Interesting article on book pricing and why it might rise

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It wasn't much better than what you quote from Making Light.

Really? 10% good enough to just print and another 10% that can be printed after editing isn't much better than 1-5% that could be printed, but only a fraction will get bought by the publisher where they were submitted?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The people submitting to Asimov's and Amazing were all targeting the same limited market, and had at least some idea of what the market was and what they should submit.

And you don't think that that should be the norm?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

No, they submit because they think they did a good job and an editor will buy it. Many of those same folks shriek loudly at editorial suggestions for changes. They can't handle the idea that their deathless prose might not be up to snuff as submitted.

OK, I get your point.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

After various hemming and hawing, the other panelists admitted that yes, the occasional rejection slip still arrived. If Hal Clement, SFWA Grandmaster, could admit he got rejected...

And he got back on the horse and wrote another book.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Because writing is a process. What I write now is better than what I wrote 10 years ago.

And I assume that 10 years ago you didn't make much out of writing.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

A good editor (and there are plot editors, copyeditors and so on) has a wealth of talent--not only do they understand good plots, they are well-read in SEVERAL genres. So they know an over-used trope. They also know a unique spin. They can spot lazy writing and nudge a writer to improve or make a scene dynamic.

So many new authors don't understand good plots, aren't well-read and can be lazy at times. And you think that they should make enough money from writing to be able to dedicate all of their time to this so that they can get better in time. Sure.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I've been fortunate to have had a beta reader say, "You know this is a good ending, but. I think it could be more." It was a good ending. But that comment pushed me to think about how to make it a great one.

And you can put that up on your wall, and be able to get motivated without help. But tell me this: do you like the Disney version of Cinderella? I'm sure that from many points of view it is better than the original, but not from mine.
Your readers will only get one ending to your story, and if the editor gives it to you, it isn't your ending anymore.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Most writers don't have sloppiness due to lack of training or due to lack of trying. We have sloppiness or errors due to reading it too many times. Due to focusing in on our own pet peeves. I know what I meant to write and THAT is what I see--it just might not actually be the words that showed up on the computer screen. And yes. I can misread that same paragraph 12 or 13 times. My editor reads it once. And apparently it glares...

So you are saying that if you are told that there won't be an editor this time, you won't say: wait, let me read it again?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm biased. I want to see my friends survive and prosper. I have some idea of the skill required to do what they do. When I see posts that suggest their actions have no value, and should be omitted in the service of providing cheaper ebooks, I'm not sympathetic. My reaction tends to be "What do you do for a living? How would you feel about suggestions you should be paid less, or perhaps dispensed with entirely, in service of your employer being able to provide goods/services cheaper?" Of course, they're different. Such concerns shouldn't apply to them...

In too many cases, I don't see concerned consumers. I see people who want something for nothing or very little, and are unconcerned with what might be necessary to bring that about.

And from the other side it looks different. People *are* getting payed less and perhaps dispensed with entirely. And what does the publishing industry do? They increase the prices, and they don't allow discounts on ebooks.

When asked about the prices, they say that the costs are too big. And why? Well, not because of the printing, and not because of the royalties, but because there are so many people working in between. Before I came to this forum I assumed that writers were the kind of people that knew how to spell without the need of spell-check, but I guess I was wrong. And as much as some can't be bothered to use the spell-check tool, they also can't be bothered to check what kind of books a publisher prints.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

One definition of "greed" is "inappropriate expectations". I see lots of comments about producer greed. Oddly, I don't see any about consumer greed, but it's very real, and a driving factor in economic decisions.

The publishers decided that the way to go was to avoid selling directly to the readers. Why? Because it was cheaper for them. Then they decided that while they don't actually want to have any direct contact with the readers they still want to control how much the people are paying for their books. I call this greed.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Personally, I think that what the folks I know do adds value I'm willing to pay for.

And you want everybody pay as well.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Depends upon the viewpoint. The person involved might set a value on their time in dollars per hour, track hours spent, and assign that as a cost.

With that kind of thinking in mind, how much does it cost you to read a book?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Correct. But from Bean's POV, it's cheap marketing.

And it gives results, which makes it efficient. But hey, it is the other publisher's right to choose a less efficient way to do business.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Good luck. Smaller advances are problematic. Advances are paid based on anticipated sales. Publishers compete for good content. It will be hard to get away with paying smaller advances, especially if you are talking about authors with proven best seller status.

