Ex-CEO of Random House on ebook pricing and the future of publishing

[rixte]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If you are asserting that this is only an assumption, it might behoove you to read those things at the beginning of books called prefaces. In them the authors describe how they came to write and publish the work.

You are making an assertion that DIRECTLY denies things writers have been saying since the 19th century. On what evidence do you make this ludicrous claim?

I'm confused as to what you're trying to refute here. I'm saying that I believe that there are talented writers out there who want to write, yes, and that they want to earn a living at writing, not to give those works away for free. Are you suggesting that those published writers are saddened that that they're getting paid for those books? I have yet to read a preface that says any such thing.

I also base this on the fact, while I am not a novelist myself, I probably count 20+ friends as novelists and have been asked to critique their work. And in most cases their dreams are to earn their living writing - not to get published alone, but to be able to write full time - and still to eat eat, pay rent, and exist.

I am not saying that they are entitled to this. But if they have the talent (and some of them are published authors and some have merely agents and some just have manuscripts in a drawer) than a world in which people are saying that they should give up their labor for free and and they don't deserve to be paid because by its very nature, creativity should be a gift to the world that doesn't give back - well, the people who say that may say they care about books, but they clearly don't care about writers or their future.

[rixte]

And, as a side note, I want to reiterate that much slush fiction is really awful. Much self-published writing is really awful. Very few pieces don't need extensive editing and rewriting before they are of quality. This instant-publish-on-demand model that seems to be envisioned by some people is one that just horrifies me, because I know hard it is to find good quality writing now. In that future, it will become a needle in a haystack.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sirbruce, all business is commodity business.

Everything else you said pretty much supported MY argument, not yours, that it's not a commodity business. So I guess we're not understanding each-other.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I am a believer that writing is a calling. Those of us who write will do so whether paid or not.

A very romantic but outdated notion. It's fine if YOU need to believe that to be a writer. But it's not true for everyone.

I have so many things I'm "called" to do I don't have enough hours in the day to do them. So I have to pick and choose. If writing becomes cost-prohibitve then I'll do something else because I have to eat.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Why is this same argument brought up all the time about 'people eating', if you want to make a living then writing never was an occupation that would guarantee any kind of comfort. NEVER. Historically it's only been the smallest percentage of published writers who made their living soley on the profit from their works.

Why is it that so many seem to suggest the idea of "being called to be a writer" and the idea of earning a living from doing so are so mutually exclusive?

Why do so many seem to suggest that the idea that one might want to (shock, horror!!!) make some money from their efforts at writing some how dirties the noble calling of being a writer?

No job in this day and age gives any sort of guarantee of an income. Sure, some may seem more secure than others, but why does that have to mean that "if you want to make money then you should not be a writer in order to do so"?

Whilst I do agree that those who are "called to writing" will do so whether paid or not,(whether or not anyone wants to read their calling is another matter!) I think this idea that one should not sully the profession by admitting a desire to make money is a red herring. It is just another example of societies programming that says "money is bad, mmmmkay!"

Just becacuse one feels "called to write", doesn't make that person any more worthy, or give them any more right to the moral high ground, than another who writes because they want to earn a living doing so.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Why is it that so many seem to suggest the idea of "being called to be a writer" and the idea of earning a living from doing so are so mutually exclusive?

Why do so many seem to suggest that the idea that one might want to (shock, horror!!!) make some money from their efforts at writing some how dirties the noble calling of being a writer?

No job in this day and age gives any sort of guarantee of an income. Sure, some may seem more secure than others, but why does that have to mean that "if you want to make money then you should not be a writer in order to do so"?

Whilst I do agree that those who are "called to writing" will do so whether paid or not,(whether or not anyone wants to read their calling is another matter!) I think this idea that one should not sully the profession by admitting a desire to make money is a red herring. It is just another example of societies programming that says "money is bad, mmmmkay!"

Just becacuse one feels "called to write", doesn't make that person any more worthy, or give them any more right to the moral high ground, than another who writes because they want to earn a living doing so.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I think maybe you've misconstrued the intentions of those who bring up the 'vocational' or 'calling' aspect of writing. Nobody here has said that its 'bad' to make money from writing, what we are saying is that its not a 'guarantee', that if you're in writing solely for the money then you're probably quite deluded. Like any other creative art, writing has very few monetary winners. There's an article over at Baen I'll try to dig up, that shows you just how few published writers earn a living from what they write.

To think that, even after you've gone through the mill of agent/publisher/long haul of waiting to get into print, that you'll actually be able to sustain a living from your creative endeavors is ludicrous. You'd get better odds playing the LOTTO.

This isn't a money=bad equation, this is an expectation of money=stupidity equation. The publishing industry is only marginally less tightfisted than the recording industry when it comes to paying the creative talent. 7-15% on sales of the book after, AFTER you've made back your paltry $2000 (or thereabouts) advance. There's only two ways you'll make a living on that kind of income:

1: You become a bestseller and your advances shoot through the roof.

