Best Selling Authors and Self Publishing

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Now if those advances give traditional authors the freedom not to worry about bills, then why do 95% of the big 5 authors have day jobs?

Many do have "day jobs", especially until they build a backlist, but where does the 95% figure come from?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Many do have "day jobs", especially until they build a backlist, but where does the 95% figure come from?

I read that figure somewhere. Do you think it is higher or lower?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I read that figure somewhere. Do you think it is higher or lower?

Slightly lower. But you're not far off the mark: in the UK it is 89%.
Only 11% earn all their income by writing:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...se-alcs-survey

US and canadian numbers are similar.

67% of US author incomes fall below the poverty line:

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/15/bo...00-a-year.html

In Canada it is 81%:

http://www.teleread.com/writing/cana...income-crisis/

And it has *always* been that way:

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/15/bo...00-a-year.html

There is a reason why "don't quit the day job" is entrenched in the public consciousness.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Now if those advances give traditional authors the freedom not to worry about bills, then why do 95% of the big 5 authors have day jobs?

Being an author, indie or otherwise is, of course, rarely a well-paid job. I don't think anyone would claim that advances are commonly high enough to take away worrying about bills.

I do think there are some novelists who get the ideas, and the details, for their books, from their job. Mystery writer Archer Mayor used to be a small-town constable and more recently is a Vermont death investigator. Guess what he writes about? Samuel Shem's medical novels -- one of them has sold millions -- would, I'm sure, have been much different if being a physician was a distant memory.

So, for me as a reader, that day job can be a good thing. However, a lot of non-fiction writing is incompatible with having a continuous day job due to need to spend months traveling to research sites.

Indie works best for certain kinds of books and certain kinds of authors. Samuel Shem says he has to rewrite a novel seven times. I don't think that would happen without a pushy editor who has high standards (although I think his editor was at a smaller publisher).

Originally Posted by darryl

How do you see the longer term future for the industry?

It's hard enough to discern the present. There no harm in speculation, but, with apologies to captain obvious, the future is literally invisible.

I can say this: It's a good thing for me, as a book reader, that book publishers who pay advances are, so far, surviving the digital transition much better than newspaper publishers.

[darryl]

Another relevant link, this time to a blog post by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, in my opinion one of the more insightful commentators. http://kriswrites.com/2015/08/12/bus...-it-does-best/ Once again, the post speaks for itself, and I won't comment further at this stage. A relevant extract (referring to Mike Shatzkin and "his traditional publishing friends":

They also don’t understand something: they’ve lost hundreds if not thousands of important writers (no quotes). People like Elizabeth Spann Craig and Barry Eisler and J.A. Konrath. Writers like the ones in the Storybundle that I curated this month. Every single book, by every one of those writers, is indie published.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

Another relevant link, this time to a blog post by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, in my opinion one of the more insightful commentators. http://kriswrites.com/2015/08/12/bus...-it-does-best/

A must read, like many of her columns.

It is an interesting sign of the times that it took Mr Hamilton less than a week to find a new outlet for his book. And he ended up getting a higher payment.

http://www.startribune.com/crime-wri...her/320950321/

(Note that this best-selling, award winning author with 20 years experience did not have the money on hand to refund the advance on the old contract. His agent had to front him the money.)

In the olden days, as KKR points out, his career would be over but today it is the publisher that got toasted instead. (And it turns out he is far from the first that particular publisher has stiffed on support. They have a history of that going back to the 80s that is now coming to light.)

It seem that proven sellers are in high enough demand that even breaking omerta won't get them blacklisted.

Having options is liberating.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by darryl

Another relevant link, this time to a blog post by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, in my opinion one of the more insightful commentators. http://kriswrites.com/2015/08/12/bus...-it-does-best/ Once again, the post speaks for itself, and I won't comment further at this stage. A relevant extract (referring to Mike Shatzkin and "his traditional publishing friends":

They also don’t understand something: they’ve lost hundreds if not thousands of important writers (no quotes). People like Elizabeth Spann Craig and Barry Eisler and J.A. Konrath. Writers like the ones in the Storybundle that I curated this month. Every single book, by every one of those writers, is indie published.