Seeing as what you quoted was the reply to you asking what happens when there is no hardcover, I would have to say that since the royalties are smaller for paperbacks than for hardcovers, it makes sense that the advance will be smaller as well.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

There have been suggestions of ad support in ebooks, too, and someone might try it. But the basic issue is that the supply of ad dollars is finite. Advertisers are increasingly focused on results. The question will be "Did the ad sell the product?" Ads that don't produce don't get continued. How many ads in ebooks do you think might actually sell products? What pitch would you make to a media buyer at an ad agency to get the placement?

The pitch? Do this for 100 books. Announce that there are 100 books available for $2 courtesy of ..., and then be happy as the buyer will see the name of your company on every page of the book. The more a book gets lent, the more people will see the add.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tompe

The problem with cover as I understood it have been for old book were the publisher did not have the rights to electronically publish the cover.

It's something I was thinking about yesterday.

Up till about the mid 60's, standard practice was that a publisher commissioned a cover from and artists, and bought all rights for a single fee, including keeping the original.

In the mid-60's, an artist's rights movement emerged. Artists wanted to sell reproduction rights, but keep and possibly sell the original to a collector. They also wanted the same deal as writers: if a book gets another printing, the author gets additional royalties. If the artist's cover was reused, the artist wanted additional money, too.

I don't know offhand how ebooks affect the deal with the artist, but it's entirely possible the publisher may not have the right to use the print cover on the ebook. (They could probably negotiate the rights to use it, but it would involve paying an additional fee, and they won't want to spend the money.)
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I understand that authors need to learn some things, and I also understand that they have to write to learn. My initial comment was on the fact that if what they are writing is part of the learning process, they can't expect to make a living out of writing while they are still learning.

No, they should not. But many do.

When I read, I like to see the world through the author's eyes. I consider changes in the line of the plot as interference. If you are doing your job right, you are taking away from my enjoyment of the book.

You have obviously never seen a published manuscript before editing.

And a competent editor seldom messes with the author's plot, unless it is absolutely necessary. There are authors who write wonderful prose, but can't plot to save their lives. Even when an author can plot, an editorial eye can still be immensely useful, to make sure the plot hangs together, catch errors in continuity, and generally add drive to the book.

The general question is "does this scene advance the plot and serve a useful purpose in the book?" The answer is sometimes "no", but the author is too close to the work to realize it.

And now groups 1-7 can self-publish and they will be left at the mercy of potential readers. Since they don't want your opinion anyway, there is less chance that they will want to submit it anyway, so you should have less slush to deal with.

Instead, all the potential readers must deal with wading through the self-published slush, looking for something readable.

But it won't reduce the burden on an editor: many people will still submit to paying markets, because they hope to get paid.

And I stick by my words: I don't think there should be an editor in the first place.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. You will not be happy if you do.
______
Dennis

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

The problem with cover as I understood it have been for old book were the publisher did not have the rights to electronically publish the cover.

This is often the case--which means for backlist the author (or publisher) has to commission a new cover.

Even using photoshop images to get a pro to do the overall artwork (select photo, pay for it and make any changes, put in decent fonts that don't look like they were slapped on) costs at least 100 dollars. There are some artists who will do it for 35 to 50--but they generally have clauses of "no changes." So you tell them what you want, you pay and if you don't like it, too bad. They do this to protect against us authors who change our minds or to just keep the noise level down 'I don't like that font!" For me, that won't ever work because art, like writing, is...well, it probably will require tweaks. I can buy a photo myself (those start at about 30 dollars) or photo elements and fonts--and I'd rather do it myself than be held to 'no changes.' If I want to use more than one piece of clipart...a cover is still going to run me about 100 dollars.

To get decent drawn artwork it starts at 100-150 (and that's if you're finding someone really, really generous) and goes up to about 1500 or so. I don't know of but maybe one writer who has paid in the 1500 range.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. You will not be happy if you do.

Maybe, maybe not.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And I assume that 10 years ago you didn't make much out of writing.


So many new authors don't understand good plots, aren't well-read and can be lazy at times. And you think that they should make enough money from writing to be able to dedicate all of their time to this so that they can get better in time. Sure.


And you can put that up on your wall, and be able to get motivated without help. But tell me this: do you like the Disney version of Cinderella? I'm sure that from many points of view it is better than the original, but not from mine.
Your readers will only get one ending to your story, and if the editor gives it to you, it isn't your ending anymore.


