Macmillan comes to terms with Amazon

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No it's not. You said that big name widgets are more valuable than same name widgets, ergo they are not the same.

I guess you didn't really understand what I said then, so here goes again.

Big name widgets are more valuable than small name widgets, but, and this is the critical point of my entire statement earlier, one big name widget is much like another big name widget, and more importantly, one small name widget is much like the other few million small name widgets.

I apologize if this concept is too complicated for you to understand. Please tell me how I can make myself more clear.
I feel terrible that I have failed to impart the actual meaning of my words. (It would be all right if you understood what I said and disagreed...)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is a difference between an elite author and an author that has a steady audience. While elite author is the one that signs the big bucks contracts, the authors with a steady audience tend to have good relationships with their publishers as well.

Few of the major publishers are happy to take any talent as long as they are willing to sell for less. They are looking for talent that will at least let them break even. A while back, I posted a link that said that the normal burdened cost of publishing a book is 50K. That's before it hits the market and excluding any up front payment to the author.

There are, of course, publishers who are happy to publish any level talent. They used to be called vanity publishers.

I doubt that 99% of authors fall to that level. Perhaps 99% of would be authors do, but most working authors don't.

I think my point was that according to authors with a steady audience, once upon a time they were new authors. Strange though it may sound...

And there is plenty of authors-with-a-steady-audience to go around, as well.

And authors with a steady audience have a great relationship with their publishers as long as the relationship is not about money, again, according to authors with a steady audience.

I think you were confused by my reference to "happy to take any talent as long as it is willing to sell for less".

I meant "any talent" as in "any member of that group of people with enough talent to hold a steady audience", not "a pperson with any level of talent".

It would really help if you stopped assuming that anyone who disagrees with publishers and supports indies must be a person content with any level of self-published dreck. (Because apparently that is all self-publishing is, is vanity publishing, right?)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I guess you didn't really understand what I said then, so here goes again.

Big name widgets are more valuable than small name widgets, but, and this is the critical point of my entire statement earlier, one big name widget is much like another big name widget, and more importantly, one small name widget is much like the other few million small name widgets.

I apologize if this concept is too complicated for you to understand. Please tell me how I can make myself more clear.
I feel terrible that I have failed to impart the actual meaning of my words. (It would be all right if you understood what I said and disagreed...)

By not mis-using the term widget? To give a more concrete example of something that might actually be called a widget, DVD players are pretty close to widget status. I've read that most DVD players are actually manufactured by a small group of companies (i.e. 2 or 3) and almost all use the same basic components inside. There is very little price or quality difference between the players.

Calling something a big name widget or a small name widget is like a recipe using a big cup of sugar verse a small cup of sugar. They may be trying to convey that one should use a cup of sugar plus a little more without going to the effort of actually measuring out the amount used, but a cup of sugar refers to the same specific amount regardless.

If you plug in the term that you actually mean to, i.e. author, then you find that the levels of sales is much more granular than just big name author and small name author.

Big name authors go all the way from multimillionaires like JK Rowlings and Tom Clancy (who in his later years, basically rented out his name IMPO) all the way down to authors who are able to avoid getting a day job by simply putting out a lot of books each year in various genres, or who have a day job that allows them to keep writing. They sell well enough (i.e. at least break even) that publishers keep buying their books and people recognize their name, but never have that big seller that puts them over the top.

Small name authors go from up and coming authors who have put out some good books that for some reason never really clicked with the buying public, but if they keep it up might eventually establish an audience (Rick Cook might be in this category. A fairly small group of readers know who he is and really like his stuff, but he never really clicked with the buying public and he only put out a handful of books) , all the way down to the authors who can't find a publisher and don't sale much in the indie market, but are authors because the cost of self publishing is so low.

From that stand point, one big name author is not the same as another big name author. There is a huge difference between J.K. Rowlings (it was huge news when she announced that she was going to come out with some new books set in the Harry Potter universe) and say Terry Brooks, who actually still makes the NY Times best seller list but certainly doesn't remotely generate the sales that Rowlings does.

I would also say that all small named authors aren't the same either. For example, it's not uncommon for a publisher to basically "carry" an author his or her first couple of books with the hope that they will establish an audience over time. But they only do this for authors they think are good enough to establish an audience. They don't do this for that other 99% of new manuscripts that hit the slush pile.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

...

It would really help if you stopped assuming that anyone who disagrees with publishers and supports indies must be a person content with any level of self-published dreck. (Because apparently that is all self-publishing is, is vanity publishing, right?)

Given that I'm not assuming that, perhaps it would help if you stopped assuming that I'm assuming that.

I'm sure there are plenty of good authors who self publish. Rather obviously, at least some find a good audience and make good money at it. The only reason that I don't delve into self published books (other than a handful that are recommended here) is that I have little enough time to read the books that I know that I want to read. Some of the self published books that I have read I like well enough that I've bought other books by that author, while others were not my cup of tea, though I didn't think they were drek.

Obviously Sturgeon's Law applies. I never had the patience to sort though the 90% of drek to get the 10% of non drek. I'm sure that self published books have the same ratio of good to bad that slush piles do. Way back when, Baen actually opened up his slush pile (unsolicited manuscripts) for readers to sort through. Some people absolutely loved doing that. I wasn't one of them.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by murg

I find that very few don't acknowledge the value that the publishers bring to the table, when the publishers actually provide those services.

Key phrase "when the publishers actually provide those services.,

Currently none of the Sisters provide anything that can be, under any definition, construed as:

• Copy editing;
• Continuity editing;
• Proof Reading;