2: You publish 15 novels a year (doable in the old pulp days, but not any longer)

So what are you left with if you're not writing for money, if money becomes such a ridiculous notion in the overall equation? Well, you're left with the reason you wanted to write in the first place - either because you want to be read or because you're compelled to write. Either of these reasons is helped along nicely by the internet that has no long-haul, that has no agents or publishers or even an idea of sustained payment.

And now you, as the writer, are left with an option that was never present before the wonderful digital age. Do you go the old route, which is slow, monetarily unsure and lets face it, quite boring or do you go for the readers on the internet. Do you try and gain an audience for your writing whatever way you can.

Do you take it back to the original reason for writing; to be read, or is money the real measure of success for you as a writer? Is getting paid really all you want out of this? Is payment the only way you'll feel that your 'time' is worthwhile. If so, then my advice is give up writing fiction, write a self-help book or a diet book, they sell well and its still creative writing. If money is your bottom line then there's a billion other things you can do with your 'precious' time that will make you money, that will make you a living. But creative writing isn't one of them. If you want to turn this into a business proposition then you're not a writer, you're a soulless suit -- go and start a business somewhere and stop sullying the waters of creativity with your pie-chart eyes and profit-graph heartbeat. We've had too many years of Marketing types and money-grubbers ruining the creative game, too many years of bland repetitive fiction pushed out by illiterate business-graduates because it'll appeal to the mass-market (the market, what a sickening and insulting word).

This is art not economics. This is passion not pie-charts. Don't hang dollar signs on my intentions, because it won't work. For the first time in a hundred years we're freed from the shackles of traditional publishing, and all anybody can do (writers as well, which is insane) is defend the people who put on the shackles in the first place.

Does everything have to have a price tag to be worthwhile?

[sirbruce]

While making money by writing is now harder than ever before, it's actually not that impossible. You don't have to get on the bestseller lists.

Let's say your book sells paperback only, for $6, you get $0.60 per sale. If you sell only 20,000 copies -- a modest amount -- you'll earn $12,000. Write two books a year, and you get $24,000. Okay, that's not a lot... but you can live off that in many areas of the country.

And that's just in the first year. Next year you'll have 2 more books out, and your first 2 books will still be selling. Eventually you may sell 5,000 - 10,000 copies in one week and get on the bestseller lists. This will spurn more sales, better deals, etc. 10 years down the road, and you'll have money coming in just from all the reprints and foreign rights even if you still haven't hit the bigtime.

Again, Moejoe continues to offer the fallacy of false choice: either you write for a LOT of money, which is unlikely, or you write because you enjoy it, in which case you should expect no money at all. Do you think Mercedes Lackey and Larry Dixon are rich? No, they live modest home in Oklahoma for a reason: it's cheap.

Moejoe, if you're happy with writing for free, that's great. But don't tell other writers that they're wrong for wanted to get paid for their work, or that they have to be Dan Brown to make a living at it.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think maybe you've misconstrued the intentions of those who bring up the 'vocational' or 'calling' aspect of writing. Nobody here has said that its 'bad' to make money from writing, what we are saying is that its not a 'guarantee', that if you're in writing solely for the money then you're probably quite deluded. Like any other creative art, writing has very few monetary winners. There's an article over at Baen I'll try to dig up, that shows you just how few published writers earn a living from what they write.

To think that, even after you've gone through the mill of agent/publisher/long haul of waiting to get into print, that you'll actually be able to sustain a living from your creative endeavors is ludicrous. You'd get better odds playing the LOTTO.

This isn't a money=bad equation, this is an expectation of money=stupidity equation. The publishing industry is only marginally less tightfisted than the recording industry when it comes to paying the creative talent. 7-15% on sales of the book after, AFTER you've made back your paltry $2000 (or thereabouts) advance. There's only two ways you'll make a living on that kind of income:

1: You become a bestseller and your advances shoot through the roof.

2: You publish 15 novels a year (doable in the old pulp days, but not any longer)

So what are you left with if you're not writing for money, if money becomes such a ridiculous notion in the overall equation? Well, you're left with the reason you wanted to write in the first place - either because you want to be read or because you're compelled to write. Either of these reasons is helped along nicely by the internet that has no long-haul, that has no agents or publishers or even an idea of sustained payment.

And now you, as the writer, are left with an option that was never present before the wonderful digital age. Do you go the old route, which is slow, monetarily unsure and lets face it, quite boring or do you go for the readers on the internet. Do you try and gain an audience for your writing whatever way you can.

