Best Selling Authors and Self Publishing

[Cinisajoy]

Since one person was using John Scalzi as an example. Here are a few rankings.
J. S. Scott is #9. Hugh Howey is #17. Joe Konrath is #21 & 26.
John Scalzi is #81.
I found that interesting.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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.

I tried telling him about the Patterson Cooperative, but I'm not sure he believed me. At least, he glossed over that bit in his response.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=61


He's also still convinced, after multiple explanations of the error of his ways, that "If indies aren't in the top 100 in the Kindle store, that says something to me".




As a new member, you wouldn't have had prior experience/history here in the argumentation chamber; suffice it to say, certain peoples' blindness doesn't come as a surprise.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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

My intention was to engage in honest argument. I pointed out to Steve that I thought he'd made a mistake. Since you had only implied, rather than outright stated, that advances are high enough to remove worries about paying bills, I also said that I might have mis-read your post. Perhaps you'd like to let us both know whether I had mis-read you?

As for the part about advances, I'm simply trying to find some evidence one way or the other. Note that I'm asking about non-fiction advances specifically, not fiction. Steve said "a lot of non-fiction writing is incompatible with having a continuous day job due to need to spend months traveling to research sites." I don't disagree with that, and I've seen people (including Steve, I think) state that non-fiction advances pay for an author's expenses while they research and write the book. I'm sure that was true in the past, but since fiction advances are smaller than they used to be, it may be that non-fiction advances are too. I don't know if they are or not, but I'd like to find out.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

Thanks for the link, but the only mention of non-fiction advances seems to be this sentence: "Publishers pay authors advances that range from as little as $1,000 to amounts in the high six figures for fiction and non-fiction." Frankly, that doesn't tell me much.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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

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

That article doesn't mention how much authors get paid as advances at all, so I don't see how it's relevant to my question.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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

I agree. However, the article that gave that figure also says that publishers typically pay a third or a half in advance, so after the agent's 15% cut, the professor would have $22,666.66 or $34,000 for the summer. That'd be plenty for me, but I'm not a professor

All that still doesn't answer the question of what the current average advance is. $80,000 was apparently the average in 2012. That was three years ago. Has it increased? Decreased? Stayed the same?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I tried telling him about the Patterson Cooperative, but I'm not sure he believed me. At least, he glossed over that bit in his response.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=61


He's also still convinced, after multiple explanations of the error of his ways, that "If indies aren't in the top 100 in the Kindle store, that says something to me".




As a new member, you wouldn't have had prior experience/history here in the argumentation chamber; suffice it to say, certain peoples' blindness doesn't come as a surprise.

Only new here, not new to internet forums so the blindness doesn't surprise me.
I must say that I am liking it here.
I thought it was just parts of my posts the guy was glossing over.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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.

Given that I have expressed an opinion about only one author (Barry Eisler) in this thread, and I said that I really liked his first book, I'm sure that you are quite mistaken.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Given that I have expressed an opinion about only one author (Barry Eisler) in this thread, and I said that I really liked his first book, I'm sure that you are quite mistaken.

You also said Hugh Howey publishes chapters not books.

Though I have been known to be mistaken at times.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Only new here, not new to internet forums so the blindness doesn't surprise me.
I must say that I am liking it here.
I thought it was just parts of my posts the guy was glossing over.

Maybe not surprise, more like the Who's Who.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Given that I have expressed an opinion about only one author (Barry Eisler) in this thread, and I said that I really liked his first book, I'm sure that you are quite mistaken.

I'm quite sure you made a number of comments about indies in general. That is how I read Cinisajoy's statement -- not that you were targeting each one specifically.

But then, you knew that already.


EDIT: And yeah, the Hugh Howey putdown. For reference:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Thanks for the pointer. Now I've heard of him. I was wondering how he was able to churn out so many titles so fast, but I see that he basically releases his titles a chapter at a time. I've heard that was a popular method of maximizing revenue in the kindle indie world.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I tried telling him about the Patterson Cooperative, but I'm not sure he believed me. At least, he glossed over that bit in his response.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=61


He's also still convinced, after multiple explanations of the error of his ways, that "If indies aren't in the top 100 in the Kindle store, that says something to me".




As a new member, you wouldn't have had prior experience/history here in the argumentation chamber; suffice it to say, certain peoples' blindness doesn't come as a surprise.

