$.99 eBook becomes biggest earner

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

But once they've done that, they don't charge more for the exquisitely well-written, lingers-in-your-mind-for-decades books. The ones that will change the lives of readers and the ones that will be read once, pondered for fifteen minutes, and then forgotten, are side-by-side on the shelf, with the same sticker price if they came off the press at the same time.

Yes, once the minimum standard of quality is presumably met, there's no further differentiation by price.

Why? Because self-publishing authors will only charge more than $5 if the book is very good, and will know that poorly-written unedited drafts are only worth $1? My research hasn't shown that to be true.

It has nothing to do with the author's perception of quality, but the reader's willingness to gamble on the unknown. The lower the price, the more likely the customer is to buy an unknown--at least, that's my opinion. I don't know if the self-published book is even written in complete sentences with the words spelled correctly. I assume that the book from a mainstream publisher will be.

I'm certainly more willing to take a chance on a $1-3 book by an unknown author. But that doesn't mean I believe an ebook offered for $7 is more likely to entertain me, nor do I automatically believe that it's more likely to have been carefully edited, proofread, and formatted. Indeed, what I've seen is that a lot of would-be pro authors who believe they are too "edgy" for mainstream publication price their books as high or higher than mass-market paperbacks, on the theory that they are "worth" that much.

I expect the careful editing, proofreading, and formatting from a real publisher. They have their reputation to uphold. With a self-published book, it's a total crapshoot. Plus I make the assumption that a person generally does not self-publish as a first choice.

And I can't speak for objective value, only my limits: $6 for non-DRM'd fiction ebooks. $3 for authors I don't know. Not because "no ebook is worth more than that," but because I'm certain I can find endless content I will enjoy reading for that price or less, and have no need to pay more.

I don't have any hard and fast limits for what I will pay for a book I want, as long as it's from a mainstream publisher or university press. I am unlikely to go near a self-published book even if it's free, except in rare circumstances.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I expect the careful editing, proofreading, and formatting from a real publisher. They have their reputation to uphold. With a self-published book, it's a total crapshoot. Plus I make the assumption that a person generally does not self-publish as a first choice.

You realize, of course, that this is mildly insulting to those of us who do self-publish, and are very careful to edit and proof our work?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You realize, of course, that this is mildly insulting to those of us who do self-publish, and are very careful to edit and proof our work?

What was insulting? "crapshot" I thought meant that you could find carefully edited books but that they were not a large proportion.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You realize, of course, that this is mildly insulting to those of us who do self-publish, and are very careful to edit and proof our work?

I don't know that ahead of time, and I'm not willing to spend the time or money to find out. That's my choice as a reader, just as some others choose not to spend money on Agency books, or books above a certain price point.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You realize, of course, that this is mildly insulting to those of us who do self-publish, and are very careful to edit and proof our work?

hey Steve,

How about the writers getting together and agreeing on a "logo" for those authors who do like you editing and proofing your own books? If it's attached to some sort of association of indie authors then you can protect it as a trademark preventing those who's works aren't "certified proof'd & edited" or whatever it could be tagged.

I know it's a slippery slope plus the whole idea of authors agreeing could be a topic for some cheesy horror SF or even an episode of Colombo or Monk. So, there is a suggestion from the peanut gallery.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tompe

What was insulting?

Perhaps it was the idea that we don't self-publish as first choice.

It's a new era. eBooks and the Internet are changing things, and there are a heck of a lot of good reasons to self-publish an eBook as first choice now.

Perhaps it's a little different for self-publishing print books via a vanity press or the like, and certainly there will be a lot of chaff among the wheat, but I'd say self-publishing an ebook rather than doing the possibly-years-long agent/publisher contract route is akin to a film maker going out and actually making his movie and showing it, rather than trying to get a deal with a studio first.

The audience will propel you to success or bury you in obscurity on the basis of your work, not on the whim of a publishing house gatekeeper.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

Perhaps it was the idea that we don't self-publish as first choice.

It's a new era. eBooks and the Internet are changing things, and there are a heck of a lot of good reasons to self-publish an eBook as first choice now.

Perhaps it's a little different for self-publishing print books via a vanity press or the like, and certainly there will be a lot of chaff among the wheat, but I'd say self-publishing an ebook rather than doing the possibly-years-long agent/publisher contract route is akin to a film maker going out and actually making his movie and showing it, rather than trying to get a deal with a studio first.

The audience will propel you to success or bury you in obscurity on the basis of your work, not on the whim of a publishing house gatekeeper.

The fact that anyone and everyone can write a book and make it available to the masses nowadays makes the gatekeepers more important, not less so. What you call "whim," I call quality control.

Of course there are probably a few gems among all the self-published books. But I don't have the time or the inclination to look for them.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The fact that anyone and everyone can write a book and make it available to the masses nowadays makes the gatekeepers more important, not less so. What you call "whim," I call quality control.

Of course there are probably a few gems among all the self-published books. But I don't have the time or the inclination to look for them.

Taste might be subjective, but I doubt that the ratio of quality to garbage has changed at all now that any and everyone can publish. There are increasing amounts of both.

