Debut author turned down $120,000, 3 books New York publishing deal to self-publish

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Yes, there are more and more indie successes as time goes on, and it's inevitable that there will be more.

Indie books are not intrinsically inferior to commercially published books, nor are they intrinsically superior. However, they are much more variable in quality.

The very ease of indie publishing means that there are a lot of really bad indie books out there, just as there are a lot of really good indie books out there. The big issue for many people is that it can be hard to find the good ones without being swamped in the sheer volume of books published every day.

Commercially published books have a higher "floor" when it comes to quality. The really badly written ones don't make it to publication, and most grammatical errors get caught before publication. In the indie world, both these kinds of books can, and sometimes do, get published as is.

Good indie books are just as good as the best commercially published books. There's no question.

Indie publishing is just as viable a route to success as commercial publishing, but it entails more work for the author, and a smaller proportion of indie books reach the minimum level of success that can be expected from a commercially published book.

Indie publishing has democratized the industry. Anyone and everyone can get published. This is a good thing, because it opens publishing to whole of society, so that great books that would otherwise be overlooked by the industry can be published. However, the flip side is also true, really bad books that have no redeeming values can also be published in exactly the same way.

The truth is there is no one solution for all authors. Some will thrive as indies, others need the assistance commercial publishing provides. There are advantages and disadvantages to both forms of publication, and none of us can say which is best for every other person.

Why is it that discussions of indie publishing so often center on what is best for the author--what gives the author more control, what makes the author more money, etc. I don't give a damn what's better or worse for the author--I'm a READER, and what's better for me is a book that meets minimum standards of competency. Traditional publishing is no guarantee of that, but it's a lot less of a crapshoot than all the self-published drek that's out there.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Why is it that discussions of indie publishing so often center on what is best for the author--what gives the author more control, what makes the author more money, etc. I don't give a damn what's better or worse for the author--I'm a READER, and what's better for me is a book that meets minimum standards of competency. Traditional publishing is no guarantee of that, but it's a lot less of a crapshoot than all the self-published drek that's out there.

Because so many of these discussions are started by authors, particularly indie authors. I personally think the real focus for authors should be on putting out the best book you possibly can, regardless of how it is published.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I personally think the real focus for authors should be on putting out the best book you possibly can, regardless of how it is published.

Absolutely, and there are more and more high quality self pubbed books where the book goes through the same/or similar process as a trad pubbed book when it comes to editing and production the problem right now is finding them among the stuff that's not. Some self pubbed authors seem to treat their readers as beta testers and fix things later, kind of like how many software companies have become.

[SteveEisenberg]

I think that the title of her book series sums it up - "gaming the system."

By turning down the advance, she got a far bigger shot of publicity than the meager big publishing house advertising budget would have puchased.

Future authors who try to use affirmation from a major publisher to launch an indie career will find it less and less effective.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The author in question had a $120,000 deal. She's made less than one-sixth of that, and a good first month is no guarantee of future earnings. The jury is still out.

It was a deal for three books, with five-sixths payable 18 months to three years in the future. All she was going to see for 18 months was $17k. That is less than $1000 a month. Afterwards, she would get another $17k at launch and wait to earn out the advance and then wait another six months for whatever royalty the publisher reports.

She made $18k for the first month alone. A book that good doesn't vanish overnight. Rather, she is likely going to clear over $100k in the first year and she'll get the full trilogy out before the first tradpub book even got out the door.

She clearly came out ahead in present value, creative control, and ip control, all things that obviously matter to her. Especially the ip control.

It is easy to see $120k and assume it's a great deal but the smart read is to look at the fine print and what you give up for how long. Which she did.

She bet on herself and won.
It's her story, her career, and she's not at the mercy of any glass tower denizen: just her readers.

[Ken.Hagdal]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Why is it that discussions of indie publishing so often center on what is best for the author--what gives the author more control, what makes the author more money, etc. I don't give a damn what's better or worse for the author--I'm a READER, and what's better for me is a book that meets minimum standards of competency. Traditional publishing is no guarantee of that, but it's a lot less of a crapshoot than all the self-published drek that's out there.

The more money authors make, the more time they have to work on their writing, and be creative without stressing about whether they'll be able to pay next month's bills, as opposed to having to juggle with at least part-time jobs (a lot of traditionally published authors can't make a living from their writing due to the paltry royalty they get btw).

It also allows us to put money aside to hire editors, audiobook narrators, cover designers, send our books to reviewers who will winnow the grain from the chaff for our potential readers.

While it's true there's a significant proportion of refuse in self-publishing, most of them don't sell more than a handfull of copies. On the other hand, anything that empowers serious authors will only have benefits for readers in terms of cultural diversity in the long run.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It was a deal for three books, with five-sixths payable 18 months to three years in the future. All she was going to see for 18 months was $17k. That is less than $1000 a month. Afterwards, she would get another $17k at launch and wait to earn out the advance and then wait another six months for whatever royalty the publisher reports.

No, she was going to see $51K (85% of 60,000) on signing. Then she would get six equal payments of $8,500 as each book was turned in and released. Those are her figures, not mine.

It's also important to remember that there were other factors in play. The non-compete clause seems to have been the biggest sticking point, as she wrote her first draft in 12 days, and was ready for publication in a month and a half.