Yep, she's been at this forever and shoots straight.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Most indies I know do NOT do everything themselves but hire others to do covers, editing etc.
Now if those advances give traditional authors the freedom not to worry about bills, then why do 95% of the big 5 authors have day jobs?

It is a rare author that gets enough of an advance to live on.
I know one author who turned down a 6 figure advance. She self-published and earned the money offered in less than 4 months. That advance would have been paid in 3 increments over 3 years because it was for 3 books. Her name is Breena Aubrey.

So are you telling me that someone that made 3,000,000 for someone else while making 1,000, 000 for themselves is worth more than someone who made 2,800,000 for themselves and 1,200,000 for the distributor.
My math comes up to 4 million either way.

Yes, I know. A good friend of mine is an indie writer. I got to listen to a year's worth of the process of writing the book, figuring out how to hire a cover artist (note, he thinks that one of the people he interviewed to do the cover work and didn't get the job retaliated by panning his book in the review), hiring the editor, the process of working with the editor, etc..., so yes I do know what is involved and that most indie writers hire someone else to do those pieces. There are, of course, some pretty big issues with hiring an editor.

As far as your math, I suspect the error is in the assumed numbers you are using, rather than the mechanics. Not very many indies pulling in $4 M. Not very many traditional publisher authors pulling in that much either. The major fallacy is that going indie doesn't effect the sales numbers.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't think anyone would claim that advances are commonly high enough to take away worrying about bills.

That's certainly how I read this:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Basically, an advance allows the author to not worry about the day to day bills and focus on writing.

Although I may have mis-understood.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

So, for me as a reader, that day job can be a good thing. However, a lot of non-fiction writing is incompatible with having a continuous day job due to need to spend months traveling to research sites.

Back in January, I asked:

Originally Posted by avantman42

This isn't the first time I've seen people say that publishers, and their advances, are necessary for non-fiction. What I haven't seen is much evidence of what sort of advances are paid. Does anyone have any evidence regarding the size of advances for non-fiction? Are they shrinking? Or growing? Or staying steady? Are they large enough to sustain an author while they write their book?

No-one was able to provide any evidence. The best I'd found was a 2012 article that says "I saw an article in a trade journal recently that reported that the average advance for a nonfiction book was less than $80,000." I still haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. If you have any, I'd very much like to see it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by avantman42

That's certainly how I read this:



Although I may have mis-understood.



Back in January, I asked:



No-one was able to provide any evidence. The best I'd found was a 2012 article that says "I saw an article in a trade journal recently that reported that the average advance for a nonfiction book was less than $80,000." I still haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. If you have any, I'd very much like to see it.

Are you trying to understand how the system works, or are you trying to score internet debating points?

Here is one article that I read on advances

http://work.chron.com/average-author...book-7181.html

It mentions in the article, that advances were originally intended to allow the author to finish his or her book. You might be surprised how far $80K will go for someone living frugally.

Here is another article that discusses author earnings, written in Jan 2015.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...l-350pa-survey

From the article, the median annual income from independent writers is $500 - $999. Traditionally published authors had a median annual income of $3,000 to $4,999, while hybrid authors had a median annual income of $7,500 to $9,999. Hum that average advance of $80K would look pretty darn good compared to those numbers. Only 10% earn 6 figures. None of this is particularly new. For all the fluff stories of authors, both indie and trad, earning huge sums of money, few authors are able to earn a living at it, nor have there ever been very many authors able to earn a living at it.

