12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Or is it possible that people who want to read don't want to spend a ton of time sorting through samples to find something that they can read?

I think this exactly captures the sentiment of most readers. It certainly reflects mine.

I hate reading samples. I'm not sure why but I just do. I know it makes me feel that I cannot trust authors (or publishers) to correctly describe their books in the blurb and to provide me with a well-written, well-edited product in exchange for my money. The result is that I will not pay money for an ebook from an unfamiliar author. I will, however, buy an author's reasonably priced (by which I mean $5.99 or less) ebooks once the author has proven to me that he/she will provide me with a well-written, well-edited ebook.

In the olden days, I would go into my local bookstore, be attracted to a book by its cover design, read the blurb, and if the blurb made the book sound interesting, I'd buy it. Today, I can't do that because traditional publishing's standards are declining to the standards of the mass of self-publishing endeavors rather than acting as role models to raise the standards for self-publishing.

Because there are more books published every year than I can read even if I lived another 100 years, I have become pickier about what books I will pay money for and which authors I will read. But the one thing I still steadfastly refuse to do is to download a sample to read. I either download the ebook or I don't.

My time is valuable, I've got a lot to read, and I do not feel I need to make the effort to obtain and read a sample when I have many books waiting for me in my TBR pile. Authors need to convince me to read their books; I do not need to convince myself.

[DiapDealer]

It amazes me that people actually claim to be such busy readers that they don't have time to peruse a sample or two. Or that in the past, good books just fell from the sky like manna from heaven and opened themselves in front of their waiting eyeballs; making the "effort" of checking a sample so very, very onerous by comparison. I fear those of you who feel that way are just going to have do make do with your current TBR lists for the rest of your reading lives: the free ride's over. You're going to have to make an effort to find new authors now (actually, you've always made an effort. You're just choosing to downplay it).

Seriously. Anyone who thought getting dressed, driving to the bookstore, walking the stacks and reading some back-cover descriptions was somehow effortless compared to the terrible burden of checking out free samples isn't exactly being objective.

New favorite authors never fell in your lap in the past without an effort on your part, and they won't in the future (except through word of mouth ... a process that will remain largely the same moving forward).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It amazes me that people actually claim to be such busy readers that they don't have time to peruse a sample or two. Or that in the past, good books just fell from the sky like manna from heaven and opened themselves in front of their waiting eyeballs; making the "effort" of checking a sample so very, very onerous by comparison. I fear those of you who feel that way are just going to have do make do with your current TBR lists for the rest of your reading lives: the free ride's over. You're going to have to make an effort to find new authors now (actually, you've always made an effort. You're just choosing to downplay it).

Seriously. Anyone who thought getting dressed, driving to the bookstore, walking the stacks and reading some back-cover descriptions was somehow effortless compared to the terrible burden of checking out free samples isn't exactly being objective.

New favorite authors never fell in your lap in the past without an effort on your part, and they won't in the future (except through word of mouth ... a process that will remain largely the same moving forward).

When I browse the neat shelves of books in a bookstore, I know that the worst crap has already been weeded out by the publishing process. I don't have to worry that the books will be rife with errors that render them unreadable.

Free ride? No. I happily pay the publishers the extra money their books cost because of the time and annoyance they save me.

I don't have the time to waste downloading samples and going on some scavenger hunt through piles of garbage in the hope that I'll find something readable. Neither do I have the desire to do so.

[ProfCrash]

DD: My reading took off when I got an e-reader because I did not have the time to go to the bookstore, walk the stacks, and buy books. I didn't want to clutter up the house with more books and I was too lazy to go through what I had to give any up. I was barely reading 10 books a year.

The e-reader made it so much easier for me to buy books, I just went online and bought what I wanted based on recommendations and awards lists, books clubs and the like. And there is no clutter. So my TBR list is a great deal longer because it is so easy to buy books and there is no clutter. And I did not have to do research because I knew authors I liked and had recommendations.

The only time I took the time to wander, read a chapter before picking the book up, and the like is when I was unemployed for three months. Every couple of days I would walk to the library and pick up books. Only after I had finished a job search for the day and sent out resumes. Then I had the time to do searches.

