Hugh Howey presents: Amazon author earnings

[HarryT]

But where did the data come from? Mr Howey's anonymous source? If that's the case, its validity can't be checked (can it? I'm happy to corrected if I'm wrong about that).

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But where did the data come from? Mr Howey's anonymous source? If that's the case, its validity can't be checked (can it? I'm happy to corrected if I'm wrong about that).

It came from Amazon's public web site that has been stated. The anonymous part is we do not know who wrote the software that crawled the website. The data source is known, the final data is known, the means used to collect the data is known. We just do not know the name of the coder. I see no issue here with that. It is verifiable, and repeatable by anyone wanting to put the time in.

[Fbone]

I think it would be easier to hack into the NYT or USA Today computers to get Amazon's data.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I think it would be easier to hack into the NYT or USA Today computers to get Amazon's data.

Maybe, but this is publicly posted data on their web site. No hacking involved.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But where did the data come from? Mr Howey's anonymous source? If that's the case, its validity can't be checked (can it? I'm happy to corrected if I'm wrong about that).

I don't see a need for correction.

Someone can try to repeat what Howey describes, but it won't be exactly replicated, if only because Amazon is often tweaking how it presents data to its customers.

I mentioned the anonymous source thing tongue in cheek because, while it's possibly true, it doesn't feel that way. Don't authors, as a class, like to draw a bit of attention to themselves? Few would want to do so much work and then pass on all credit to someone else, while completely losing control of how the data is used. In a real collaboration, there are multiple credited authors.

I'm not saying the article is bunk. But I group it closer to punditry than science.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by meeera

I just can't read that as anything other than Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy. Which makes it rough going.

Kind of the same thing isn't it?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As expected, Konrath takes Shatzkin on, point by point:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/0...-shatzkin.html

Sample:

As I read that, the only thing that stands out is that if Konrath honestly believes what is quoted there about authors reclaiming backlist books then he really doesn't have a good handle on what's going on there at all.

The economics of an author republishing his or her backlist electronically are very different from those of a commercial publisher deciding whether to devote one of their limited number of publishing slots to the same books.

Commercial publishers often let books revert because even though they might sell a steady trickle if left in print (which may require a new print run on the publisher's part), there's a brand new book in competition for that slot which the publisher expects will sell better.

As for the bolded part, commercial publishers are still better at getting author's names out there than the majority of self-publishers. The model of launching a career with a commercial publisher and then releasing books yourself after your name's out and the rights have reverted still works just fine for a number of authors.

Selling a thousand copies a year of each of 20 backlist books with very little upfront cost makes a lot of sense for a single author, doing new print runs for that entire list and convincing bookstores to stock them may not make sense for a commercial publisher. Sure, the commercial publisher may go electronic only, but if they're working from an older contract they may need to keep physical copies in print to retain the rights.

Different business models have different profit thresholds, so a model that's viable for a self-published author may not be viable for a commercial publisher, and vice versa.

[Lemurion]

Here's an interesting article about the statistics of Howey's report, and why this person doesn't think it paints an accurate picture of what's really going on in the marketplace.

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/how-not...th-statistics/

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Here's an interesting article about the statistics of Howey's report, and why this person doesn't think it paints an accurate picture of what's really going on in the marketplace.

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/how-not...th-statistics/

Speaking as someone with a degree in statistics, her points are valid, to a degree (though she can't see that a flat file allows her to put in any DB she wants is a bit silly. Speaking as data guy IRL, I prefer the flat file so I can move the data to where I want.). She how ever did not point out anything that the authors of the studies did not disclose, so there really is no new information in that article. Hugh has publically stated all of those weaknesses, and also stated they are working with a new data set that is expanded considerably. I personally am more interested in that expanded data set, and hope it dips into the midlist more.

The real untold story is the army of indies and trad pubs that are not in the top 10%. How do they compare? Wall Street Journal and others have all reported that indies make up 1/3rd of the market which is strong support for what Hugh posted... but I would love to know what that looks like lower in the ranks. I know what *MY* numbers are, and I am amazed by people that say "indie books dont sell" or "a book sells 100-200 copies in a life time and that is it" because that is not my experience, nor the experience of others who I have access to.

The past 3-5 years have shaken up the market tremendously and we lack any real data to predict soundly the next 5. There just is not enough history yet. What is the lifespan of an ebook? 1 year? 10? 100? Do tactics like serialized novels, loss leaders, permafree, and play well in the long term? Do fast hitting spikes to the top ten on Amazon matter in 5, 10 or 15 years? Do we have any way to guess that? What is the long term impact of KDP Select or Sony's collapse? If B&N folds, or survives, what impact will that have? What will be the long term impact to sites like Oyster, Nokboo, and Scribd which give unlimited books for a flat price?

