Hugh Howey presents: Amazon author earnings

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Could be a hellmouth. Is there a sulfur smell?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But I don't search for books randomly. The same techniques that I use to select traditionally published books work for selecting self-published books work: word of mouth, reviews, etc. If you never notice the ash and lava, is there really a volcano?

How do people find stuff on the internet?
On youtube?
On cable?
On Netflix?
How do people find their way here?
There's no bigger volcano of content than the internet but people still manage to find stuff to their liking. It won't be the same stuff for everybody but everybody will find something to their taste. The only people who insist gatekeepers are essential are the gatekeepers.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Nowadays, though, the odds are getting better...

That's hard to imagine given how the number of books released goes up every year, both in toto, and, especially, taking self-published only.

Consider:

the number of self-published titles in 2012 jumped to more than 391,000, up 59 percent over 2011 and 422 percent over 2007.

So it seems to me that every year, the odds must be getting worse.

The lesson here for Hugh-Howey-and-friend type research is that even if it was valid, it might be of historical interest only.

Unless the self-pub authors here actually want more competitors, the last thing you should desire is for Howey to be believed. Don't you have enough competition already? Now, I'm not saying you should denounce good science just because it goes against your interests. But junk science? Why not?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The only people who insist gatekeepers are essential are the gatekeepers.

And those who can't see the obsidian for the basalt.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

So it seems to me that every year, the odds must be getting worse.

That is zero-sum thinking.

What is *still* happening is that the market is growing; the pie is still getting bigger. Even the BPHs are growing revenue. At this point in time, the more good indie books out there--the more indie authors active--the more people will accept indie books. That benefits readers and authors. Once people get over the whole volcano of crap smokescreen we can all get down to the serious business of reading.

Even when/if the pie stops growing, the shift of revenue from publishers to authors will continue; that is what Howey is reporting and that is what brands him a heretic.

Readers get more books for their money, authors get more money for their books. What's not to like?

[Lemurion]

While we don't have numbers, and I think it would be almost impossible to quantify anyway, I personally think the average level of writing skill has remained relatively constant over the years.

If that's indeed the case, then the chances are very good that the ratio of good self-published books to bad ones has also remained relatively constant. As more books are published, we get more good ones, more average ones, and more bad ones in roughly the same proportions. Therefore, we can reasonably expect that the number of good self-published books is growing at the same rate as the market.

If that's the case, then what we need to do is see how the rate at which good self-published books get onto the best-seller charts compares to the rate at which the market is growing. If the rate of penetration is increasing faster than the rate at which the field is growing, then the odds would appear to be getting better. If the rate of penetration is increasing more slowly than the field is growing, then the odds are getting worse, even if self-published books are taking an ever-larger piece of the best-seller pie.

Odds are relative numbers, totals are absolute. Without some way to link them you can't derive one from the other, and I've seen no evidence from any of these studies that they've successfully linked the two.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The problem with using "volcano of crap" to describe self-published books is that it is really hard to avoid the bad stuff that spews from a volcano, while it is quite easy to avoid the bad stuff that comes from self-published books. [...]

I think this is one of the most positive things to come from the reports. They make it clear that readers are at least as good at gate-keeping as the big publishing houses. Sure, some things will still be missed, and sure, there will still be many things that sell in big numbers that some of us just don't understand, but it's not like it was any different when big publishing held the keys to the only door in town.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The problem with using "volcano of crap" to describe self-published books is that it is really hard to avoid the bad stuff that spews from a volcano, while it is quite easy to avoid the bad stuff that comes from self-published books. If Mount Vesuvius spewed forth some diamonds in addition to all that ash, it would be a monumental task to find those diamonds. If I had to randomly search through self-published to find the good ones, it would indeed be analogous to a volcano.

But I don't search for books randomly. The same techniques that I use to select traditionally published books work for selecting self-published books work: word of mouth, reviews, etc. If you never notice the ash and lava, is there really a volcano?

The issue that comes from the "volcano of crap" metaphor is not that you can't find more than enough good books to read, but the number of good books that you never find. Those are the ones that are masked.

Originally Posted by gmw

I think this is one of the most positive things to come from the reports. They make it clear that readers are at least as good at gate-keeping as the big publishing houses. Sure, some things will still be missed, and sure, there will still be many things that sell in big numbers that some of us just don't understand, but it's not like it was any different when big publishing held the keys to the only door in town.

