LA Times: Joe Konrath can't wait for his books to go out of print.

[RockdaMan]

Then he can sell them himself and make more money.

hardly a month goes by without a well-known writer taking the leap or declaring an intention to do so.

In addition to Konrath, bestselling author Seth Godin, science fiction writer Greg Bear and action novelist David Morrell recently have used Internet tools to put their works online themselves. Earlier this year, suspense master Stephen King, Brazilian novelist Paulo Coelho and Stephen Covey, the author of bestselling self-help books, self-published some of their works exclusively on Amazon's Kindle bookstore.

Godin, the author of a dozen books on marketing, including "Purple Cow" and "The Dip," cut ties to Penguin Group Inc. in August. This month, he announced plans to self-publish a series of "idea manifestos" on Amazon.com.

Godin, 50, said he realized that he no longer needed a publisher to distribute his work or to find an audience: He had cultivated a following of millions through his blog and speaking tours.

"If an author has the choice of two distribution models, one that costs nothing and has no gatekeeper and the other has lots of gatekeepers and costs a lot of money, a lot of people will go with the free one," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...901,full.story

[GA Russell]

Interesting article. Thanks for the link!

[Steven Lake]

Ya know, this is interesting. If the big guys are turning to self publishing for all their books, I think it signals an end to the big publishers. Because if more and more authors find out that they don't need a big house to get their books published, and ebooks take over as the dominant form of book, a lot of authors will stop trying to beat pointlessly on the big gilded doors. Heck, I'm one of those guys who went self published, and then small house rather than big house too, and I'm glad I did. Screw the big houses and their "your book is ours to destroy as we please" overlords. :P

[taming]

It will be interesting to see what happens when "big" authors reach the end of their current contracts, for sure.

[JSWolf]

If they are going to go Amazon exclusively, all I can say is I hope they fail bigger then they could ever imagine.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Ya know, this is interesting. If the big guys are turning to self publishing for all their books, I think it signals an end to the big publishers....

Perhaps. But big authors have long had the resources to work without the publishers; James Patterson in particular has absolutely no need to work with Little Brown. Yet they still continue to do so. H'mmm

I suspect that the big publishers are going to offer advantages to authors for a long time.

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

I'm one of those guys who went self published, and then small house rather than big house too, and I'm glad I did. Screw the big houses and their "your book is ours to destroy as we please" overlords. :P

I hate to break this to you, but "small" does not guarantee "ethical."

A small publisher may well be a better fit for an author with modest sales. However small publishers don't always have the resources, contacts or industry pull to boost an author's sales. And there's always the risk that they can go under, which could leave their authors and older books in limbo.

Also, let's face it, lots of authors are highly motivated to get advances that are far beyond the reach of smaller publishers, as well as aim for a national reach and/or big sales. For better and for worse, those authors are better served by larger publishers.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If they are going to go Amazon exclusively, all I can say is I hope they fail bigger then they could ever imagine.

Why does that matter?

Exclusives are a part of retail. If the author freely chooses to work exclusively with one retailer, that's their concern. There is still so much competition that it's not likely to give Amazon a permanent lock on the market, either.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Why does that matter?

Exclusives are a part of retail. If the author freely chooses to work exclusively with one retailer, that's their concern. There is still so much competition that it's not likely to give Amazon a permanent lock on the market, either.

It would be interesting to know what deal Amazon gave their exclusive authors: while these guys are doing without their publishing houses (not by choice at least in Konrath's case, although he may be happy he was dumped), they are not in the same boat as most people who self-publish through Amazon, etc.

But I would hope exclusives don't become too widespread; driving to another retailer is much easier than having to buy a new reader.

[bhartman36]

What does self-publishing do to the editing process? My suspicion is that it's mostly a negative impact. I've downloaded a lot of self-published things from the Kindle store, and a lot of it is pretty bad. (Certainly, not all of it, of course.) There's something to be said for having some kind of gatekeeper that's willing to say no to bad writing.

I guess my question is, is this going to have a bad impact on the signal to noise ratio? It's not an issue for established writers, of course, but it makes a difference to newcomers.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But I would hope exclusives don't become too widespread; driving to another retailer is much easier than having to buy a new reader.