Do you take it back to the original reason for writing; to be read, or is money the real measure of success for you as a writer? Is getting paid really all you want out of this? Is payment the only way you'll feel that your 'time' is worthwhile. If so, then my advice is give up writing fiction, write a self-help book or a diet book, they sell well and its still creative writing. If money is your bottom line then there's a billion other things you can do with your 'precious' time that will make you money, that will make you a living. But creative writing isn't one of them. If you want to turn this into a business proposition then you're not a writer, you're a soulless suit -- go and start a business somewhere and stop sullying the waters of creativity with your pie-chart eyes and profit-graph heartbeat. We've had too many years of Marketing types and money-grubbers ruining the creative game, too many years of bland repetitive fiction pushed out by illiterate business-graduates because it'll appeal to the mass-market (the market, what a sickening and insulting word).

This is art not economics. This is passion not pie-charts. Don't hang dollar signs on my intentions, because it won't work. For the first time in a hundred years we're freed from the shackles of traditional publishing, and all anybody can do (writers as well, which is insane) is defend the people who put on the shackles in the first place.

Does everything have to have a price tag to be worthwhile?

Are you trying to say your point isn't that making money from your creative endeavours is somehow sullying the pureness of creativity? That it isn't somehow "bad".

If so, you have gone about it the wrong way. Your entire post seems nothing more than a rant aimed at anyone who thinks that maybe they should be paid for their creative efforts rather than simply doing it for the love of doing it.

If you wish to write simply for the pure joy of writing then good for you. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but that attitude doesn't make your efforts any more pure, any more creative or any more worthy of reading than someone else who is writing because that is how they earn their living.

I'm sure that in this brave new world there may very well be better ways to get published. I'm not defending the "people who put on the shackles in the first place". Get published however you like, it makes no difference to me. Just don't go claiming you are some how more creative, more pure or whatever because you have self published for the joy of it and someone else has gone the traditional route and been paid for it.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

While making money by writing is now harder than ever before, it's actually not that impossible. You don't have to get on the bestseller lists.

Let's say your book sells paperback only, for $6, you get $0.60 per sale. If you sell only 20,000 copies -- a modest amount -- you'll earn $12,000. Write two books a year, and you get $24,000. Okay, that's not a lot... but you can live off that in many areas of the country.

And that's just in the first year. Next year you'll have 2 more books out, and your first 2 books will still be selling. Eventually you may sell 5,000 - 10,000 copies in one week and get on the bestseller lists. This will spurn more sales, better deals, etc. 10 years down the road, and you'll have money coming in just from all the reprints and foreign rights even if you still haven't hit the bigtime.

Again, Moejoe continues to offer the fallacy of false choice: either you write for a LOT of money, which is unlikely, or you write because you enjoy it, in which case you should expect no money at all. Do you think Mercedes Lackey and Larry Dixon are rich? No, they live modest home in Oklahoma for a reason: it's cheap.

Moejoe, if you're happy with writing for free, that's great. But don't tell other writers that they're wrong for wanted to get paid for their work, or that they have to be Dan Brown to make a living at it.

So you've got to write two books a year AND sell 20,000 copies of each one to make a living? Not only do you have to have those two books published in a market that is steadily taking less and less chances on any kind of midlist, but you've got to sell 20,0000 copies. And you have to do all this in a market where 195,000 new books are produced each year, a lot of those in competition with yours and also a new front of 'free' and 'indie published', heavily discounted' authors also competing against your 'priced' merchandise.

And let's address the 20,000 copies theory while we're at it. You're highly unlikely to get anything more than 10,000 - 15,000 on a print run if you're a midlist or new author, and after your advance you'd then need to sell a further 8,000 books (if the advance is in the $5,000 region) before you even start earning. Your mythical 20,000 copies sold at $0.60 profit is not what's going to happen in reality. Especially now with more and more alternatives available, and more competition coming along every day.

Eric Flint - http://baens-universe.com/articles/T...ics_of_Writing

Most published authors derive only incidental income from their writing, and even most writers who get published regularly don’t make enough from sales of their work to be able to make a living as full-time writers.

Now, I hope with all my heart that any writer who seeks the traditional route of publication can make a steady living from their writing. I really do. But I believe that approaching writing as a for-profit game in the first instance is a grand delusion when faced with the actual market and the odds stacked against the author. Why not forget about the money, write because you love to write, and then everything monetary or good that comes afterwards is a bonus on top of what you already get from writing?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So you've got to write two books a year AND sell 20,000 copies of each one to make a living? Not only do you have to have those two books published in a market that is steadily taking less and less chances on any kind of midlist, but you've got to sell 20,0000 copies. And you have to do all this in a market where 195,000 new books are produced each year, a lot of those in competition with yours and also a new front of 'free' and 'indie published', heavily discounted' authors also competing against your 'priced' merchandise.

