Hugh Howey presents: Amazon author earnings

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

They talk about how much money an author can make, but not about how likely they are to make it, but without that latter part there's no way to tell which choice is better.

But what Hugh has done as open the door to the argument. Before Hugh's report it was always dismissed as unrealistic - but Hugh's report has started the entire industry talking. Hugh's report was the main topic of conversation at LTUE this past weekend among both SP and Trad representatives, for example.

I know of more people repeating what he did, getting better data, and going deeper. Until Hugh's report hits no one was really looking this deep. Time will tell if this is just an up surge in promise or, as Hugh publically stated he hope, the begin of better data coming out.

You may not see, or may not agree, but IMO, Hugh's report - flawed as it is (and as he stated many times over both in the report and interviews since then), has kicked off the conversation in a way that has not happened before, and needed to happen.

In the coming months, if all the people who are stating conducting their own research actually do it, we will have real numbers and real information to base decisions on. Time will tell.

[VydorScope]

BTW - here is a link that has begun to collect a list of sites so you can start to see how this is spreading (I have no affiliation with the link other the it was shared on another forum where I am a member)

http://www.clarybooks.com/?p=316

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As I read that, the only thing that stands out is that if Konrath honestly believes what is quoted there about authors reclaiming backlist books then he really doesn't have a good handle on what's going on there at all.

The economics of an author republishing his or her backlist electronically are very different from those of a commercial publisher deciding whether to devote one of their limited number of publishing slots to the same books.

Commercial publishers often let books revert because even though they might sell a steady trickle if left in print (which may require a new print run on the publisher's part), there's a brand new book in competition for that slot which the publisher expects will sell better.

.

Uh, that is not the reality today.
Today, publishers are hoarding book rights for books old and new for ebook publication. They actively try to redefine "in print" in a dozen ways to avoid reversion. The economics of ebook backlists don't revolve around print slots at all, much less print revenue. They revolve around sales rates and little else.

So what he said is literal truth: when a publisher *these days* reverts a book it is because they either think the book will not sell in ebook form or because they have so clearly failed to uphold their side of the contract the threat of litigation and audits forces them to let go. And considering how publishing contracts are structured the former is more common than the latter.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

We're long past the point where anyone's denying that self-published authors can compete with commercially published authors at least in terms of Kindle success.
[...]
They talk about how much money an author can make, but not about how likely they are to make it, but without that latter part there's no way to tell which choice is better.

If we were past the point of denying that self-publishing can compete with traditional forms of publishing then the report wouldn't be attracting the sort of responses that it is. The report presents actual data to support what has, in the past, only been given as anecdotal evidence. It is a good start, and the responses it has attracted, on both sides, should all help expand on that start.

You keep coming back to the disappointment that the report doesn't say "how likely they are to make it", but I don't see that as a reason to criticise the report. (It would be if that was their stated objective, but it's not.) I'm not sure where you are ever going to find statistical data that tells you how likely it is that a given manuscript will be successful, let alone comparing it's likely success in different forms of publishing. Even if someone eventually extracts details of all self-published authors of the 'net, what would we compare that to? Are the big publishing houses and agents all going to put out reliable statistics of all the manuscripts they rejected? I'm not holding my breath. Without that detail from the big publishing houses, just how are you ever going to discover what you want to know?

[Lemurion]

Let me put this as simply as possible:

Hugh Howey says:

“Our data suggests that even stellar manuscripts are better off self-published.”

The problem is that the data doesn't support that conclusion. What the data does say is that a self-published Amazon author will earn more royalties for a given volume of sales than a commercially published author, which is a very different thing.

The reason I am criticizing the report for not giving the size of the field is because you cannot make the statement that it's better to choose one option over the other without that data.

It's like he's saying the blue car is faster because it goes 100 miles, which is nonsense. You can't measure speed without both time and distance.

I wouldn't care about him leaving out the relative size of the field if his conclusion didn't require it.

[gmw]

Lemurion, so is your problem is with his phrase "stellar manuscript"?

