‘There will be no more professional writers in the future’

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I love these kinds of posts that are made to prove that success is just around the corner for self-publishing authors. Smashwords alone has more than 50,000 authors and nearly 140,000 books listed. Who knows how many more authors there are that are exclusive to Amazon. But just using the 50,000 Smashwords authors, the 36 success stories represent 0.00072% of authors -- not very good odds in any gambler's book.

The reality is that very few authors will be successful as self-publishers.

Very few authors ever were successful as authors.

The only real difference nowadays is that the gatekeepers have been whacked over the head, and the READERS get to decide who's successful or not.

Is this good for literature or bad for literature? Depends on who you ask, I guess. The writer of the article referenced in the original post is whining about not getting advances, nothing more. But that system was dying before ebooks - it was conglomeration and the reliance on blockbusters that was killing that model, not the Internet.

[QuantumIguana]

Ultimately, readers have always determined who is successful. The publishers determined who the readers could choose from. Not all books that sell well are read for decades, but the books that are read for decades have usually sold well.

[Fbone]

It's still a difficult profession for the average writer.

Nor is self-publishing profitable for the majority of authors, according to a recent British survey. It found that half of the writers – many no doubt lured by well-publicized tales of spectacular success achieved by a handful of fellow novices – made less than $500 a year for their efforts.

[DarkScribe]

Nothing has changed except perception. Twenty-five years ago Mills and Boon claimed to receive up to twenty-thousand unsolicited manuscripts per month. In my wife's area, she gets one thousand to fifteen hundred unsolicited per month and her company is relatively small and doesn't publish novels. It you factor in all publishers, world wide, then you will have a total unsuccessful writer figure possibly not too different to the hundreds of thousands who ePublish and don't get sales. The real difference is in advances - they have really dropped. More people than ever are reading - thank to eReaders and "the digital revolution" plus the massive numbers of Baby-Boomers retiring and taking up leisure activities - like reading. Demand is up, I can't see supply being deliberately dropped.

[MikeOxlittle]

Originally Posted by Fbone

It's still a difficult profession for the average writer.

Any profession in which you create something will be difficult if you're just average though.

Writer, photographer, designer, sculptor, musician, filmmaker ... etc.

No one wants to settle for average, we want exceptional.

[StoryEnthusiast]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Ultimately, readers have always determined who is successful. The publishers determined who the readers could choose from. Not all books that sell well are read for decades, but the books that are read for decades have usually sold well.

Agreed. The digital world also allows direct contact with readers easily.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by khalleron

The only real difference nowadays is that the gatekeepers have been whacked over the head, and the READERS get to decide who's successful or not.

How can readers decide who's successful? I can't know what I am going to like reading until I read it. While whether I finish the book is in my own hands, whether I start it is decided by acquisitions librarians and reviewers. One change is that people no longer let the Book of the Month Club decide on their reading, but, still, I have to rely on someone's advice.

Or are you are thinking of people who read the book at the library and then buy it? I can't imagine doing this myself.

The writer of the article referenced in the original post is whining about not getting advances, nothing more. But that system was dying before ebooks - it was conglomeration and the reliance on blockbusters that was killing that model, not the Internet.

Big publishers began coming out with eBooks ten years ago. Advances seems to have peaked four years ago.

If I have any criticism of blaming lower advances on eBooks, it's that the great recession could be a bigger factor. The rise of the 6 inch eInk reader, and the economic decline, came together, so it is hard to be sure which is more important.

[BeccaPrice]

I think I would also blame the rise in executive salaries and the "corporatization" of publishing. Money has to come from somewhere, and salaries and advances are the easiest things to cut.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

Any profession in which you create something will be difficult if you're just average though.

Writer, photographer, designer, sculptor, musician, filmmaker ... etc.

No one wants to settle for average, we want exceptional.

With genre books, there is a bigger factor.

There are a lot of readers who like specific story types, general plotlines and settings.
They will choose a mediocre to fair book with a slightly different take on their criteria over a great or fantastic book that is just vaguely in their genre.

The flood of available authors means they may never be forced to read anything else of neccessity. "

We are all Terry Brooks now..."

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

Any profession in which you create something will be difficult if you're just average though.

Writer, photographer, designer, sculptor, musician, filmmaker ... etc.

No one wants to settle for average, we want exceptional.

You're probably right.

However, I was referring to the average income writers earn.

[MikeOxlittle]

Originally Posted by Fbone

You're probably right.

However, I was referring to the average income writers earn.

Is there really an 'average' when it comes to writers though?

Your book either sells or it doesn't.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Ultimately, readers have always determined who is successful. The publishers determined who the readers could choose from. Not all books that sell well are read for decades, but the books that are read for decades have usually sold well.

Very well said.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Fbone

You're probably right.

However, I was referring to the average income writers earn.

We have to be careful about what "average" means.

The "average" salary of a professional baseball player is pretty high in most our eyes.
The "average" Olympian is a very good athlete compared to most of us.

I will even venture that the "average" Billionaire has a lot of money.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

Is there really an 'average' when it comes to writers though?

Your book either sells or it doesn't.

It's all about penetration.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by StoryEnthusiast

Agreed. The digital world also allows direct contact with readers easily.

Which is bad news for the reader, because it means that they get swamped by all the crap rather than it being filtered out by the publishers. Undoubtedly there's the rare self-published gem out there; the problem is finding it in the sea of garbage. That's why I prefer to buy from traditional publishers.