Perhaps if you were a bit more forthright in your points. Obviously Patterson is a traditional published author. Is your point that he uses co-writers/ghost writers? If so, he's hardly the first one. Tom Clancy does too (one could say that he is the ghost writer now. [yes, that is an attempt at humor]) Baen paired recognized authors with less recognized authors all the time. Heck, the practice goes all the way back to the 1800's.

As far as indies in the top 100 list, well when I look at Amazon's best sellers of 2014 for Kindle eBook ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestseller...text/154606011)

it lists

#9 If I Stay - Gayle Forman
#17 - Sycamore Row - John Grisham
#21 - Top Secret: Twenty-One - Janet Evanovich
#26 - The Book Thief - Markus Zusak
#81 - The Martian - Andy Weir

Neither Hugh Howey nor John Scalzi made the list. Howey was the one I explicitly scanned for since he is apparently one of the top selling indies.

Yes, certain people's blindness isn't a surprise at all. Sometimes it's useful to double check assertions, you know.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Perhaps if you were a bit more forthright in your points. Obviously Patterson is a traditional published author. Is your point that he uses co-writers/ghost writers? If so, he's hardly the first one. Tom Clancy does too (one could say that he is the ghost writer now. [yes, that is an attempt at humor]) Baen paired recognized authors with less recognized authors all the time. Heck, the practice goes all the way back to the 1800's.

As far as indies in the top 100 list, well when I look at Amazon's best sellers of 2014 for Kindle eBook ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestseller...text/154606011)

it lists

#9 If I Stay - Gayle Forman
#17 - Sycamore Row - John Grisham
#21 - Top Secret: Twenty-One - Janet Evanovich
#26 - The Book Thief - Markus Zusak
#81 - The Martian - Andy Weir

Neither Hugh Howey nor John Scalzi made the list. Howey was the one I explicitly scanned for since he is apparently one of the top selling indies.

Yes, certain people's blindness isn't a surprise at all. Sometimes it's useful to double check assertions, you know.

You know if I want to know who is on top, I don't want old figures I prefer up to date.
I was looking at authors not books.
Most authors have more than one book that can and are still bought. To me author rank means more than what one book is doing.

Heck, Grey by EL James was number 1 a couple of weeks ago. The publisher had marked down the ebook to 99 cents.

I would bet money that I know what one of the best sellers will be the week of September 1.
I would also bet that it makes the NYT list.

So now do you want to talk authors or individual books?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by avantman42

My intention was to engage in honest argument. I pointed out to Steve that I thought he'd made a mistake. Since you had only implied, rather than outright stated, that advances are high enough to remove worries about paying bills, I also said that I might have mis-read your post. Perhaps you'd like to let us both know whether I had mis-read you?

As for the part about advances, I'm simply trying to find some evidence one way or the other. Note that I'm asking about non-fiction advances specifically, not fiction. Steve said "a lot of non-fiction writing is incompatible with having a continuous day job due to need to spend months traveling to research sites." I don't disagree with that, and I've seen people (including Steve, I think) state that non-fiction advances pay for an author's expenses while they research and write the book. I'm sure that was true in the past, but since fiction advances are smaller than they used to be, it may be that non-fiction advances are too. I don't know if they are or not, but I'd like to find out.



Thanks for the link, but the only mention of non-fiction advances seems to be this sentence: "Publishers pay authors advances that range from as little as $1,000 to amounts in the high six figures for fiction and non-fiction." Frankly, that doesn't tell me much.



That article doesn't mention how much authors get paid as advances at all, so I don't see how it's relevant to my question.



I agree. However, the article that gave that figure also says that publishers typically pay a third or a half in advance, so after the agent's 15% cut, the professor would have $22,666.66 or $34,000 for the summer. That'd be plenty for me, but I'm not a professor

All that still doesn't answer the question of what the current average advance is. $80,000 was apparently the average in 2012. That was three years ago. Has it increased? Decreased? Stayed the same?

Well, _I_ could pay the bills on 80K and I don't live particularly frugally, so yes I think that one can pay the bills on 80K. As far as what the average advance is now, well I haven't seen any good data. The best swipe at it that I've seen is this

http://agenthunter.co.uk/blog/363/

Which put's it at 20K, considerably less that 80K. But that's from a self selecting set of respondents. Advances have always been based on how many books the publisher thinks they will sale rather than the author's need, so I'm sure advances is all over the place. I suppose that one can look at the data that Scalzi posted on Lock In, then compare it to the contract that he signed (both links are elsewhere in this thread) and try to calculate the advance per title.

As far as non fiction verse fiction, I would say that I have no idea.