I guess there is an implicit statement in there that a "stellar manuscript" is one that eventually sells in big numbers, and this may not fit everyone's view of what a "stellar manuscript" is. But if you accept that implicit definition then chopping the top off the sales pyramid is a way to find them (after the fact, rather than trying to guess if they're stellar before they're published) and so his conclusion is correct - if your manuscript turns out to be stellar (one that sells very well) then it may be better off self-published.

The problem with any other definition of "stellar manuscript" (other than one that sells very well) is that no one can agree on what it is. At least sales figures represent a definite measure, even if many people will still say that some books don't deserve to sell that well.

[Yapyap]

With the way publishing still works these days, I'd say there are (at least) two different scenarios and what works for one author (or one type of author), won't necessarily work for another.

For an author who has already self-published, and self-published successfully, having their books discovered and selling very well - already earning a six- or seven-figure yearly income, perhaps - sticking with self-publishing is probably a good idea. They have already made it, they have a name, they have a market and followers, they know what they're doing (clearly), and being able to sell relatively cheaply and keep most of the earnings are things very much in favour of continuing to self-publish.

For such authors, I'd say turning down trad-pub offers makes sense - at least unless they have enough clout to negotiate very good terms (and perhaps have a print-only contract).

For a new author with a "stellar manuscript" who has not yet self-published and is offered a, say, seven-figure advance deal from a traditional publisher, I'd still think that is currently a better way to go. For a new author, for that kind of deal, they're going to get some invaluable experience - even if publishers these days don't spend nearly as much effort on editing or marketing for most of the mid-list books, they do make an effort for the hoped-to-be bestsellers (which a seven-figure advance deal would indicate).

The new author would get editing experience, the new author would get more marketing, get their books into physical bookshops and libraries, and also, I rather assume that there's a much better chance of foreign contracts following (for translations).

There's a chance they might have more success if they self-published - but it's a gamble and there will be things they lose out on.

(And yes, I know seven-figure advance deals/offers are rare - but they do happen, and we're talking about hypothetical "stellar manuscripts" here...)

In the future, ten years from now, with that experience under their belt and their name already known - self-publishing may well make more sense for them, too.

I wonder if it might also depend heavily on genre - it seems to me that adult genre (romance, erotica, New Adult, fantasy, mystery/thriller) self-published authors are currently more likely to do very well on their own than some others. For most children's or YA authors, never mind literary fiction writers, going the trad-pub way might be a lot more sensible for now.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by gmw

Lemurion, so is your problem is with his phrase "stellar manuscript"?

I guess there is an implicit statement in there that a "stellar manuscript" is one that eventually sells in big numbers, and this may not fit everyone's view of what a "stellar manuscript" is. But if you accept that implicit definition then chopping the top off the sales pyramid is a way to find them (after the fact, rather than trying to guess if they're stellar before they're published) and so his conclusion is correct - if your manuscript turns out to be stellar (one that sells very well) then it may be better off self-published.

The problem with any other definition of "stellar manuscript" (other than one that sells very well) is that no one can agree on what it is. At least sales figures represent a definite measure, even if many people will still say that some books don't deserve to sell that well.

But that's not his meaning. He's defining a "stellar manuscript" as one that's very good. Sure he's saying that stellar manuscripts sell very well, although there's plenty of evidence that best-sellers are not necessarily stellar manuscripts, but rather the right book at the right time.

No my problem is simple.

His data doesn't support his conclusions.

It's a bad study because the numbers say one thing and the words say something else. In a good study, everything the words say is backed up by the numbers.

I happen to think that self-publishing is very good for a great many writers for a number of reasons. However, I also think those writers deserve intellectual honesty on the part of the studies that investigate it.

This is a bad study, regardless of whether you agree with his stance or not.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

But that's not his meaning. He's defining a "stellar manuscript" as one that's very good. Sure he's saying that stellar manuscripts sell very well, although there's plenty of evidence that best-sellers are not necessarily stellar manuscripts, but rather the right book at the right time. [...]

Are you finding a redefinition of "stellar" in his report? From dictionary.com I see:

1. of or pertaining to the stars; consisting of stars.
2. like a star, as in brilliance, shape, etc.
3. pertaining to a preeminent performer, athlete, etc.