My personal view is that there is far less trash on the marketplace now. Trash books are those tossed out by the publishers for the sole purpose of profit, Garbage books are those put out by anyone, but destined for the bin. The purpose of publishing a Garbage book is sincere.

We need more gatekeepers, A LOT MORE. In the new era even you are expected to act as one.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ApK

Perhaps it was the idea that we don't self-publish as first choice.

Even J.A. Konrath went into self-publishing when he was dropped by his publisher.

It's a new era. eBooks and the Internet are changing things, and there are a heck of a lot of good reasons to self-publish an eBook as first choice now.

And it's also a great option if you can't get a publishing deal.

Perhaps it's a little different for self-publishing print books via a vanity press or the like, and certainly there will be a lot of chaff among the wheat, but I'd say self-publishing an ebook rather than doing the possibly-years-long agent/publisher contract route is akin to a film maker going out and actually making his movie and showing it, rather than trying to get a deal with a studio first.

The audience will propel you to success or bury you in obscurity on the basis of your work, not on the whim of a publishing house gatekeeper.

Let's be honest. The gatekeeping function that publishers provide is a very valuable service. Pretending that it's just a "whim" - that self-published books, as a whole, are as good as published books, as a whole, makes me wonder whether you've ever really looked at the self published crap out there. If you exclude already published authors (including authors making their formerly published backlists available) 90, maybe 95% of self published books are just bad. Embarrassingly bad unedited fan fiction, or else extremely derivative and poorly written genre novels.

This is the dreck that many people don't want to wade through to get to the few self-published books that might be as good as published material. The thing about books is that you have to read them. I, like a lot of people who buy books, am much less concerned about the cost of the book than I am about wasting my valuable free time reading something that is bad. Or mediocre. Or even not good.

If I'm lucky, I get to read one book a week; usually it's less than that. I don't want to risk my valuable reading time on something that was either not good enough to be published, or else that someone didn't bother to try and publish. There are 270,000 books published by traditional publishers in the US every year. 270,000. And it can be hard enough finding enough of those books that are genuinely good. (I read a lot of classics, which are a safer bet, though). I don't see any point in significantly decreasing my odds of finding a worthwhile book by digging in the slush pile to find something readable.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by ApK

Perhaps it's a little different for self-publishing print books via a vanity press or the like,

Whenever people talk about self-publishing the vanity press will be the elephant in the room, and it's best to get that out in the open rather than dance around it. Vanity publishing has had such a corrosive effect on readers' perceptions that it will remain your primary barrier for a long time.

Anyone who knows much about the publishing trade knows that editors don't pick books based on literary merit - they pick the books they think they can sell, so publishing is not, in fact, providing the sort of gatekeeping role they used to. But readers still want some sort of gatekeeper, and that's a reasonable desire. Reviews, particularly from other authors who are established in the field (and whose books a prospective reader might already have enjoyed) are probably the best way of fulfilling this need.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by charleski

Anyone who knows much about the publishing trade knows that editors don't pick books based on literary merit - they pick the books they think they can sell, so publishing is not, in fact, providing the sort of gatekeeping role they used to.

To be fair, I think the latter type of gate keeping is enough for most of us.
Speaking of novels at least, I don't want to read a book because it will be a classic in 10 years, I want to read a good story. Stuff sells because we want to buy it.

An editor friend of mine said she couldn't read Stephen King books because she felt compelled to go through them with a red pencil.

But I like them, so I buy them.

That being said, thanks to a local used book store, I've been able to try a fairly large number of books just based on a cool cover pic or the stuff written on the back, and the remarkable number of books I've found to be unreadable leads me to believe that whatever the gate keepers motives, they don't serve my interests any better than the 1000s of reader/reviewers on Amazon, and maybe not as well. So I feel no more likely to be wasting my time in trying a self-published ebook with good reviews than I'd be trying an unknown paperback from a traditional publisher.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Even J.A. Konrath went into self-publishing when he was dropped by his publisher.


And it's also a great option if you can't get a publishing deal.

Of course.
The implied insult would be that the work must not be any good, else it would have been traditionally published.

I don't think that's true.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You realize, of course, that this is mildly insulting to those of us who do self-publish, and are very careful to edit and proof our work?

Yet, Steve, at least one self-publisher proudly has proclaimed on his copyright page that he doesn't bother editing or proofreading because he is such a good writer (NOT!).

The problem is that the choices for readers on places like Smashwords are increasing daily exponentially, but there is no way to really tell beforehand that at least a modicum of editing and proofreading was done.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by charleski

Reviews, particularly from other authors who are established in the field (and whose books a prospective reader might already have enjoyed) are probably the best way of fulfilling this need.

This is exactly why I subscribe to the New York Review of Books. I have found their reviews to be detailed and informative. I don't always agree, but I do get the good and the bad in one of their reviews.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ApK

An editor friend of mine said she couldn't read Stephen King books because she felt compelled to go through them with a red pencil.

But I like them, so I buy them.

But even your editor friend would agree that although King's books are not grammatically perfect or necessarily developed the best they could be, they are eminently better edited than many other available books. I happen to agree with your editor friend as regards King, but I would never tell you not to buy his books because they are unreadable. And King does know the difference between there and their, seen and scene -- something many authors seem (seam -- ) not to.