The 'free' and 'indie published' authors are not a real concern. They don't sell anywhere near enough copies to matter, for the most part. Even Boyd Morrison could sell 10x at least what he's selling in ebooks if he could actually get in print.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And let's address the 20,000 copies theory while we're at it. You're highly unlikely to get anything more than 10,000 - 15,000 on a print run if you're a midlist or new author,

This is simply not true if there is demand for 20K copies. And again, that's only in the first year.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

and after your advance you'd then need to sell a further 8,000 books (if the advance is in the $5,000 region) before you even start earning. Your mythical 20,000 copies sold at $0.60 profit is not what's going to happen in reality.

Your math makes no sense here. If you got a $5K advance, you'd start earning more after 8,333 copies. And I deliberately presented a scenario without an advance to show what you could actually earn. Obviously if you can't sell enough copies to earn out your advance, then you're still ahead $5K. So yes, if you can only sell 2 books a year and you're not even good enough to sell 8,000 copies each, you'll only make $10K.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Especially now with more and more alternatives available, and more competition coming along every day.

Yes, there are alternatives. They won't make as much as traditional publishing, currently. That's why people still traditionally publish.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Eric Flint - http://baens-universe.com/articles/T...ics_of_Writing

Why are you quoting URLs I've read, which support my position, not yours? His first novel -- his FIRST novel -- sold only 10K copies. As his craft improved, a later novel sold 30K. He also was able to selling many more copies of his FIRST novel after he started offering the ebook FOR FREE, and after the later novel, 1632, became popular and people went back to buy his previous work.

Again, as I said, it's hard to make much money off your first couple of novels. It improves from there, unless your stuff is simply not worth publishing, in which case you shoudl confine yourself to your artistic-soul-pleasing happy free Internet writing.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Now, I hope with all my heart that any writer who seeks the traditional route of publication can make a steady living from their writing. I really do. But I believe that approaching writing as a for-profit game in the first instance is a grand delusion when faced with the actual market and the odds stacked against the author. Why not forget about the money, write because you love to write, and then everything monetary or good that comes afterwards is a bonus on top of what you already get from writing?

Because with a little elbow grease, my monetary bonus becomes much larger if I actually get my work published the traditional way rather than -- whatever it is you're proposing (it's not exactly clear). Yes, economics are changing, but it hasn't changed yet. Even if one accepts your premise that even good writers can't make a living writing, that doesn't at all justify the notion that the economics of the industry should change such that nobody can make a living writing.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

The 'free' and 'indie published' authors are not a real concern. They don't sell anywhere near enough copies to matter, for the most part. Even Boyd Morrison could sell 10x at least what he's selling in ebooks if he could actually get in print.

They don't have to sell a single copy to divert attention away from your writing. You could be the greatest writer on earth but a FREE novel is always going to be a better value proposition to a reader than a paid-for novel. The more people publish freely, maybe using a donation model, the less and less you as the in-print/traditional writer has to offer the market. And now we have services like ScribD and others popping up that are offering writers 80% revenues on their electronic works, why do you think that the traditional publishing route can even survive the next five to ten years, let alone sustain the old and grossly unfair pricing models?

Your math makes no sense here. If you got a $5K advance, you'd start earning more after 8,333 copies. And I deliberately presented a scenario without an advance to show what you could actually earn. Obviously if you can't sell enough copies to earn out your advance, then you're still ahead $5K. So yes, if you can only sell 2 books a year and you're not even good enough to sell 8,000 copies each, you'll only make $10K.

My Maths is terrible, I'll grant you that. But from your Maths we see that you'd have to sell those 2 books, which if your first book doesn't earn out you're highly unlikely to do. If your first book doesn't make its advance back then you're looking at losing your agent and your name being 'mud' in the industry. You won't get a deal for a 2nd book (unless you sell a multi-book deal in the first place) if your first book is a stinker. And if, as I assume, you're aiming for the Sci-Fi market (a publishing ghetto if there ever was one) then all this is compounded threefold by the amount of competition in that field vying for the very few, and getting fewer, avenues of publication.

Yes, there are alternatives. They won't make as much as traditional publishing, currently. That's why people still traditionally publish.

NOW, still publish 'now' should be the added word at the end there. Because the industry is changing so rapidly that what you think is right NOW will mean nothing in 6 months time. The digerati are changing the face of publishing, they're laughing at the old ways (check out recent #agentfail on Twitter), they're constantly inventing new ways to interact with the reading audience and expanding that relationship that will within a couple of years time make the publishing industry look stale and outmoded for the most part.

Why are you quoting URLs I've read, which support my position, not yours? His first novel -- his FIRST novel -- sold only 10K copies. As his craft improved, a later novel sold 30K. He also was able to selling many more copies of his FIRST novel after he started offering the ebook FOR FREE, and after the later novel, 1632, became popular and people went back to buy his previous work.

Again, as I said, it's hard to make much money off your first couple of novels. It improves from there, unless your stuff is simply not worth publishing, in which case you shoudl confine yourself to your artistic-soul-pleasing happy free Internet writing.