I assume that definitions 1 and 2 are out, which leaves us looking at "preeminent performer" - doesn't that suggest something slightly different to your always subjective "very good" interpretation? To me it suggests that he's talking about one that performs extremely well, and with books I would normally think that performance related to sales rather than quality of the prose.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by gmw

I assume that definitions 1 and 2 are out, which leaves us looking at "preeminent performer" - doesn't that suggest something slightly different to your always subjective "very good" interpretation? To me it suggests that he's talking about one that performs extremely well, and with books I would normally think that performance related to sales rather than quality of the prose.

Unless you are already very popular though, you have no idea how a novel will sell. In this case a "Stellar Manuscript" using the definition of stellar you posted would have to be called a "Potentially Stellar Manuscript".

In the context of his post he is using stellar to mean "very good" (Which is how the Mirriam-Webster dictionary lists it).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stellar

[DiapDealer]

"Why your data isn't the data that my data thinks your data thinks my data is (and other distinctly pointless distinctions)."

This whole kerfuffle has gotten silly. Silly internet kerfuffles are a dime a dozen.

I do find it ironic, though, that the bulk of Shatzkin's "refutation" (quotation marks used only to stay in the spirit of his writing technique) of Howey's public analysis of scraped public data lies firmly ensconced behind a paywall.

Should Howey's analysis be viewed as gospel? Of course not.

Is it relevant at all to today's "publishing" (sorry, can't help myself) landscape? You bet your ass it is.

It doesn't need to be totally vindicated to be relevant.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by gmw

Are you finding a redefinition of "stellar" in his report? From dictionary.com I see:


I assume that definitions 1 and 2 are out, which leaves us looking at "preeminent performer" - doesn't that suggest something slightly different to your always subjective "very good" interpretation? To me it suggests that he's talking about one that performs extremely well, and with books I would normally think that performance related to sales rather than quality of the prose.

MikeB1972 has already addressed the use of "stellar," but I would also like to draw your attention to the word manuscript, which has a generally accepted meaning of an as-yet unpublished book. You can't determine sales before a book's been published.

The entire passage talks about the decisions authors need to make before choosing between self-publishing and commercial publication. There are definitely books and authors for whom self-publishing is a better option, just as there are others for whom commercial publishing is a better option. Howey's figures don't back up his statements.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"Why your data isn't the data that my data thinks your data thinks my data is (and other distinctly pointless distinctions)."

This whole kerfuffle has gotten silly. Silly internet kerfuffles are a dime a dozen.

I do find it ironic, though, that the bulk of Shatzkin's "refutation" (quotation marks used only to stay in the spirit of his writing technique) of Howey's public analysis of scraped public data lies firmly ensconced behind a paywall.

Should Howey's analysis be viewed as gospel? Of course not.

Is it relevant at all to today's "publishing" (sorry, can't help myself) landscape? You bet your ass it is.

It doesn't need to be totally vindicated to be relevant.

THANK YOU!!!! These useless discussions debating the validity/accuracy of other peoples studies is crazy.

The only thing that truly matters is that someone outside of BPH has FINALLY made an attempt to show authors and anyone else that cares, that self publishing CAN be profitable. All he is pointing out is that authors need to take the time to investigate ALL of their options now and not take what some agent or BPH says is gospel.

All that is important is to get the word out to aspiring authors that getting published by a BPH is not the only way to have your work validated or to be taken seriously as an author.

Most get into it to make money, if left up to the establishment they won't get any or very little. So take a chance and put it out for yourself and see/hope you get lucky.

Needless to say, the BPH & Shatzkins of the world don't like this since it has an impact on their bottom lines. Oh well too bad so sad.

I say bravo to Howey for making the attempt to make it easier for everyone to get at least a little info in this crazy business all in one place to read and figure out for themselves if it is worth it.

Knowledge is power, whether 100% accurate or not.

[fjtorres]

From Teleread:
http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/what-...rnings-report/

Howey was very up front that these figures represented a small bite of data from a single retailer, covering basically about a single day’s worth of Amazon sales. He didn’t claim that it was in any way conclusive, or that it was the last word in terms of what authors can earn by self-publishing. He even made the complete raw data set available for download, so people could crunch the numbers in whatever ways they preferred.