So you are saying that if you are told that there won't be an editor this time, you won't say: wait, let me read it again?

The editor didn't "give" me an ending, the editor said, 'This is a good ending, but I think it could be better."

I took it from there. I studied the problem to find out where it felt "too easy" or was "flat." I thought long and hard about why it might be too simple. And then I got inventive.

We could argue all day long about this topic, but what I am getting here is that you don't have an appreciation for teamwork or learning or changing "original" work. No writer comes out of the womb ready to write his or her best novel. Every person can learn and grow--whether as a writer or a programmer or a waitress. Input from other people helps this process, whether it's a parent teaching the child, a coach pointing out bad habits, or a friend/beta reader/editor GIVING A FRESH PERSPECTIVE. Yes, I could learn on my own--probably a slower process and I might never achieve my potential if I do not expose myself to other ideas. My ideas are not the be-all, end-all. *I* edit them multiple times until *I'm* happy with them. Then an editor might come in and push me to make better word choices. Make me think about what point I was trying to make in a particular paragraph. Point out character traits that just don't fit well or contradict.

I am not an island. Other people enrich my life--and my writing. Yes, some things might actually get worse because of input. I might change an ending that was better the first time around. But that too is part of the process. It's not a zero sum game where one answer is the end-all. When we dance, sometimes we have more energy than other times. Sometimes the dress fits, but sometimes we need a different color.

Was I good enough 10 years ago to make a living writing? There was no mechanism at that time for me to do so (even if I was good enough.) You could say, "But if you were good enough, you'd have been picked up by a trad." Yes, but that still would not have been enough money, at least not initially for me to make a living. So we could go round and round in circles arguing that the very best are plucked from the slush and make a living. But then someone would come along and say, "except for Dan Brown. I don't know why he was picked from the slush. He's not good enough."

Life is not a simple exercise of getting straight A's in school and thus guaranteeing success. I might be writing well enough now to get a trad deal--that may or may not make me enough money to make a living. I might be writing well enough now to sell several thousand copies of my books--and STILL not make a living, but come closer.

10 years ago, I was submitting manuscripts and shorts and getting an occasional sale. What changed is twofold: I kept rewriting and got better AND Amazon made it possible for me to get my work in front of the audience. If Amazon hadn't come along and did what they did, I'd still be submitting--and making only the occasional sale EVEN THOUGH I AM A BETTER WRITER.

So many new authors don't understand good plots, aren't well-read and can be lazy at times. And you think that they should make enough money from writing to be able to dedicate all of their time to this so that they can get better in time. Sure.

You're missing the point. Life is a journey of learning and growth. Any new graduate has to start somewhere and should always move forward, getting better, regardless of their job. I never said writers should be allowed to dedicate all their time to writing to get better. I never said how they should arrive at making a living at all. I said they should keep striving to get better. Should they be allowed to charge for their work? Yes. Is it riskier than say, a engineer, who might not be all that great as a graduate, but he gets paid anyway, just for showing up to work? Yes, writing is riskier because no matter how good or bad, we must find a buyer. The graduate, if he applies himself, gets to keep his job even if he makes mistakes. He is going to continue to learn on the job. He will learn and if he's good, he'll make even more money.

So too with writing--only we don't make much, if any money, for learning. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. I'm just stating the way it is.

But friends and editors do not make me less motivated. I can learn from the best--and the worst. It's all how I decide to apply it.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Really? 10% good enough to just print and another 10% that can be printed after editing isn't much better than 1-5% that could be printed, but only a fraction will get bought by the publisher where they were submitted?

Oh, it's "better". Much better is a judgment call.

I think part of the problem is advances in technology. These days, for example, nobody submits hardcopy. They submit a Word document as an email attachment. An editor may print out a hardcopy to do line edits, as many find circling things that are issues, making marginal notes and the like easier than trying to do it all on screen, but the initial submission is electronic.

My guess is that this leads to an enormously greater number of submissions. It's so easy: all you need is a manuscript and an email sddress to send to.

And you don't think that that should be the norm?

I wish it were the norm. Too many folks these days seem to lack notions like "What market publishes the sort of thing I'm writing?"

OK, I get your point.

Thank you.

And he got back on the horse and wrote another book.

Exactly right. (Though Harry wrote short fiction as well as novels, and likely collected the rejections on those.)