I think Hugh's report is good for what it claims to be - a snapshot of a specific market at a specific point in time. The inferences drawn from may go too far, or not far enough, depending on your personal bias, but what it does show is that some Self-pubs are killing it out there, and proving that self-pub is a very viable way to go.

[Lemurion]

The problem is that there are an awful lot of people who are using this study as the basis for conclusions the data just doesn't support.

Howey himself is guilty of this:

“Our data suggests that even stellar manuscripts are better off self-published.”

The data suggests nothing of the sort. It makes no suggestions either way as to whether it's better for an author to self-publish a stellar manuscript or have it commercially published. The information to make that decision isn't there.

All it suggests is that a genre novel can reach roughly equivalent sales ranks on Amazon whether it is self-published or commercially published. Self-published authors can achieve the same level of Amazon success on a given day as commercially published ones, at least when it comes to eBooks.

It doesn't factor in advances, nor print sales, so you can't make an accurate comparison between the two based on the data in this report.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem is that there are an awful lot of people who are using this study as the basis for conclusions the data just doesn't support.

Howey himself is guilty of this:



The data suggests nothing of the sort. It makes no suggestions either way as to whether it's better for an author to self-publish a stellar manuscript or have it commercially published. The information to make that decision isn't there.

All it suggests is that a genre novel can reach roughly equivalent sales ranks on Amazon whether it is self-published or commercially published. Self-published authors can achieve the same level of Amazon success on a given day as commercially published ones, at least when it comes to eBooks.

It doesn't factor in advances, nor print sales, so you can't make an accurate comparison between the two based on the data in this report.

And because every contract with a trad publisher is going to be different even if you had more Amazon info, you wouldn't have enough info. These are fun numbers to throw around, but the only way to make a decision is to evaluate every single situation and book in its given circumstance.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And because every contract with a trad publisher is going to be different even if you had more Amazon info, you wouldn't have enough info. These are fun numbers to throw around, but the only way to make a decision is to evaluate every single situation and book in its given circumstance.

Exactly.

And while the numbers do indicate that for a given volume of Kindle sales, in dollars, a self-publishing author will generate more revenue for themselves than a commercially published author, they say nothing about the relative ease, or difficulty, of generating that volume of sales with a self-published as opposed to a commercially-published book.

It's just another example of people drawing a conclusion the numbers don't support, which is why I don't like this study.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

She however did not point out anything that the authors of the studies did not disclose, so there really is no new information in that article.

I thought there was just one author, Hugh Howey.

As for new information, what about this:

The data look to be skewed, and also to be non-normally distributed.

As someone with a degree in statistics, I have a question for you. What was political scientist Sunita hoping we would conclude from the non-normal distribution observation?

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As someone with a degree in statistics, I have a question for you. What was political scientist Sunita hoping we would conclude from the non-normal distribution observation?

Plainest way I can put it, and this was her core argument - the data is as snapshot in time of a single store, which means statistically the sample is not varied enough to apply to the market as a whole.

It would be like studying New York City in order to understand the USA as a whole and then applying what you learned in NYC to the entire country.

It is useful for exactly what it is doing, raising awareness that self-pub authors can and do compete with the big publishers, something many experts have been trying to deny. That was Hugh's objective and in that he has succeeded. All across the industry people are talking about the data. I suspect we will see competing surveys and reports with time.

I have not pulled down the raw data myself yet, and probably will not. I need to focus focus on finishing my WIP and not be to distracted by things like this. Failing on that account so far....

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

It is useful for exactly what it is doing, raising awareness that self-pub authors can and do compete with the big publishers, something many experts have been trying to deny. That was Hugh's objective and in that he has succeeded. All across the industry people are talking about the data. I suspect we will see competing surveys and reports with time.

We're long past the point where anyone's denying that self-published authors can compete with commercially published authors at least in terms of Kindle success.

The only real questions left have to do with how reasonable are these expectations for a self-published author, and those questions are a lot more difficult to answer. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think this study does answer those questions (Howey is apparently among them), even though it doesn't even come close to addressing them. However, by saying that the data suggests self-publishing is a better choice for "even stellar manuscripts," he's saying that the expectations of success are better with self-publishing than commercial publishing even though the numbers say nothing of the sort.

They talk about how much money an author can make, but not about how likely they are to make it, but without that latter part there's no way to tell which choice is better.