 said:


> I think the fear that some have of being absorbed into the slush of Amazon is kind of unfounded and a myth at this point.  If you have a good cover, good blurb, good sample chapter, and your book is decent you should get sales.



The problem is that there are so many people self-publishing - whether it's on Amazon or elsewhere - how do you get people to notice you? And notice you enough to at least pay back the time and money investment you (the self-publisher) has made? You can have an excellent cover - but if your cover is one of ten thousand listed... _That's_ the problem. Look at how many books Amazon has, even within genres. That's an awful lot of tiny cover shots to stand out in.

As to the quality issues - that's nothing against self-publishing per se. That's just common sense. How many self-published books are put out each year, and how many of them have had a professional editing staff and a professional cover designer (who understands marketing)? Trade published authors have that staff working for them. Now, whether a book is well written is, of course, different than whether or not one likes it, and many, if not most times, the story-telling will outweigh the skills. So one has to recognize the difference between the subjective "good book" and the objective "good book".


----------



## Baron (Aug 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> The problem is that there are so many people self-publishing - whether it's on Amazon or elsewhere - how do you get people to notice you? And notice you enough to at least pay back the time and money investment you (the self-publisher) has made? You can have an excellent cover - but if your cover is one of ten thousand listed... _That's_ the problem. Look at how many books Amazon has, even within genres. That's an awful lot of tiny cover shots to stand out in.
> 
> As to the quality issues - that's nothing against self-publishing per se. That's just common sense. How many self-published books are put out each year, and how many of them have had a professional editing staff and a professional cover designer (who understands marketing)? Trade published authors have that staff working for them. Now, whether a book is well written is, of course, different than whether or not one likes it, and many, if not most times, the story-telling will outweigh the skills. So one has to recognize the difference between the subjective "good book" and the objective "good book".



You're right.  Good promotion = sales.  That's where the traditional publishing houses score every time.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 8, 2012)

> The problem is that there are so many people self-publishing - whether it's on Amazon or elsewhere - how do you get people to notice you? And notice you enough to at least pay back the time and money investment you (the self-publisher) has made? You can have an excellent cover - but if your cover is one of ten thousand listed... _That's_ the problem. Look at how many books Amazon has, even within genres. That's an awful lot of tiny cover shots to stand out in.


Same way they got those SEO techniques to get your website on the first page in google they must come up with a way to get our books listed on the first places. GoogleBooks is kind of doing that, but I believe they will develop something more efficient. If self publishing depends on internet means, we are to find out which internet tools we have at our disposal in order to make our books to be noticed.


----------