I would guess that more people are like me then you, otherwise the Independent market would be hotter then hot. I work 40 hours a week, I have a baby boy, two dogs, play softball and tennis, go to the gym 5 days a week, and garden. When I have time to read (something I need to be better about carving out) I don't want to spend that time researching books and then finding something to read. I want to read. So I buy books based on recommendations from family members, friends, and the awards list.

Where I had the time a year ago to do more and didn't because it was a hassle, I don't have the time now because I have other priorities. I am not going to give up time with the baby to search. I can't at work (I goof off probably more then I should as it is). I am not going to give up my time at the gym or playing sports, I have dropped to a healthy weight for the first time in 20 years and I am not giving that up. I am not giving up the garden, it is a great time to be outside with the baby and helps us eat well. We have not bought lettuce in two months, the cucumbers, peppers, tomatoes, and other goodies are going to be great when they come in.

In addition to my reading declining, I have pretty much given up television. I might watch 7 hours a week and most of the time that is with my hubby or when I am going to sleep.

And we are the avid readers. How many people do you think read more then 5 books a year, never mind feeling bad because they only read under 50 in a year? And yes, new favorites fell in my lap because my Sister In Law were home with their kids and had more time to read when the kids were in school. They told me about new authors. My Mom is in a book club and I read the books that she buys so we can discuss them and that introduced me to new authors.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

When I browse the neat shelves of books in a bookstore, I know that the worst crap has already been weeded out by the publishing process. I don't have to worry that the books will be rife with errors that render them unreadable.

Free ride? No. I happily pay the publishers the extra money their books cost because of the time and annoyance they save me.

I don't have the time to waste downloading samples and going on some scavenger hunt through piles of garbage in the hope that I'll find something readable. Neither do I have the desire to do so.

Yep, that's exactly the way that I feel, too.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And yes, new favorites fell in my lap because my Sister In Law were home with their kids and had more time to read when the kids were in school. They told me about new authors. My Mom is in a book club and I read the books that she buys so we can discuss them and that introduced me to new authors.

Did you miss the part where I excluded "word of mouth" from the "falls into your lap" description? If books primarily come to you through word-of-mouth recommendations, that won't change in a non-traditional publishing scenario. You just might have to tune into other mouths.

I'm not even complaining that people would rather not avail themselves of the free sample system. It's just that not WANTING to use the easiest, fastest tool available to quickly discard the drivel is not really the same thing as saying you don't have time to do so--or that it's unnecessarily burdensome to do so.

Tell me you're not near a computer or an internet connection when you do most of your browsing for books (although I find that unlikely if you're browsing for ebooks). Tell me you just don't like it for irrational reasons. But don't tell me you don't have enough time (or that your current "choosing a new author to try all by myself" process is effortless) ... I simply don't believe you.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Did you miss the part where I excluded "word of mouth" from the "falls into your lap" description? If books primarily come to you through word-of-mouth recommendations, that won't change in a non-traditional publishing scenario. You just might have to tune into other mouths.

I'm not even complaining that people would rather not avail themselves of the free sample system. It's just that not WANTING to use the easiest, fastest tool available to quickly discard the drivel is not really the same thing as saying you don't have time to do so--or that it's unnecessarily burdensome to do so.

Tell me you're not near a computer or an internet connection when you do most of your browsing for books (although I find that unlikely if you're browsing for ebooks). Tell me you just don't like it for irrational reasons. But don't tell me you don't have enough time (or that your current "choosing a new author to try all by myself" process is effortless) ... I simply don't believe you.

How do you not get that reading a sample takes time?

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How do you not get that reading a sample takes time?

I've also found many samples unhelpful in making a purchasing decision, both from trad and indy publishers.

Too often the sample size is set to where, once you get past all the upfront material—cover, title page, copyright page, dedication, table of contents, etc—you get maybe a page or two of the actual story to judge on.

And the downside is, for both trad and indy, the samples where I do have a chance to read something more representative of the book have rarely led to a sale.

