Self-pubbed author trampled by Amazon

[Margo]

I wonder why an e-book writer has to produce more books than a print writer, seeing as how the royalty is higher for the e-book (especially if self-pubbed). I realize that to build an audience takes multiple books. I just don't see how an author would need 20-40 books out there (a single decade's production), or let's say a hundred books, a career's worth, to make a living in the e-environment.

They don't have to produce more books than a print (traditionally published) writer. In fact, it takes fewer books to put a self-published e-book author in a position to make their living entirely from writing. I think you might be surprised how many successful traditionally published authors still have day jobs. The major difference is that a traditionally published author has to be a bestseller these days to make a living solely from writing, especially with companies abandoning the midlisters and shelving their backlist. A self-published author can have many books with modest sales and make a living...meaning...the midlist as we once understood it (modest sales that added up to making a living) has shifted from traditional publishing to online self-publishing.

I should also point out that there usually comes a saturation point where a writer doesn't have to release at the same rate anymore. I still wouldn't suggest a novelist falling below 3-4 books a year, but it's no longer necessary to do 5 or 6 a year. Reputation has been established. But it means a year or two of very hard work...or five or ten years of less strenuous effort...or twenty years of...

[Doug Pardee]

I wonder why an e-book writer has to produce more books than a print writer, seeing as how the royalty is higher for the e-book (especially if self-pubbed). I realize that to build an audience takes multiple books. I just don't see how an author would need 20-40 books out there (a single decade's production), or let's say a hundred books, a career's worth, to make a living in the e-environment.

It's mainly the price of e-books. They've been tumbling, and I would say that the these days the first one or two novels have to be given away for free. If those move fairly well, charge $0.99 for the next couple (royalty = $0.30 or so) — bearing in mind that most people who downloaded your free novel never will read it and even fewer would have bought it, so there will be much lower sales at $0.99. If your 99-cent novels sell, you can try $2.99 (royalty = $2 or so) for the following ones.

Even at the $2 royalty level, you need to sell tens of thousands of copies per year to make enough to live on without having other means of support. Unless you become one of the super-stars, you're not going to accomplish that sales volume with just a few titles.

Not that conventionally-published authors have it much better. After 6 traditionally-published books and making the NYT Bestseller list, Lynn Viehl reports making less than $30K in 6 months, and less than $2500 in the next six months. She didn't get to keep all of that: "After paying taxes, commission to my agent and covering my expenses, my net profit on the book currently stands at $24,517.36..." She goes on to note:

My income per book always reminds me of how tough it is to make at living at this gig, especially for writers who only produce one book per year. If I did the same, and my one book performed as well as TF, and my family of four were solely dependent on my income, my net would be only around $2500.00 over the income level considered to be the U.S. poverty threshhold (based on 2008 figures.) Yep, we’d almost qualify for foodstamps.

But it's the advances that count, and she got $50K for book 6. With self-published e-books, there are no advances.

Looking farther forward, the picture is pretty bleak. Me, I no longer pay for e-books at all. There are so many free ones that even paying $0.99 seems wasteful. The last e-books that I paid for were from an established (but niche) publisher who was running a $0.25 promotion. Sure, 90% of the free e-books are crap. But then, as Theodore Sturgeon noted, 90% of everything is crap. The writer's "beacon of hope" here is that, unlike me, most readers get addicted to series.

[Quill]

I still wouldn't suggest a novelist falling below 3-4 books a year, but it's no longer necessary to do 5 or 6 a year.

I've obviously been naive, not realizing it was necessary to do 5 or 6 a year.

Now I wonder: of all novelists making a living from writing, how many average 1-2 books per year, how many 2-3, how many 3-4, how many 4-5, and how many 5 or more.

I thought only a handful wrote in the upper range, and those mostly formulaic genre and series works of moderate length.