Why quote him, well the quotation I referenced was the main part of his argument. Writers don't make money for the most part, and that's going to be doubly so in the brave new world of digital reading. And sure, Eric Flint sold and continues to sell lots of print books, but he started 10 years ago in an industry that was still bouyant, where Amazon was only just getting a foothold and the iPhone didn't exist. He's built a relationship with his audience from print into digital. Do you think any 'new' writer will have that same kind of advantage, coming into this industry as it takes its last faltering breaths? (Okay so it's not dying overnight, but it's not getting nay healthier. You get published now and it's going to get harder and harder to sustain your writing over the coming years as the transition occurs).

And here we get to 'worth'. And worth as it is measured by the publishing industry. Worth = sale-ability. Worth = price tag. If publishing company X can shift Y amount of Book A at a cost of....etc, etc.. The profit game in a nutshell. Doesn't matter if the book is good or not, its whether it can make a profit. Whereas the web/internet works differently. A web hit might not make any profit at all for the writer, but it might make that writer well-known. It will elevate that writer in the community and then monetary opportunities might follow. And what has this new writer lost? A few quid, the opportunity to slave along in a dying industry? And he's gained all that loverly soul-satisfying stuff that you can't put a price tag on. What's the old saying:

There's no money in poetry, but then again there's no poetry in money.

Because with a little elbow grease, my monetary bonus becomes much larger if I actually get my work published the traditional way rather than -- whatever it is you're proposing (it's not exactly clear). Yes, economics are changing, but it hasn't changed yet. Even if one accepts your premise that even good writers can't make a living writing, that doesn't at all justify the notion that the economics of the industry should change such that nobody can make a living writing.

And here we come to the crux of the whole argument. Elbow grease means nought if the traditional way is dying out. What you get now, whatever paltry sum that might be in the traditional publishing world (Unless you're a no-talent celebrity, the publishing world loves those) it won't be what you get a year from now, five years from now when the whole game has changed. When your publishing contract means absolutely zero because the publishing companies are about as meaningful to a web audience as the major record labels and the TV networks. Just think about how social media is changing everything, how much weight an artist has for going against the traditional routes and releasing stuff under CC and other licenses. You really think there's going to be much of a place for the static, hierarchical, slow-moving, bottom-liners in this world?

I mean, Baen has the right idea up to now (although I wince at the quasi-fascistic, war-loving titles it seems to produce, not really my cup of tea), but that can't last forever. Once print-publishing dies out (and I give it 10 years at most) then what are you left with? How do you make money in a world where your product is competing constantly with free?

Things are changing, publishing has to change and it has to change rapidly to keep up with what is happening. The writer does too. If they don't, then they'll become as quaint and useless as the paper that their words used to be printed on in the unenlightened past.

EDIT: and let me just add, I approach writing from a zero-money approach. I fully expect to make ZERO from my writing now and in the future. I have no cash incentive at all. I realized some time ago that worrying about payment was reducing me to a business-person, someone who knew how to use Excel (evil, nasty, soul-sucking program) and who was slanting their work toward the fabled 'markets'. My payment now has to be the writing itself. The process of writing has to give me everything I need to start off with. Everything else is secondary to that initial goal of being happy and enjoying the writing. If I gain readers, good If somewhere along the line I get some money out of all this, fine. But I won't ruin my enjoyment of writing worrying about either of those potentialities.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

They don't have to sell a single copy to divert attention away from your writing. You could be the greatest writer on earth but a FREE novel is always going to be a better value proposition to a reader than a paid-for novel. The more people publish freely, maybe using a donation model, the less and less you as the in-print/traditional writer has to offer the market. And now we have services like ScribD and others popping up that are offering writers 80% revenues on their electronic works, why do you think that the traditional publishing route can even survive the next five to ten years, let alone sustain the old and grossly unfair pricing models ?

Because the quality of those FREE novels is generally quite low. It's like your saying people will stop paying for movies or cable television because there's all this stuff you can get for free on YouTube made by people who aren't getting the big Hollywood deals. Yes, there's an impact, but it's a minimal one.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

My Maths is terrible, I'll grant you that. But from your Maths we see that you'd have to sell those 2 books, which if your first book doesn't earn out you're highly unlikely to do.

If your first book doesn't earn out and you can't sell another book, then likely your writing isn't good enough anyway. But again, that's not the analogy here. Of course, if a good writer CAN'T GET PUBLISHED AT ALL, then you might as well go the self-published or free routes. But IF YOU CAN, you'll make more money being published, generally. Again, the existance of failed commercial authors is not justification for your conclusion that all writers should therefore not get paid very much.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

NOW, still publish 'now' should be the added word at the end there. Because the industry is changing so rapidly that what you think is right NOW will mean nothing in 6 months time. The digerati are changing the face of publishing, they're laughing at the old ways (check out recent #agentfail on Twitter), they're constantly inventing new ways to interact with the reading audience and expanding that relationship that will within a couple of years time make the publishing industry look stale and outmoded for the most part.