Of dozens of samples, I've purchased, I think 2, one trad and one indy. (Though the indy purchase was also heavily influenced by interacting with the author here on mobilereads.)

Mostly, samples have convinced me NOT to buy a book.

I buy much more the same way I used to buy DTBs—reviews, recommendations, word-of-mouth, and jsut way too much browsing.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How do you not get that reading a sample takes time?

I "get" that quite easily. Because it's insanely obvious. I just don't believe that it's time you do not HAVE. It's not like you have to read the whole thing. A paragraph will usually tell you if you're dealing with a hack. How do you not get that?

No sample is going to tell you if you're going to like a book or not. Neither was a publisher's description. But if it's about wanting to avoid those who don't have a grasp of spelling and grammar (as everyone here seems to want to make it), then the sample is certainly useful. If you'd rather not USE the perfect tool to eliminate the garbage you don't want to read, that's fine. But you don't get to then say; "there's no good tools to allow me to filter the garbage." You can't have it both ways. Because you never had it both ways. There's always been a good chance of buying a book you don't enjoy if you use a pure "poke and hope" method. And does it really matter that much why you didn't enjoy a book?

[MikeB1972]

My problem with samples is that if I start reading a book then I pretty much have to finish it or it bugs me, I tend to keep way clear of the slush pile

And, yes, I have read some pretty awful books.

It's also an issue of time. If, as pretty much everyone seems to agree, somewhere between 95-99% of self published books are rubbish then I don't want to have to read somewhere between 20 and 100 samples to find one of the good ones. Even if you just read 10 pages of sample per book (you could spot bad editing and grammar in less but would need this to see if the writing style/story is OK) then you are reading between 1 and 5 full books worth of samples just to find a book to read.

If I am looking for a new author then I pick a book based on the blurb by one of the pulishing imprints that I know produce the kind of book I like (Doesn't always work, obviously, couldn't stand Bitter Angels by C L Anderson published by Spectra, started of badly, tailed off in the middle and the less said about the end the better).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

As to your statement
it seems a bit at odds with your statement in post 112 of this thread.

Although perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

Perhaps because I said the *broader* publishing world: what *consumers* see, as opposed to what traditional publishers put out.

Traditional publishers are *curators* of what *they* present, and present themselves as gatekeepers. As if they could (still) control what gets to readers like they could in the old days when all they control is what they publish.

*They* use the term to describe what they do but it no longer is actual gatekeeping. All they do is publish what they think will make them big money and offer it up in the hope that hordes will buy it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And the hordes are getting leaner and less frequent.
(The only real horde last year was for 50 Shades. "Bestsellers" aren't quite as best-selling as they used to be, another source of hand-wringing in traditionalist terms.)

The closest term for what you prefer is "curated" (in its newer sense), not gatekeeping. Although many keep using it past its expiration date.

Now, the TV analogy...

I used the TV analogy because, once upon a time it was easy to keep track of the shows you watched and most people watched the same "good" shows, mostly because selection was limited. The networkers were the gatekeepers; if the networks didn't choose a show, the producers had no recourse. The networks were the gatekeepers of the audience. Then cable evolved and there were hundreds of other venues for content. And now the internet is in place and Joss Whedon can take DOCTOR HORRIBLE'S SING-A-LONG BLOG direct to the public via the net, via DVD, and via video streaming services. And he's not the only content creator of note to "self-publish" successfully without a network of any kind to endorse his work.

Nowadays no TV show can or ever again will get the kind of ratings and audiences as MASH and the COSBY SHOW, simply because the audience is fragmented and watching specialty content all over. There are channels for nothing but cooking shows and channels for family-friendly romance, there are channels for Golf fanatics and channels for gardeners. And, as you poined out, with Youtube (and all the other net-based video services) you don't even *need* a (traditional) channel to distribute content. You want to see a real Library of Babel? Check out the content listed on the various commercial streaming and download services. Most of it is "backlist" but a lot is "midlist" and recent "bestseller" releases.
Some smart producers (Mark Cuban, for one) use those services to distribute brand new Indie movies *before* they get to theaters, as a way to get more people into the theaters. (Seems to be working; they keep n doing it.)