[Quill]

Even at the $2 royalty level, you need to sell tens of thousands of copies per year to make enough to live on without having other means of support. Unless you become one of the super-stars, you're not going to accomplish that sales volume with just a few titles.

At that rate around 50 copies per day would provide a moderate income ($36k/yr). That might take 5 books or 10 books or it might take 20 books. Depending on rate of publication it could take a decade or more to work up to a full-time writing gig.

Looking farther forward, the picture is pretty bleak. Me, I no longer pay for e-books at all. There are so many free ones that even paying $0.99 seems wasteful. The last e-books that I paid for were from an established (but niche) publisher who was running a $0.25 promotion.

I can't link you to any sources but I've read recently that e-book prices are starting to trend upward. As one blogger said, "I just paid 1.19 for a box of sandwich bags. Surely a novel is worth more than sandwich bags."

Sure, 90% of the free e-books are crap. But then, as Theodore Sturgeon noted, 90% of everything is crap.

Ah, and here the quality issue comes in. Not sure how it will play out in the e-book market over time, but I'm putting my money (read: time) into producing the best books I can, rather than the most. I can't figure out a better way to stand out in the crowd. I realize I may never make a full living from it. Or it make take me ages. C'est la vie.

I'm writing as fast as I can.

[Margo]

I don't think there's a reason to feel bleak about the future. I'm not having a problem finding readers for my pen name projects, and my prices are not free or 99 cents, not even one promotional title. My prices vary from slightly lower to slightly higher than ebooks from traditional publishers. I chalk that up to several factors, including writing well (my lowest star review is a 3, and there's only one of those), a consistent, branded, quality cover look, and frequent releases.

Edit: I think charging higher prices helps convey quality before readers even sample the product, influencing their reactions. Again, I only think this works if a writer has an impressive release schedule or pre-existing body of work. And, again, always, you gotta be good. I've seen spectacularly bad writers cash in for a month or two before they drown in bad reviews. Doesn't matter how many titles they have at that point.

[Margo]

Even at the $2 royalty level, you need to sell tens of thousands of copies per year to make enough to live on without having other means of support. Unless you become one of the super-stars, you're not going to accomplish that sales volume with just a few titles.

At that rate around 50 copies per day would provide a moderate income ($36k/yr). That might take 5 books or 10 books or it might take 20 books. Depending on rate of publication it could take a decade or more to work up to a full-time writing gig.

Many genre writers talk about a tipping point or saturation point at which adding new titles yields growth not in equivalent percentages but exponentially. One person I chat to saw that occur for her at 10 titles. Another saw it at 3 titles, all released within 6 months. Novellas and short stories have been the better way to go for a lot of writers.

[Mira]

This is a really interesting discussion! Margo, I tip my hat to you! You've learned so much - pretty cool to see you so confident and all self-publishy. And congrats on your zeros!!

I have a couple of thoughts here.

I really like your idea, Margo, of writing multiple books to reach an audience. I haven't heard that one yet, but it's great!!

I agree that making a living at writing self-published e-books is much more realistic than trying to do it through legacy publishing.

On the other hand, there are many ways to find an audience. Writing multiple books is one way - and a good way - but it's not the only way, which is good, because not everyone can produce on that level.

Also, there is something to be said for focusing on the writing, and letting go of the results. I know that's not everyone's path, but easy does it can get folks there - more slowly, but still moving forward. Things can build over time, and transitioning from a day job can be done slowly.

Just some thoughts...

[Margo]

This is a really interesting discussion! Margo, I tip my hat to you! You've learned so much - pretty cool to see you so confident and all self-publishy. And congrats on your zeros!!

Thank you. I'm the first to admit I was anti-self-publishing two years ago, but I never let my passions blind me to new information or changing situations. And there's been a deluge of both in the past year.

On the other hand, there are many ways to find an audience. Writing multiple books is one way - and a good way - but it's not the only way, which is good, because not everyone can produce on that level.