Yes, and I was there when news sites and blogs began killing newspapers. But guess what? Your average writer for a news magazine still makes more money than your average blogger. (They probably blog, too, but that's another story.) And it's not like the web is all free; there are websites that pay 25 cents a word, far more than any print publication ever did, reporting the same news about video gaming or tech stuff that other people write for free on another website.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Why quote him, well the quotation I referenced was the main part of his argument. Writers don't make money for the most part, and that's going to be doubly so in the brave new world of digital reading.

Eric never made the point that writer's don't make money for the most part. Instead, he made a very compelling case at how offering ebooks for free on the web help you make MORE money off your printed books. But ONLY offering your ebooks for free obviously isn't going to make you anything.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And sure, Eric Flint sold and continues to sell lots of print books, but he started 10 years ago in an industry that was still bouyant, where Amazon was only just getting a foothold and the iPhone didn't exist. He's built a relationship with his audience from print into digital. Do you think any 'new' writer will have that same kind of advantage, coming into this industry as it takes its last faltering breaths?

Yes. Things were not great when Eric stated, either. The industry has been in decline for a decade or more.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

(Okay so it's not dying overnight, but it's not getting nay healthier. You get published now and it's going to get harder and harder to sustain your writing over the coming years as the transition occurs).

This is only true if you accept your a priori assumption that such a transition will occur and make it impossible for writers to make money the old fashioned way. If all of these great new writers are free, then why would people continue to PAY Eric Flint? If some of these great new writers are so great, they could also get PAID.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And here we get to 'worth'. And worth as it is measured by the publishing industry. Worth = sale-ability. Worth = price tag. If publishing company X can shift Y amount of Book A at a cost of....etc, etc.. The profit game in a nutshell. Doesn't matter if the book is good or not, its whether it can make a profit. Whereas the web/internet works differently. A web hit might not make any profit at all for the writer, but it might make that writer well-known. It will elevate that writer in the community and then monetary opportunities might follow. And what has this new writer lost? A few quid, the opportunity to slave along in a dying industry? And he's gained all that loverly soul-satisfying stuff that you can't put a price tag on.

Again, false dichotomy. A writer who gets paid also gets all of those things, and yet gets paid via a working mechanism, not some vague "monetary opportunities might follow". Any opportunities available to the free writer are going to be available to the paid writer. Yes, obviously, IF YOU CAN'T BREAK IN AS A PAID WRITER, then going free is better than nothing -- again, look at Boyd Morrison. But that's not the argument you're making.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And here we come to the crux of the whole argument. Elbow grease means nought if the traditional way is dying out. What you get now, whatever paltry sum that might be in the traditional publishing world (Unless you're a no-talent celebrity, the publishing world loves those) it won't be what you get a year from now, five years from now when the whole game has changed. When your publishing contract means absolutely zero because the publishing companies are about as meaningful to a web audience as the major record labels and the TV networks. Just think about how social media is changing everything, how much weight an artist has for going against the traditional routes and releasing stuff under CC and other licenses. You really think there's going to be much of a place for the static, hierarchical, slow-moving, bottom-liners in this world?

Considering that lots of people still make buttloads of money from "major record labels" and the "TV networks", yes.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I mean, Baen has the right idea up to now (although I wince at the quasi-fascistic, war-loving titles it seems to produce, not really my cup of tea), but that can't last forever. Once print-publishing dies out (and I give it 10 years at most) then what are you left with? How do you make money in a world where your product is competing constantly with free?

And you're back to your self-referential logic again. Look, we all GET what you're saying. But it's not necessarily true, and it's not necessarily going to kill off traditional publishers. But you simply CAN'T say that "Because I think publishing is going to change, then authors who want to make money should stop wanting that." You're like the crazy homeless guy with carrying around a sign that says "THE END IS NIGH." You may be right, but it's not reason for me to sell all my posessions.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

EDIT: and let me just add, I approach writing from a zero-money approach. I fully expect to make ZERO from my writing now and in the future.

Good for you. Again, this is no justification for you to say others should suffer the same fate.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Because the quality of those FREE novels is generally quite low. It's like your saying people will stop paying for movies or cable television because there's all this stuff you can get for free on YouTube made by people who aren't getting the big Hollywood deals. Yes, there's an impact, but it's a minimal one.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. Just take Boyd Morrison, who you seem to reference a lot. I've read his novel 'The Ark' and I can say, hand on heart that it's better than most of the best-selling Thrillers I read last year (including the ridiculously hyped Dan Brown).