Frankly, my personal take on advances is that an advance is better than a kick in the tail. It's history dates back to the days when most people lived far more frugally than they do today. To an extent, I think you are trying to over analysis it. If the point is what's better, getting an advance and not getting an advance, then I think getting an advance is obviously better. If the question is can a specific author make more money as an indie or with a traditional publisher, then I would guess (and the key word is guess since there are so many variables) that it really depends on the author and how good he or she is at self promotion, how disciplined they are and how much hand holding they require to produce the book that hits the stores.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

You know if I want to know who is on top, I don't want old figures I prefer up to date.
I was looking at authors not books.
Most authors have more than one book that can and are still bought. To me author rank means more than what one book is doing.

Heck, Grey by EL James was number 1 a couple of weeks ago. The publisher had marked down the ebook to 99 cents.

I would bet money that I know what one of the best sellers will be the week of September 1.
I would also bet that it makes the NYT list.

So now do you want to talk authors or individual books?

Given that it's August 14th, 2015, that's pretty much as up to date as one gets. Trying to look at 2015 figures ignores the fact that many of the big sellers tend to come out in the September/October time frame and give a false comparison.

I'm talking books. If you talk authors, you start to get into chapter books where one actual book counts as 5-10 in the sales figures. That leads to an apples to watermelons comparison.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Given that it's August 14th, 2015, that's pretty much as up to date as one gets. Trying to look at 2015 figures ignores the fact that many of the big sellers tend to come out in the September/October time frame and give a false comparison.

I'm talking books. If you talk authors, you start to get into chapter books where one actual book counts as 5-10 in the sales figures. That leads to an apples to watermelons comparison.

You just confused me.
You want to say that advances are great. Here is the thing. If the author has no other books out, unless they are super exceptional, they won't get that 80k advance. Even then, that promised advance might not be all one payment.
Referring back to Ms Aubrey, the papers said that she turned down a 6 figure advance. In reality, the advance was in 3 increments over a period of 3 books and only if the first book sold wonderfully.
So it is possible that 80k was more like 25k.

Now I would bet money that if Hugh or Joe or a few other indies told the Randy Penguin, they wanted 100k to write a book, the penguin would say yes.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To an extent, I think you are trying to over analysis it. If the point is what's better, getting an advance and not getting an advance, then I think getting an advance is obviously better. If the question is can a specific author make more money as an indie or with a traditional publisher, then I would guess (and the key word is guess since there are so many variables) that it really depends on the author and how good he or she is at self promotion, how disciplined they are and how much hand holding they require to produce the book that hits the stores.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier. I'm curious to know whether or not current non-fiction advances are sufficient to pay an author's expenses while he/she writes and researches a book. Evidently they were once. I'd like to know if that's still the case. That's all.

[Cinisajoy]

Dumb question.
How often does the New York Times best seller list come out?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Perhaps if you were a bit more forthright in your points. Obviously Patterson is a traditional published author. Is your point that he uses co-writers/ghost writers? If so, he's hardly the first one. Tom Clancy does too (one could say that he is the ghost writer now. [yes, that is an attempt at humor]) Baen paired recognized authors with less recognized authors all the time. Heck, the practice goes all the way back to the 1800's.

You are being orthogonal.

My point was, it is very difficult for any indie writer to compete directly with a Collective, whether that collective is Clancy or Patterson.

It is also difficult for an indie to directly compete with J.K. Rowling. Or John Grisham. Or the Bible.




But, critically, neither can John Scalzi. Or most tradpubbed authors.

Yet apparently your takeaway was "Hugh Howey is the/a top-selling indie author". (And to dismissively claim "though a million probably isn't correct. How many authors publish books with traditional publishers in a year. It's got to be far less than 100,000". Clearly you have never heard of a specific very famous figure of speech. Or else you are raising nitpicking to... well, actually, your usual high. Why am I continually surprised?)

I have no idea if he is, all I know that he is:

• popular
• respected
• makes a lot of money
• publicly opinionated on the matter of self-publishing
• respected for that too

On the matter of top sellers, the obvious choices are a handful of thrillers and cheap "romance" that make up their numbers from the vast majority of book buyers who read a book a year and have a gravitational attraction to total dreck (the trad- AND self-pubbed kind).
Witness how 50 Shades was and still is a bestseller. And yes, I did just lump Patterson and Grisham in the same category.

Otherwise-known-as: Why eschwartz Is Depressed With The Human Race.
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.