How many authors can the consumers sustain?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If you are saying that 5% = 500 authors, that means that there are only 10k authors.


From an article from August 2011:

There is a lot of money in writing, it just depends on how many people want a slice of this pie.

I *told* you I made up the 500 number.

The author gets one of the smallest pieces of the pie--7 to 15 percent of a book sale. The vast majority of midlist authors cannot make a living just on fiction sales. I base this on surveys and a number of midlist bloggers. It can depend on family size and circumstances, but in general, it's very difficult.

I thought making 70 percent of 2.99 might help me make the grade. Well, turns out that I would have to sell a lot more books than I do. The social security taxes on the income is 15 percent--right off the top, with nearly no expenses that can be written off of it (you can write off expenses against federal income taxes). Then there's food to buy, rent or house payment...

Just not that easy.

For a trad author that 15 percent still has to be paid--AND if they have an agent, there goes another 15 percent off the top. They are now down 30 percent of the 7 to 15 percent of a book's price...

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I thought making 70 percent of 2.99 might help me make the grade. Well, turns out that I would have to sell a lot more books than I do. The social security taxes on the income is 15 percent--right off the top, with nearly no expenses that can be written off of it (you can write off expenses against federal income taxes). Then there's food to buy, rent or house payment...

No, the SS payment is not right off the top. It's after you deduct all the legitimate business expenses from your gross--that could be your home office, your supplies, your advertising, etc. Then you get to deduct half of your SS payment on your 1040.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The author gets one of the smallest pieces of the pie--7 to 15 percent of a book sale.

More authors would be able to make a living if publishers would be less greedy. As long as there are those that are willing to work for less publishers will have the upper hand.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If their interest would have been shoving the other publishers off the shelf they would have lowered the book prices. Coke and Pepsi dominate the shelves especially when they have sales.

I don't quite see the anology?
Coke and pepsi sell only their own manufactured products AFAIK.
Publishers of fiction sell products produced by many authors.

Harlequin is the only publisher that comes to mind with a really strong brand name recognition although some pulp magazines probably qualify as well. I am sure there are many others but....

I do not buy a fiction book based on the publisher. I do not say to myself, here is a book published by xxx so I know I will enjoy it even if I don't like the author/genre because I bought a book from them last month and it was good. In general I have been blissfully unaware of the actual publisher when buying a book or borrowing from the library. I don't see that changing.

Of course I don't buy Coke or Pepsi simply because there are more of them on the shelf or they are on sale.

Helen

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Of course I don't buy Coke or Pepsi simply because there are more of them on the shelf or they are on sale.

But if something isn't on the shelves at all, you can't buy it.

It might be the case that the publishing industry as a whole could be better off if they could limit the number of authors, I don't know. A monopoly could do this, but with multiple companies, if any one of them limited the number of authors, that would simply mean a smaller share of the pie.

[ApK]

<Never mind--I didn't read all five pages....>

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But if something isn't on the shelves at all, you can't buy it..

This is true and Coke and Pepsi give free coolers to stores that promise to only stock their products. But there are few stores that only stock one or the other.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It might be the case that the publishing industry as a whole could be better off if they could limit the number of authors, I don't know. A monopoly could do this, but with multiple companies, if any one of them limited the number of authors, that would simply mean a smaller share of the pie.

That is my opinion.

I have lived in towns that no books are sold(2011), and towns with only one little small rack of books. The little small racks do carry several publishers in my experience but they probably come from one distributer.

[Andrew H.]

There are around 250,000 books published by publishers in the US every year. The best number I could find on the internet suggested that there were 50,000 novels published every year. If 5% of these authors made a living, that would be 2500 self-supporting fiction writers.

However, other sources suggest that 70% of authors don't earn back their advance. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/bo...w/Meyer-t.html This would mean that 30% of authors *would* earn back their advance. Average advances tend to be in the $30-40,000 range (with some obviously being much greater). This would mean that 15,000 authors would make at least that much money. (And the remainder would still get their advance).

So on this scale, 5% looks too low. However, it's not enough to get a, say, $50,000 advance; to make a living, you need to get a $50,000 advance *every year.* Or a much larger advance less frequently. So 5% may be an accurate percentage of those authors who can make enough from their writing to live off of it for a, say, 10 year period.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

No, the SS payment is not right off the top. It's after you deduct all the legitimate business expenses from your gross--that could be your home office, your supplies, your advertising, etc. Then you get to deduct half of your SS payment on your 1040.