Also, there is something to be said for focusing on the writing, and letting go of the results. I know that's not everyone's path, but easy does it can get folks there - more slowly, but still moving forward. Things can build over time, and transitioning from a day job can be done slowly.

I agree. The only problem I see with this is that it can lengthen the process quite a bit, and a lot of people will give up before they hit their breakout point and wallow in the negative mantras. Fast results help maintain the discipline to keep pushing. Plus, it's just part of my personality that I'd rather sacrifice and work very hard for one or two years, then spend the rest of my life with the freedom to work less on money projects and more on love projects. For other people, it is more realistic to spend a longer period working at a more moderate pace. They just have to realize it's going to be a long road and not become defeatist.

I am beginning to think it might really be a myth that people making their living from self-publishing are like lottery winners. I am being mentored by a group that has quite a few people living on their writing income. They aren't making Konrath/Hocking money, but they don't have to. Off the top of my head I know people who are making: $7k a month after 2 years, $10k a month after 3 months, $20k a month after 9 months, $3k a month after 5 months, $2.5k a month after 2 months, and three people who have done about $2k in their first 30 days. And none of them are big-name self-publishers or have backgrounds in traditional publishing, though several of them have books in Amazon's top 200-500.

Of course, I know people who are making less, mostly because they don't take the advice of the people mentoring them, but that's their business. I will say it makes no sense to me to ask someone, "How did you do it?", and then take none of their advice and later ask, "Why am I struggling?"

[Mira]

Margo - I know! I remember when you were anti-self publishing
Kudos to you for your new adventures....

Your figures are interesting. Where did you find your mentors, if you don't mind sharing?

I agree that making a livelihood at writing is more possible now ever. When publishers are:

a. taking 90% of the profit, and
b. Putting your books out very slowly,

it can be almost impossible to make any money at the deal.

Not that everyone is in it to make money. But for those who are, opportunities are all over! Opportunities aren't just knocking at the door, they are trying to open the window and climb down the chimney. That's what I think, anyway.

[Margo]

Where did you find your mentors, if you don't mind sharing?

Networking. I've been doing that since I was 15. Even when I was a shy person, I was never shy about networking with other writers, agents, editors, etc. I pushed myself to use every opportunity to strike up conversations and ask questions. If I was going to be serious about writing, I was going to take every advantage I could get. Maybe I just look like a baby bird in need of a mentor to take me under their wing. I've definitely had more than my share of professional mentors along the way.

Not that everyone is in it to make money.

Even for people who aren't interested in the money, putting the results in dollars over period of time helps express the level of success in reaching readers. If someone is publishing for free, the downloads can be used, but it's not necessarily a good gauge of who is actually reading. Lots of people download whatever is free and sort out what they want to read from what they want to delete later. It's all a little tricky, trying to look at multiple indicators to try to get a complete picture of how work is being received, critically, financially, etc.

[Mira]

Margo, I can see why you attract mentors - you're extremely committed to this, willing to work your butt off, and put your whole heart into it - and that comes across.

I wish I was as good at attracting mentors, but I'm very argumentative. And competitive. Yes, I compete with people I'm asking for guidance. It's lovely. And, on top of that, I'm stubborn.

So, there you go. :p

In terms of numbers for those who aren't in this for the money, I agree. It's really nice to be able to measure how many people you're reaching.

Although, it's funny. I'm not in this for the money, but there's no way I'd give away my work for free once it's in book form. It's about value - valuing myself and what my muse creates.

[Rachel Ventura]

OK, wow. I went offline for about two months and am just now coming back into the fold on this one. I'm sure I can compensate, though...

First of all, Margo, that's awesome, your average is 60,000 words written in a month? I'm struggling to even get past my (very many) outlines!