Harry considered himself an SF fan, who just happened to write the stuff professionally. The money he made from writing paid for the SF conventions he liked to attend. His day job was science teacher in a private school, and he'd sometimes bring students to local cons with him.

Give a topic to talk about, and a group of people to talk to, and he was happy.
______
Dennis

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

We could argue all day long about this topic, but what I am getting here is that you don't have an appreciation for teamwork or learning or changing "original" work. No writer comes out of the womb ready to write his or her best novel. Every person can learn and grow--whether as a writer or a programmer or a waitress. Input from other people helps this process, whether it's a parent teaching the child, a coach pointing out bad habits, or a friend/beta reader/editor GIVING A FRESH PERSPECTIVE. Yes, I could learn on my own--probably a slower process and I might never achieve my potential if I do not expose myself to other ideas. My ideas are not the be-all, end-all. *I* edit them multiple times until *I'm* happy with them. Then an editor might come in and push me to make better word choices. Make me think about what point I was trying to make in a particular paragraph. Point out character traits that just don't fit well or contradict.

I do have great appreciation for team work and learning. I see that every day at the university between PhD students and professors. And guess what? It's both their names on the articles, as well as the names of people that they collaborated with. And at the end of the PhD the student will write a thesis and have only his/her name under the title, but the supervisor is still mentioned on the front page, and all the people that helped with the work will be acknowledged.

And while you have great appreciation for all the editors you had, I didn't see you comment on any post that suggested that the best idea is to pirate books and then donate money to the author, because that is the only person that requires recognition.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Oh, it's "better". Much better is a judgment call.

And it was *your* judgment that made that call. You might have missed again the fact that I quoted you saying that.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

My guess is that this leads to an enormously greater number of submissions. It's so easy: all you need is a manuscript and an email sddress to send to.

You're saying that they wouldn't have bothered with buying a typewriter before, but since they already have a computer and internet...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I do have great appreciation for team work and learning. I see that every day at the university between PhD students and professors. And guess what? It's both their names on the articles, as well as the names of people that they collaborated with. And at the end of the PhD the student will write a thesis and have only his/her name under the title, but the supervisor is still mentioned on the front page, and all the people that helped with the work will be acknowledged.

And while you have great appreciation for all the editors you had, I didn't see you comment on any post that suggested that the best idea is to pirate books and then donate money to the author, because that is the only person that requires recognition.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about concerning pirating and donating money.

I think you're maybe saying editors don't get acknowledged properly, but they often do. Mine are usually mentioned in the acknowledgments. I have never "co-written" anything or the title page would list two authors.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And it was *your* judgment that made that call. You might have missed again the fact that I quoted you saying that.


You're saying that they wouldn't have bothered with buying a typewriter before, but since they already have a computer and internet...

I think the point is that to send a manuscript (typewritten or computer) used to cost more time and MONEY. Mailing manuscripts runs about 10 dollars to mail and I'd say another almost 5 to print. So authors *might* have spent a little more time deciding where to send them. Mailing a short story cost under 5 dollars (but considering printing costs and paper was pretty close to 5 dollars total, maybe more depending on the type of printer and so on.)

With the internet, you sit down and hit send. You can "afford" to be more "careless" with choosing where to send submissions.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And it was *your* judgment that made that call. You might have missed again the fact that I quoted you saying that.

It is indeed my judgment. Given the fairly dismal state of submissions back then, I really don't see it as all that much better than now. And the state of the novel market back then arguably was worse.

The difference between then and now probably works out to "very bad" vs "very very bad".

It's not a distinction I'd want to waste a lot of time quantifying.

You're saying that they wouldn't have bothered with buying a typewriter before, but since they already have a computer and internet...

No, they had typewriters. But submissions required carbons or photocopies, envelopes, stamps, trips to the post office... (And remember, novels got submitted that way, too. Pack a ream of typescript in a box, apply postage, take tp PO to send Parcel Post...)

It's faster and more convenient now. Do you really think that doesn't make a difference in the volume?
______
Dennis

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I don't have any idea what you are talking about concerning pirating and donating money.

I'm talking about posts like this and this.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I think you're maybe saying editors don't get acknowledged properly, but they often do. Mine are usually mentioned in the acknowledgments. I have never "co-written" anything or the title page would list two authors.

Something like that. I think there was one book where I noticed an editor being acknowledged, but I'm pretty sure that she was mentioned by first name alone. Is there anywhere on the web a way to find out who was the editor of a book (or editors)?