There were a lot of responses (Paul covers one here). From many of them, you would think Howey had advocated cooking and eating babies. Mike Shatzkin complained about Howey’s “agenda” (immediately drawing fire from J.A. Konrath). People (such as this blogger from Dear Author) complained that the figures weren’t complete, that he was making some very iffy guesses, and basically that this apple wasn’t, in fact, an orange, when Howey had never tried to claim it was. Writer and blogger Courtney Milan expressed skepticism because she couldn’t seem to get Howey’s numbers to match up for her own books.

Passive Guy, the blogger over at The Passive Voice, has been bemused by the large number of “overwrought” responses Howey’s post has engendered. Voices speaking for the publishing industry seem to be throwing tantrums:

Indie authors just can’t, can’t, can’t be selling more ebooks anywhere on Amazon than tradpub is. Indie bestsellers just can’t, can’t, can’t be making more money that tradpub authors are. They just can’t.

The vitriol and mathematical illiteracy have flowed like half-priced beer during Happy Hour.

Perhaps the greatest lesson to take away from all this is one that does not rely on the specific nuances of the numbers Howey crunched. It’s a more general realization, summed up by blogger J.W. Manus (found via the Passive Voice): no matter what the percentages are, it’s abundantly clear there are plenty of people making a go of self-publishing now, in ways that simply were not possible before e-books and especially the Kindle.

From The Passive Voice intro to the above:

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/02/20...rnings-report/

Passive Guy would add that publishers don’t have to lose all the good authors to self-publishing to be harmed, perhaps fatally.

Trade publishing is a narrow-margin business with high fixed overhead, primarily salaries and rent. It is also absolutely reliant on bestsellers. If a publisher manages to grab a Hunger Games or Fifty Shades, it has a great year or, with sequels and movie deals, several great years. Since the majority of books break even or lose money, those bestsellers are the difference between profit and loss.

The Author Earnings report focused on ebook bestsellers.

Big Publishing is psychically invested in the idea that indie books are those that BP could never have made money on.

If indie books aren’t bestsellers or if BP can grab the one-in-a-million indie author who somehow emerges from the primeval swamp and sells well, then the future of Big Publishing looks pretty much like the past did.

However, if the next Fifty Shades or Hunger Games starts indie and stays indie, the sun is setting on the publishing empire. The bean-counters at the big media conglomerates that own Big Publishing will send the band home and shut off the lights or, perhaps even worse, move the party to a Chuck E. Cheese in New Jersey.

The reason that Hugh and Author Earnings have generated such a hissy-fit in the publishing establishment is because they have intimated that which must not be spoken: Bestsellers ≠ Big Publishing.

Whatever the accuracy of the numbers, a lot of people have gotten awfully defensive now that the "volcano of crap" meme has vaporized.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This whole kerfuffle has gotten silly. Silly internet kerfuffles are a dime a dozen.

It became silly the moment Howey put to paper (or computer) that his data was given to him by an anonymous source.

I do find it ironic, though, that the bulk of Shatzkin's "refutation" (quotation marks used only to stay in the spirit of his writing technique) of Howey's public analysis of scraped public data lies firmly ensconced behind a paywall.

What paywall was that? Is there more than what I read on Shatzkin's idealog.com blog?

Another silly part is that Shatzkin's actual conclusions aren't radically different from those of Howey, who over and over says his data is for genre books only.

Shatzkin:

So my advice about Hugh Howey’s advice is simple. Totally ignore it if you’re not a genre fiction author; there’s precious little evidence or thinking in it that applies to you. And if you are a genre author, be very clear about the extra work and extra risk you take on in order to get some extra margin. Both will be required for sure whether the extra margin materializes or not.

Self-publishing is definitely an incredible boon to commercial writers and they should all understand how it works.

Originally Posted by gmw

The report presents actual data to support what has, in the past, only been given as anecdotal evidence.

It does come down to the research standards you want to apply. If Howey presented his findings here, in a series of posts, I'd say he was a terrific poster (especially if he left out the bit on the anonymous author/programmer). But if the same stuff was published in a peer reviewed venue (say, the Journal of Marketing), I'd say it was a scientific scandal.

Weak science is only the slightest bit better than no science.