And, yes, keeping track of shows is now harder; new "seasons" start at any time of the year; june, july, august, january, february... It is no longer a matter of new shows all starting to air in sept.

It is easy to lose track.
(And just as easy to catch up.)
And with the emergence of the streaming services you don't need to watch shows when they're aired; the broadcasters no longer have the "power" to make you sit down in front of the TV at a specific day and time, no matter how much you like their show.

Watching TV in the 21st century isn't just about keeping the daily listings handy and sitting down dutifully every week at the same time and channel. Now if your are busy having a life on wednesday evenings, you have five whole weeks to catch up on ARROW. Or, if you come now to the LAW AND ORDER SVU series and want to catch up, HULU and NETFLIX offer up the entire run, 13 seasons for back-to-back watching, ad-free. Ditto for LOST or DRESDEN FILES or NUMBERS or Julia Child's cooking show from the 50's.

The very nature of TV has changed.
The business model has been disrupted and the networks have had to adapt. They still cling to some old-time elements that are becoming harder and harder to justify economically (like local broadcast afiliates) but that too shall pass.

It is more work to find "good" shows in the tsunami of video content engulfing us but, on the other hand, you can *always* find something to watch.

It just takes new habits.
Most people adapt.
Those that don't?
Well, the traditional networks still broadcast over the air. Nobody is forced to watch the new stuff. Some of it even shows up on the OTA networks after it runs on the new cable services.

Consumers have lost nothing of value but have gained a whole lot more choice; some just choose not to avail themselves of that option.
Nothing wrong with that.
But neither is there anything wrong with having the added choices or taking advantage of them, whether as a viewer or a reader.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I "get" that quite easily. Because it's insanely obvious. I just don't believe that it's time you do not HAVE. It's not like you have to read the whole thing. A paragraph will usually tell you if you're dealing with a hack. How do you not get that?

No sample is going to tell you if you're going to like a book or not. Neither was a publisher's description. But if it's about wanting to avoid those who don't have a grasp of spelling and grammar (as everyone here seems to want to make it), then the sample is certainly useful. If you'd rather not USE the perfect tool to eliminate the garbage you don't want to read, that's fine. But you don't get to then say; "there's no good tools to allow me to filter the garbage." You can't have it both ways. Because you never had it both ways. There's always been a good chance of buying a book you don't enjoy if you use a pure "poke and hope" method. And does it really matter that much why you didn't enjoy a book?

There's a GREAT tool to help me filter out the garbage. I stay with the traditional publishers. Time saved, problem solved.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, the traditional networks still broadcast over the air. Nobody is forced to watch the new stuff. Some of it even shows up on the OTA networks after it runs on the new cable services.

Consumers have lost nothing of value but have gained a whole lot more choice; some just choose not to avail themselves of that option.
Nothing wrong with that.
But neither is there anything wrong with having the added choices or taking advantage of them, whether as a viewer or a reader.

Lost nothing of value?

Then: Playhouse 90, Twilight Zone, U.S. Steel Hour, Bonanza, Combat!, The Fugitive, Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore.

Now: Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How do you not get that reading a sample takes time?

So does going to the bookstore and browsing. But I don't like reading the samples either. I don't know why. I think it hasn't worked particularly well for me, partly because sometimes the sample is great and the book isn't. Partly because sometimes there isn't enough there. Partly because of the time. My way around that has been Lendleme, but that doesn't work for trad books. I still try to sample those or if it's a new author get them from the library. I've been burned on the last two trads that I sampled and bought. One was a backlist that came back and it got totally lame midway through the book (lady didn't shoot through the window because a ghost told her not to, yet her sister was about to die. OKay there were some other issues before that.) But anyway, no method is perfect. Sometimes even word of mouth doesn't work. Tastes and moods simply do not align perfectly.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

There's a GREAT tool to help me filter out the garbage. I stay with the traditional publishers. Time saved, problem solved.

Not a problem in the world with that statement. I just have to wonder why you choose to then involve yourself in discussions about indie publishing if you have no interest in dipping your toes into that particular pool? Surely what you don't permit to affect you ... doesn't affect you.