I thought so too, but when entering in Turbotax, it doesn't appear to be deducting any expenses from the SS owed. The half of SS payment on the 140 seems to work out correctly, but no expenses against SS. I have looked at it every possible way I can think of. I suppose I could take it to a tax person (I did that one year. The entire thing was done wrong and I had to do it again myself.)

Taxes are so dang complicated.

But thanks for the input. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong, assuming I'm doing something wrong. But the biggest expenses (printing galley proofs and mailing them to editors--which is a very large part of expenses, doesn't seem to deduct at all. I may be entering it wrong, of course because it's nearly impossible to figure out where everything goes.)

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

More authors would be able to make a living if publishers would be less greedy. As long as there are those that are willing to work for less publishers will have the upper hand.

But the publishers have to pay editors, editor pensions, healthcare, office space, and keep shareholders happy. They are doing their job in negotiating the best that they can for their own gain. Let's face it. There are more willing authors than there are publishers to publish them. That means things are skewed toward the publisher.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There are around 250,000 books published by publishers in the US every year. The best number I could find on the internet suggested that there were 50,000 novels published every year. If 5% of these authors made a living, that would be 2500 self-supporting fiction writers.

However, other sources suggest that 70% of authors don't earn back their advance. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/bo...w/Meyer-t.html This would mean that 30% of authors *would* earn back their advance. Average advances tend to be in the $30-40,000 range (with some obviously being much greater). This would mean that 15,000 authors would make at least that much money. (And the remainder would still get their advance).

So on this scale, 5% looks too low. However, it's not enough to get a, say, $50,000 advance; to make a living, you need to get a $50,000 advance *every year.* Or a much larger advance less frequently. So 5% may be an accurate percentage of those authors who can make enough from their writing to live off of it for a, say, 10 year period.

I've seen several articles/posts/surveys that show the average advance for a debut novel is between 5k and 10k (with a major house. Smaller publishers often by 500 to zero advance and only pay for copies sold.) 10k is not enough to live on for even a single year. And in fact, since most publishers only make room on the roster for one book per year per author (exceptions are made for authors like JD Robb or Stephen King) an author has to write for several years and hope that each book earns out and that each advance is larger.

It's a difficult business, which is why so many authors have day jobs.

It isn't just the actual income--it's the things like retirement, healthcare and the higher out of pocket expenses (things like websites, higher social security taxes, agents and any marketing the author decides to do.)

[DiapDealer]

However, it's not enough to get a, say, $50,000 advance; to make a living, you need to get a $50,000 advance *every year.* Or a much larger advance less frequently.

That's where things break down. Because I could make a living on half that amount every year. I wouldn't be hobbin' and nobbin' and flying to Disney World every year, but I could eat and pay rent on 25-30k. In fact, I do.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's where things break down. Because I could make a living on half that amount every year. I wouldn't be hobbin' and nobbin' and flying to Disney World every year, but I could eat and pay rent on 25-30k. In fact, I do.

It probably depends on the cost of living in your area, too.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I thought so too, but when entering in Turbotax, it doesn't appear to be deducting any expenses from the SS owed. The half of SS payment on the 140 seems to work out correctly, but no expenses against SS. I have looked at it every possible way I can think of. I suppose I could take it to a tax person (I did that one year. The entire thing was done wrong and I had to do it again myself.)

Taxes are so dang complicated.

But thanks for the input. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong, assuming I'm doing something wrong. But the biggest expenses (printing galley proofs and mailing them to editors--which is a very large part of expenses, doesn't seem to deduct at all. I may be entering it wrong, of course because it's nearly impossible to figure out where everything goes.)

Are you filing Schedule C? There's a place at the end to list expenses that are hard to classify. I've done this in Turbo Tax for years, and if your profit from your sole proprietorship is under about $300 you pay no self-employment tax. Above that you pay the 12%. You use your profit or loss TOTAL from Schedule C in Schedule SE, which includes your (subtracted) expenses. The expenses for postage and office supplies go on line 18 in Schedule C.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I thought so too, but when entering in Turbotax, it doesn't appear to be deducting any expenses from the SS owed. The half of SS payment on the 140 seems to work out correctly, but no expenses against SS. I have looked at it every possible way I can think of. I suppose I could take it to a tax person (I did that one year. The entire thing was done wrong and I had to do it again myself.)

If you have self-employment income, you should be filing a Schedule C--that is where you take your relevant deductions. Then you fill in your net income from Schedule C on Schedule SE (which is where you figure SS tax).

Edited to add: Oops, I see I'm basically repeating information!