If your first book doesn't earn out and you can't sell another book, then likely your writing isn't good enough anyway. But again, that's not the analogy here. Of course, if a good writer CAN'T GET PUBLISHED AT ALL, then you might as well go the self-published or free routes. But IF YOU CAN, you'll make more money being published, generally. Again, the existance of failed commercial authors is not justification for your conclusion that all writers should therefore not get paid very much.

This is patently laughable. Selling has nothing to do with good writing. If quality was actually a measure of success the Movie/TV/Music charts would look a whole lot different. You wouldn't have any Britney Spears or CSI: Miami, or Eddie Murphy in Norbert 2 if quality meant a God-damn thing when it comes to sales. And I never made the assumption that writers shouldn't get paid very much, that's your assumption. My assumption was that writers going into writing as a for-profit career are deluded. That the industry now, and in the past, does not support that notion apart from the lucky few (talented or otherwise).

Yes, and I was there when news sites and blogs began killing newspapers. But guess what? Your average writer for a news magazine still makes more money than your average blogger. (They probably blog, too, but that's another story.) And it's not like the web is all free; there are websites that pay 25 cents a word, far more than any print publication ever did, reporting the same news about video gaming or tech stuff that other people write for free on another website.

And yet again you bring up the NOW of all this, when as writers we should at least be looking toward the FUTURE of our creative endeavors. Your average writer for a news magazine may make more money than your average blogger, but that's not sustainable. Neither are the pay-for-writing professional gaming sites and the like in the near future when they come up against FREE and knowledgeable communities. The web community is about respect, its about, for want of a better word 'doing the right thing' and sociability. Why do you think Twitter is so big? Why are Facebook and all the rest of the social networking sites so buzzing with activity? It's all about respect and community, about your standing within any particular niche. And I'll tell you one thing for certain now, and definitely in the future, the 'love of money' is not going to gain you any respect or readers (Unless you're Harlan--sue em all-- Ellison).

Eric never made the point that writer's don't make money for the most part. Instead, he made a very compelling case at how offering ebooks for free on the web help you make MORE money off your printed books. But ONLY offering your ebooks for free obviously isn't going to make you anything.

He did make that point, not overall, but he made that point exactly in the sentence that I quoted. That was a great deal of his argument, that writers don't make much money. The rest of his argument, as you pointed out, is solid, but he most certainly did say that the majority of writers don't make enough to earn a living. And if you think that's going to get any better over the next few years, well, I don't know what I can say to you.

This is only true if you accept your a priori assumption that such a transition will occur and make it impossible for writers to make money the old fashioned way. If all of these great new writers are free, then why would people continue to PAY Eric Flint? If some of these great new writers are so great, they could also get PAID.

Actually I believe that writers will cease to be paid in traditional methods, and that all creative products will be free in the first instance (supported possibly by donation or value-added products in the near-term) And I very much doubt anybody (except DIE HARD fans) would pay Eric Flint when they get their reading material free elsewhere, especially newer, web-savvy audiences that are growing up now on FREE and ZERO COST culture.

Again, false dichotomy. A writer who gets paid also gets all of those things, and yet gets paid via a working mechanism, not some vague "monetary opportunities might follow". Any opportunities available to the free writer are going to be available to the paid writer. Yes, obviously, IF YOU CAN'T BREAK IN AS A PAID WRITER, then going free is better than nothing -- again, look at Boyd Morrison. But that's not the argument you're making.

Your assumption is always leaning toward the PAID writer, as though that's what a modern writer wants or needs from his writing. As though payment is THE BE ALL AND END ALL of writing. It's not, it never was. But yet again you bring up Boyd, who can write the pants off most stuff in the best-seller charts. Do you honestly think Boyd had any more or less fun writing his thrillers than someone who's paid to do the same? I have no doubt that he'd love to get paid and make an income for his writing, but you know what, by offering up his work and that work being good enough, now he has fans - like me - who WILL buy his work, who will follow what he's doing on his blog and his webpage. Who will DONATE money if need be. I very much doubt I would have ever heard of Boyd Morrison if he hadn't taken a leap and offered his work for free. And if he'd gone the traditional route, I can guarantee you that I would have passed him by completely. The web, and the communities that it forms, are more open to honest declarations of intent than any other place.

Boyd comes along and says - here's my novels, I really enjoyed writing them and I'd like you to read them free of charge, or at very low cost. And he's going to get fans just because of his attitude. Because he's open and not trying to play some marketing game (which everybody on the web can see through anyway when it happens). Do you know what would have happened if Boyd had come on here as part of a publishing drive, as part of a marketing push? He'd be ignored. Yes, that's right, if he was part of the traditional publishing world he would have had less impact on this website and across the rest of the web because marketing is, for the whole part, seen as dishonest.

Considering that lots of people still make buttloads of money from "major record labels" and the "TV networks", yes.

And the vast majority, pardon my french, is unutterable shite. Bland, insipid, paint-by-numbers, bottom-line, dull mass-produced crap. If money is the measure of success, then I don't want any success at all thanks very much.