In the non fiction world, that $80K check might let a professor spend the summer researching his book rather than teaching summer classes.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, I know. A good friend of mine is an indie writer. I got to listen to a year's worth of the process of writing the book, figuring out how to hire a cover artist (note, he thinks that one of the people he interviewed to do the cover work and didn't get the job retaliated by panning his book in the review), hiring the editor, the process of working with the editor, etc..., so yes I do know what is involved and that most indie writers hire someone else to do those pieces. There are, of course, some pretty big issues with hiring an editor.

As far as your math, I suspect the error is in the assumed numbers you are using, rather than the mechanics. Not very many indies pulling in $4 M. Not very many traditional publisher authors pulling in that much either. The major fallacy is that going indie doesn't effect the sales numbers.

I remember your friend.
Oh and on the advances unless your name is "I can make the publisher a ton of money", that book has to be almost finished before they get the advance.

You say that advance sounds better. Maybe. Let's see, I can go with big publisher and get 10-25% of the profits my book makes with the publisher doing the accounting or I can go with Amazon and make roughly 69% of my total sales. I don't want to give someone 50% of my hard work.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

@fjtorres. Thank you for clearing up my misconceptions in this area.

Here's a recent summary of some of the more common indie pub channels, including costs for print distribution:

http://insights.bookbub.com/ultimate...ibution-tools/

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Another relevant link, this time to a blog post by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, in my opinion one of the more insightful commentators. http://kriswrites.com/2015/08/12/bus...-it-does-best/ Once again, the post speaks for itself, and I won't comment further at this stage. A relevant extract (referring to Mike Shatzkin and "his traditional publishing friends":

They also don’t understand something: they’ve lost hundreds if not thousands of important writers (no quotes). People like Elizabeth Spann Craig and Barry Eisler and J.A. Konrath. Writers like the ones in the Storybundle that I curated this month. Every single book, by every one of those writers, is indie published.

She and some of the authors mentioned are the sort of authors that I've long thought would make out the best in the indie/ebook world. They have enough of a fan base that they have a floor to their expected sales and a combination of facebook and a website would probably be enough to let the fan base know when a new work was out.

While I haven't read most of those authors, I have read (and liked) Barry Eisler. IMPO, Eisler is one of those authors I think of as "one good book" authors. He had one good book in him, then has struggled to regain that magic. His first book, Rain Fall was really good. The next one was ok, but wasn't anything that I was going to stay up at night reading. The third one wasn't quite as good as the second and I didn't finish the 4th. That's when I stopped buying his books. Perhaps some of his books after 2005 turned out well, I don't know. That particular pattern is actually fairly common with authors. The fans still love him and buy his books, but he doesn't really grow his fan base. It use to be that authors like this would bounce around between publishers after three or four books of medium sales. Now, they can go indie. I think it's a very good match.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I remember your friend.
Oh and on the advances unless your name is "I can make the publisher a ton of money", that book has to be almost finished before they get the advance.

You say that advance sounds better. Maybe. Let's see, I can go with big publisher and get 10-25% of the profits my book makes with the publisher doing the accounting or I can go with Amazon and make roughly 69% of my total sales. I don't want to give someone 50% of my hard work.

Then don't if you think the math works out for you. Some authors feel that way and more power to them. But there really is a reason that Best Selling Authors (the initial subject of the thread) tend to stay with traditional publishers and why a number of indies who make it good, sign with traditional publishers. In theory, since they actually do have the real sales figures and income figures to work with, I would assume that they are making a decision that they think is in their best interest.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Then don't if you think the math works out for you. Some authors feel that way and more power to them. But there really is a reason that Best Selling Authors (the initial subject of the thread) tend to stay with traditional publishers and why a number of indies who make it good, sign with traditional publishers. In theory, since they actually do have the real sales figures and income figures to work with, I would assume that they are making a decision that they think is in their best interest.

In the top 25 most popular authors at least 8 are indies. That is 33%.
By the way, the #1 author hires unknowns to co-author his books.

So not All best sellers are traditional.

You have put down every indie author named in this thread. You have also made assumptions about indies that are not true.

I am glad for some of the others in this thread.