Unfortunately, the numbers don't show that readers are at least as good as gatekeepers as the agency/BPH model. They may be better, they may be worse, but you can't tell from the numbers we've got.

If we assume that the overall level of writer skill remains constant, then we can postulate that the average quality of manuscripts submitted to publishers and agents is the same as that of those which are self-published, so they get the same proportion of good/average/bad manuscripts in the door.

Then we just see what proportion of total BPH submissions makes the top 7,000 list and compare that to the proportion all self-published books that make the same list.

If the BPH's get a higher proportion of their submissions into the top 7,000 list, then they're doing a better job. If the proportion of all self-published books that gets into the top 7,000 is higher, then they're doing a better job.

It's a rough figure, and I can see tons of problems with it, but it at least addresses the question of which is a better method of gatekeeping.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

[...]Unfortunately, the numbers don't show that readers are at least as good as gatekeepers as the agency/BPH model. They may be better, they may be worse, but you can't tell from the numbers we've got. [...]

I was commenting from a reader's perspective rather than a writer's. As a writer, the fact that my books aren't in that top percentage might make me say the gatekeeping is working poorly indeed. But as a reader, I can see that independently published books are well represented in that top percentage - so readers are obviously voting with their dollars. They are not automatically ignoring books because they're independently published, they are not completely missing independently published books because they don't have the much vaunted representation and marketing of the big publishers.

People will always differ in their opinions on what deserves to be in that top percentage - that has always been true. But sales of popular fiction has always been about exactly that - what is popular. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the text or story beyond what it takes to be popular. This was no different even when traditional publishing was the only game in town. The distribution shows that independently published works are finding their respective places at the top of this popularity contest in similar proportions to works from big publishers. The gatekeeping is working ... but that doesn't mean we will feel any better about being on the wrong side of the gate.

[Ken.Hagdal]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Unless the self-pub authors here actually want more competitors, the last thing you should desire is for Howey to be believed. Don't you have enough competition already?

Past a certain threshold, which is far behind us, it all just adds to the background noise.

Regarding the "volcano of crap" metaphor, some people should be careful what they wish for. The day when self-publishers get a website that acts as a trustworthy gatekeeper, a good deal of people in the trad publishing industry will be laughing no more.

It could be a crowd-sourced site, like Metal Archives for the metal scene. (The site publishes reviews of albums picked by fans, from the praises of an unsung gem released exclusively on tape in 250 copies in the late 80's by a long-dead label, through the righteous nuking of Metallica's Lulu, to their heart-felt opinion of the latest album by their favorite bands)

There's a bit of that in Goodreads. The big differences being it's not 100% reviews and devoted to indies, which seriously blunts its impact in this context.

It could also be run by folks with legitimate clout in the industry. Kirkus ruined the opportunity by asking authors to pay $400+ for a review, with all the conflict of interest it entails. From what I've heard, Publisher weekly seems to be doing a better job. They only review submission on a discretionary basis, and are said to be pretty harsh, which is exactly what is needed.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That is zero-sum thinking.

What is *still* happening is that the market is growing; the pie is still getting bigger. Even the BPHs are growing revenue.

I don't dismiss this kind of possibility. It seems plausible that as baby boomers retire, they get more time to read, while tiring of video games, television and Facebook. But is it really true? Here's a data point that says otherwise:

U.S. Book Sales Declined in 2011 Despite Rise in E-Books

If someone writes a greatly loved book in a certain genre, this should help the sales of books by another author perceived to be similar. So individual authors aren't necessarily playing a zero-sum game. But, overall, when more books are released, the average sales per released book is going to go down.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The only people who insist gatekeepers are essential are the gatekeepers.

What about the many non-fiction authors who, I keep reading in acknowledgements, consider their agents and editors essential in keeping up the quality of their work?

There always have been lots of self-publication marketplace failures and, as shown here, some self-publication bestsellers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-pu...d_best-sellers

To authors whose manuscripts get rejection letters, or are ignored, I can see how publishers can feel like gatekeepers. But to me as a reader, the real gatekeepers are the editors who decide which books will be reviewed in places like the New York Review of Books and New York Times.

Those editors tend to ignore genre fiction, regardless of publication type. One probable reason genre fiction does relatively well for self-publishers is that there never were any authoritative gatekeepers.