Second: Twilight was traditionally published. Mary Sue Meyer wrote the first draft in 3mo. Twilight is a multi-billion-dollar empire. But is it any good? I'm in the "OMG Team Whoever is soooo hott" demographic; I picked up the first book at Borders (R.I.P.) just to see what the hell everyone was talking about, and I couldn't even get through five pages of the damn thing. Now, mind you, I went in with a preexisting bias against the emo self-cutters at my high school who used to write fanfic about having group sex with the toothless wonder, and there have been books I've had to read for class that I thought, oh, this is going to suck (overused vampire pun there), and loved them. I was NOT pleasantly surprised with Twilight, and so I didn't even bother to go and see the stupid movie or buy any of the stupid merchandise. My feeling is that the book was obviously so horrible that it needed the damn marketing campaign to even clear even.

So I just know the standard for quality over quantity has been lowered to the point of non-existence when anyone and their other brother Darryl and their infinite monkey's uncle can be "published." The sad fact of it all is, nowhere, even in print, and never mind the abhorrent anarchic digital market, is quality even an issue. HarperCollins/Random House/etc. are in it for the money. Quality is probably a turn-off because there's no gimmick involved, no selling point, and my guess is that the editors are probably dumbing down the writing to make the book more "accessible" to a mass audience. Or they're just rejecting everything off the bat (ha, another overused vamp pun!) like people throw away coupons for products they don't use. The Help is a major exception. It's on my absolutely have-to-read list for Black History Month coming up. I probably won't see the movie, though, until I read the book; I'd prefer to have my own image of what the characters, the home, etc. look like before stupid TV ruins it for me.

But I don't consider myself pretentious or snobbish at all; in fact, I can't stand Jonathan Franzen's stuff because he comes across that way to me -- snubbing Oprah is a big no-no, pal. I do, however, proudly support publishing's state 50 years ago, which would've been 1962. Hearken ye back in your hot tub DeLorean: JFK was still president, and therefore still alive; Dick Clark was still young, Bandstand was the Idol of its day, and Ryan Seacrest was barely a sequin in his mother's eyes; and while we're at it, how about some of the works published that year? A Clockwork Orange, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silent Spring... oh, and some guy named Steinbeck won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Forty years ago, 1972, America feared and loathed in Las Vegas courtesy of a certain Mr. Gonzo Thompson. In 1982 we saw the slave era through The Color Purple with credit to Alice Walker. 1992 saw Julia Alvarez's Garcia Girls lose their accents and Bill Clinton blow his sax (ahem) all the way to the White House. From the point where the self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet became "#2" in command, the info superhighway covered in inconvenient manure has dumbed everything down to the point where a mind is an inevitable thing to waste, and about as useful as an appendix (I don't mean the "tail end" of an encyclopedia).

Then how about this: Besides being Orwell's arguably most well-known title, 1984 gave us the first Mac, Revenge of the Nerds, and also the birth of none other than Big Brother Lambda Mu himself, the billion-dollar Gates devotee Mark Zuckerberg. Just because I'm supposed to be an avid user of Zuckerberg's "social" nerd-work doesn't mean I am or that I don't know who the J. Geils Band are or what they said...

"Something must've got lost somewhere down the line."

And that something is quality.

I feel sorry for this poor guy because stupid Amazon sets itself out to be the answer to people's frustrations about the conglomerate pub industry, and yet they're positioning themselves to be the 21st century equivalent. There's good 99% and there's bad 99%, and the 99% who think they're worthy of publication probably aren't, which gives Amazon and Lulu an easy way to exploit a culture of fame-hungry Twitards. I couldn't care less about marketing or promotion; I'm in the 99% camp of that paperboy in Better Off Dead screaming for lost wages now that even the newspaper has been rendered obsolete by digital publishing. "I want my two dollars" without "Hocking" my "warez"!

[Rachel Ventura]

By the way:

As one blogger said, "I just paid 1.19 for a box of sandwich bags. Surely a novel is worth more than sandwich bags."

Unless you go eco and have all your books printed on recycled sandwich bags... It's not a real good way to make a living, as a "paper bag writer."