This concerns me, too. I could easily see Amazon and Apple getting into a pissing match on who can get the most exclusive deals with authors, should Apple choose to get more serious with its iBooks store.

[Fbone]

Also, how does going online only serve the physical bookstore shoppers and public library visitors?

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Also, how does going online only serve the physical bookstore shoppers and public library visitors?

The what, now??

[Steven Lake]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Also, let's face it, lots of authors are highly motivated to get advances that are far beyond the reach of smaller publishers, as well as aim for a national reach and/or big sales. For better and for worse, those authors are better served by larger publishers.

Meh, I could care less about advances. My goal is to write great books, sell lots of copies, and share my stories with the world. If I don't see an advance because I go with a small house, then so be it. I don't *need* an advance. Yes, they're nice, but I'd rather prove myself with actual sales than someone giving me cash on the assumption that I'll do good.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

There's something to be said for having some kind of gatekeeper that's willing to say no to bad writing.

Call me silly for thinking like this, but I have a suspicion that as self publishing grows, as well as the number of indie authors, someone (or several someone's) is going to appear on the horizon that will become that "gatekeeper" by creating a certificate/title/sticker/whatever system that only gets awarded to good books.

Sorta like having the "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval, but for books. It may not happen right away, but give it time and I bet you'll find that someone does step up and fill that void. Will they be a pay service that indie authors submit their books to for review? Yeah, they probably would. But if they're anything like these couple of pay to review groups I've seen who take the book, and regardless of the fact that they were paid to review it, they give the best and most honest score the book deserves. I forget their name, but there's a couple like that out there.

Heck, I saw one of them one time give a book a one star rating even though he'd paid for their review. So if they'll do that, I know they produce good, honest ratings. So who knows, they may end up being the future gatekeepers you talk about.

[CommonReader]

A very US-centric view as usual.

The really big names among authors will surely not abandon the publishers for the following reasons:

- the global book market is still dominated by paper books. Therefore you need publishers that print books, deliver them to the bookshops and make sure that they are getting nice shelf space.
- the huge influence of Amazon on the book market is very much a US phenomenon (perhaps Canada as well, don't know). The book retail market in other countries is often more fragmented or dominated by bricks & mortar chains. These want paper books as ebooks are still more of a side line
- do authors really want to handle issues like commissioning translations etc. on their own?

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Call me silly for thinking like this, but I have a suspicion that as self publishing grows, as well as the number of indie authors, someone (or several someone's) is going to appear on the horizon that will become that "gatekeeper" by creating a certificate/title/sticker/whatever system that only gets awarded to good books.

Sorta like having the "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval, but for books. It may not happen right away, but give it time and I bet you'll find that someone does step up and fill that void. Will they be a pay service that indie authors submit their books to for review? Yeah, they probably would. But if they're anything like these couple of pay to review groups I've seen who take the book, and regardless of the fact that they were paid to review it, they give the best and most honest score the book deserves. I forget their name, but there's a couple like that out there.

Heck, I saw one of them one time give a book a one star rating even though he'd paid for their review. So if they'll do that, I know they produce good, honest ratings. So who knows, they may end up being the future gatekeepers you talk about.

I think the question that has to be asked is, how will the volume be handled? I read the NY Times Book Review, but that obviously represents only a small fraction of the books out there. I don't think having even several dozen reviewers that you look to will be enough to tell you if a particular book is any good. The book might be great, but it might just have never gotten on any particular reviewer's radar.

As for paid reviews: I don't see how they're reliable. Money is a pretty good incentive to give a good (or at least kind) review. The question always would need to be asked: How would the book be reviewed if it wasn't being paid for? Think about this for a minute: If you're an author looking to have your book reviewed, and you just got done reading a review where the writer basically excoriated a book, would you be lining up to have that reviewer assess your book? You might do it if you'd read the book yourself, and thought the reviewer was fair, but what if you hadn't? I think that if your business model relies on authors paying you to review their books, then bad reviews are bad for business. How many one star reviews will a reviewer be able to hand out before people stop sending him/her books?