The commercial publishers only really had enough slots for 1 book a year from her, but she can easily produce 6 or more books a year if her first's an example of her average production rate.

Essentially, she's betting that the additional 5 books a year she can publish on her own will make her enough money to offset the security of an advance. In her position, I think many authors would make a similar choice, but that decision is based in part on her productivity.

This is looking like a good decision for her, but it might not have been as good for someone who needs 12-18 months to finish a novel.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It was a deal for three books, with five-sixths payable 18 months to three years in the future. All she was going to see for 18 months was $17k. That is less than $1000 a month. Afterwards, she would get another $17k at launch and wait to earn out the advance and then wait another six months for whatever royalty the publisher reports.

She made $18k for the first month alone. A book that good doesn't vanish overnight. Rather, she is likely going to clear over $100k in the first year and she'll get the full trilogy out before the first tradpub book even got out the door.

She clearly came out ahead in present value, creative control, and ip control, all things that obviously matter to her. Especially the ip control.

It is easy to see $120k and assume it's a great deal but the smart read is to look at the fine print and what you give up for how long. Which she did.

She bet on herself and won.
It's her story, her career, and she's not at the mercy of any glass tower denizen: just her readers.

You keep assuming that the cash is going to continue to flow. There is no guarantee. She hasn't "won" yet.

Making a splash in the first month doesn't mean all that much, especially in the romance market, where so many books come and go.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ken.Hagdal

The more money authors make, the more time they have to work on their writing, and be creative without stressing about whether they'll be able to pay next month's bills, as opposed to having to juggle with at least part-time jobs (a lot of traditionally published authors can't make a living from their writing due to the paltry royalty they get btw).

It also allows us to put money aside to hire editors, audiobook narrators, cover designers, send our books to reviewers who will winnow the grain from the chaff for our potential readers.

While it's true there's a significant proportion of refuse in self-publishing, most of them don't sell more than a handfull of copies. On the other hand, anything that empowers serious authors will only have benefits for readers in terms of cultural diversity in the long run.

It's not my job to nurture authors; it's their job to provide me with entertainment. That's the deal they make when they publish.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Ken.Hagdal

The more money authors make, the more time they have to work on their writing, and be creative without stressing about whether they'll be able to pay next month's bills, as opposed to having to juggle with at least part-time jobs (a lot of traditionally published authors can't make a living from their writing due to the paltry royalty they get btw).

It also allows us to put money aside to hire editors, audiobook narrators, cover designers, send our books to reviewers who will winnow the grain from the chaff for our potential readers.

While it's true there's a significant proportion of refuse in self-publishing, most of them don't sell more than a handfull of copies. On the other hand, anything that empowers serious authors will only have benefits for readers in terms of cultural diversity in the long run.

Sure, lots of commercially published authors don't make enough to live on, especially genre authors. In that way they're no different than indie authors.

As for hiring editors, narrators, and cover designers, the whole point of going with a commercial publisher is that the author doesn't have to do that. The publisher pays for those things. Yes, the author's royalty is lower, but so are their costs, and the biggest advantage they have is that they get paid whether the book sells or not.

If a self-published author only sells 100 copies of their book, the cost of their editor and cover artist may well put them in the hole. If a commercially published author sells only 100 copies of their book, they still get to keep their entire advance and aren't liable for any of those costs.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

But Catlady is right, none of this matters to readers. What matters to readers is that the book is worth the time and money invested in reading it, nothing else.

[MichelleLouring]

I think it was a very brave decision, but it could have given a serious backlash. I wouldn't have dared, but good for her!

[crossi]

Originally Posted by MichelleLouring

I think it was a very brave decision, but it could have given a serious backlash. I wouldn't have dared, but good for her!

You think the major publishers will get together and blacklist any author that dares to self pub some of their books?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm a READER, and what's better for me is a book that meets minimum standards of competency. Traditional publishing is no guarantee of that, but it's a lot less of a crapshoot than all the self-published drek that's out there.

That's fine, as long as you are happy to limit your reading to whatever corporations think they can make money from. One good thing self publishing did was bring back genres the corporations lost interest in decades ago. I've always found it easy enough to sift the good ones from the not-so-good ones, just as I always did when they were published by corporations instead.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by MichelleLouring

I think it was a very brave decision

In my mind, the brave decision was that of the publishing houses to offer her this deal. They not only risked to lose the money but also to lose getting her as an author.

[Ken.Hagdal]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's not my job to nurture authors; it's their job to provide me with entertainment. That's the deal they make when they publish.

I understand the nitty-gritty side of it can be a bore to people it doesn't concern directly, but until Monstanto comes up with money tree seeds, I'm afraid that authors' income will remain an important factor in how they can make new books available to their readers in a proper and timely manner.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As for hiring editors, narrators, and cover designers, the whole point of going with a commercial publisher is that the author doesn't have to do that. The publisher pays for those things. Yes, the author's royalty is lower, but so are their costs, and the biggest advantage they have is that they get paid whether the book sells or not.As for hiring editors, narrators, and cover designers, the whole point of going with a commercial publisher is that the author doesn't have to do that. The publisher pays for those things. Yes, the author's royalty is lower, but so are their costs, and the biggest advantage they have is that they get paid whether the book sells or not.

No disagreement. I did a mashup of both sides of the fence to highlight that switching over from traditional to self-publishing still brought money matters to the foreground for writers.