Quote:
Originally Posted by ondabeach
The services you mention are common to all eBook library sites. Where the similarities end are: Our cut is (15% AFTER PayPals fee of (2.9% + 30 cents)), The AUTHOR gets the rest!
|
Yes, with your model the "author gets the rest." However, your site is also not paying advances, you aren't paying the editor's salary, you aren't marketing the book, and so forth. Or to put it another way, you are pushing the expenses that are typically handled by the publisher onto the author (if they choose to spend it). If handled professionally, we're talking about thousands of dollars of services.
Now, to be clear, I don't think there is anything ethically wrong with your model. Self-publishing can work for some individuals, and I presume they can pull their books at any time. The problem is that when the barrier to entry is drastically lowered, quality goes down, the huge volume of releases turns into a ton of noise, and the author has no additional resources to increase the quality of their work, let alone rise above the noise, let alone draw readers from the plethora of competition for that reader's time. And this lack of resources, combined with a lack of skill and experience, is why "zomg the writer does it all and gets it all" is not likely to truly rule the landscape in the future. Audiences will want big hits; retailers will want to sell the hits; authors and publishers will still be willing to take risks to provide the hits.
So your model, while it may seem "fairer" for the writers, doesn't offer more than just distribution -- which is one of the cheapest parts of the process when it comes to electronic goods. You don't take much, but you don't really offer much either. Traditional publishers have lower royalty rates, but offer resources and take financial risks on titles. Ergo, it is fallacious IMO to categorically proclaim that "all publishers are rapists, thieves and fiends" because they expect to earn a profit from their efforts.
In most cases, the royalty rates are in the same neighborhood as the publisher's profit margins (10-15%). As a result yes, IMO if the author freely chooses to sign the contract, and everyone fulfills their obligations, it's a fair deal. Unless, of course, you believe it is fundamentally unfair that some writers are more popular than others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ondabeach
Ever heard of the carrot on a stick, we would never insult your intelligence by dangling what is in effect for 99.98% of aspiring authors an unatainable goal in front of your eyes.
|
OK, so how exactly is paying the author a large sum in advance of selling the book a matter of "dangling a carrot?" In many ways it's more beneficial for a writer to get an advance up front, as it allows them the financial breathing space to write.
Or perhaps you mean, "very few writers get to the point where they can command an advance." If that's the case, anyone who gets into writing to make a fortune is decidedly in the wrong business and/or will get drummed out pretty quickly. But that's the case with pretty much every desirable profession (creative, athletic, etc). And really, I see even less hope for earning a basic living as a self-published author than if you work with a formal publisher.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ondabeach
[There are no self-publishing stars]....only because the technology to allow effective marketing on a global scale with a shoestring budget simply didn't exist...
|
Uh huh. The technology has existed in the music biz for nigh on 10 years, and no luck there yet.
When writers can start from scratch and make a living off of services like yours, let me know and I'll be glad to revise my opinions on the advantages of formal publishers. What can I say, I think it's gonna be awhile.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ondabeach
If only 1% of manuscripts written have ever been published and only 2% of those ever made any money for the author then something is definitely amiss.
|
Why?
Oh, and let's be a little more accurate first. The current claim is that 7 out of 10 books do not earn back the advance for the author. However, that is just as much a result of the increasing sizes of the advances as a comment on book sales or royalties; e.g. you can get a $50k advance, sell 90k copies, generate a healthy return for the publisher, and still not earn back your advance. But you still got that $50k up front (plus all the other services), rather than wait 6+ months to collect.
Meanwhile, reader's tastes are superbly fickle; "sure things" are exceedingly rare, even for prominent and successful authors like James Patterson. Very few publishers (or movie execs or record execs or what have you) really know what will sell, let alone how to truly nurture talent. And yes, that is a critical skill -- and why some writers, who have the good luck to work with a good editor, stick with the system. Same for just about everyone who worked with Clive Davis, who unquestionably helped many musicians in their careers (as they themselves will gladly admit). And even someone as good as Davis will have backed more than a few clunkers.
And last but not least: If your book isn't selling well, why exactly should the author be rewarded? Did I miss something, perhaps Backwards Macroeconomics 101?
I.e. a low success rate in a creative endeavor like this is rather typical, and isn't much of a source of condemnation of the system as a whole.