And you're back to your self-referential logic again. Look, we all GET what you're saying. But it's not necessarily true, and it's not necessarily going to kill off traditional publishers. But you simply CAN'T say that "Because I think publishing is going to change, then authors who want to make money should stop wanting that." You're like the crazy homeless guy with carrying around a sign that says "THE END IS NIGH." You may be right, but it's not reason for me to sell all my posessions.

The end is nigh, sorry to say, and if you're a for-profit writer in the next few years then you've got a big shock coming as the web opens up even further to free and near-free publication. Content is no longer king, but context will be. There's a really interesting talk linked to in this thread https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48877 about the future of publication and publishers. It only confirms what I've been saying all along about what's going to happen in the coming years and why money is a bad motivator in writing. Especially when it comes to the web and the communities that are built upon the web.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

My assumption was that writers going into writing as a for-profit career are deluded. That the industry now, and in the past, does not support that notion apart from the lucky few (talented or otherwise).

That is the same for any career that is not your run of the mill, swap money for time, type job. Only the "lucky few" make it in just about any endeavour. Stock trading, starting a business, being an artist, inventing a new product, being a sports person, whatever the case may be. Writing is no different.

Why does that mean one should not hope to make a living from it? Why should one not want to make money from it? If one enjoys it, is "good" at it and wants to do it full time rather than slaving away at a job 9-5 then who are you to rant and rave at them about it?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The web community is about respect, its about, for want of a better word 'doing the right thing' and sociability. Why do you think Twitter is so big? Why are Facebook and all the rest of the social networking sites so buzzing with activity? It's all about respect and community, about your standing within any particular niche. And I'll tell you one thing for certain now, and definitely in the future, the 'love of money' is not going to gain you any respect or readers (Unless you're Harlan--sue em all-- Ellison).

You don't think Facebook and twitter are about making money? I saw an interview with someone involved in creating Twitter and he was saying the makers are disappointed they having found a way of making any real money from it yet. Next you will be saying Google was just a project to earn respect from the web community right?

There may be communities within the web, facebook, twitter or whatever that are doing their thing just for the fun and respect of it all but don't be fooled into thinking that if 99% of them could up and sell their community for a buckload of money they wouldn't jump at the chance.

Originally Posted by Mojoe

The web, and the communities that it forms, are more open to honest declarations of intent than any other place.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this one!!

You really believe the internet is where you find honest declarations of intent??

The net is more open to scams than anything else. It's biggest advantage is exactly what you are proclaiming as the biggest advantage to writers. The FREE or LOW COST scam! So easy to convince someone to part with a little bit of money, to give something a try, to take a punt on the unknown. There is a whole industry built around teaching people how to drive web traffic to their sites, how to market their sites and how to grab a few bucks from the unsuspecting.

So in a way you are correct. Unpublished(and generally speaking, unpublishable) writers will make more money by going it alone on the net. However, they will generally do so by scamming people into taking a punt and parting with a small chunk of change to try something new.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And the vast majority, pardon my french, is unutterable shite. Bland, insipid, paint-by-numbers, bottom-line, dull mass-produced crap. If money is the measure of success, then I don't want any success at all thanks very much.

As is the vast majority of fan fic and other shite that people self publish on the net. What's the point?

Success can be measured in many ways. You may think these mass produced books are crap but obviously many disagree with you. If only "literary masterpieces" were ever allowed to be published there would be far fewer people reading today. Many people just want a bit of escapist fun. A bit of drivel that passes the time. Why should they not be catered for? Why should not someone who enjoys, and is good at, writing such stuff seek to earn a living from doing so?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The end is nigh, sorry to say, and if you're a for-profit writer in the next few years then you've got a big shock coming as the web opens up even further to free and near-free publication. Content is no longer king, but context will be. There's a really interesting talk linked to in this thread https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48877 about the future of publication and publishers. It only confirms what I've been saying all along about what's going to happen in the coming years and why money is a bad motivator in writing. Especially when it comes to the web and the communities that are built upon the web.

Money is bad, mmmkay.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

That is the same for any career that is not your run of the mill, swap money for time, type job. Only the "lucky few" make it in just about any endeavour. Stock trading, starting a business, being an artist, inventing a new product, being a sports person, whatever the case may be. Writing is no different.

Why does that mean one should not hope to make a living from it? Why should one not want to make money from it? If one enjoys it, is "good" at it and wants to do it full time rather than slaving away at a job 9-5 then who are you to rant and rave at them about it?

You proved my point. Anyone can HOPE to make a living, that's fine, but to EXPECT or DEMAND that living is another kettle of boiled monkeys altogether. And who am I to rant and rave, well, I'm that guy who writes for love, you know, the one who doesn't expect to make money and has no intentions of writing for any reason other than I love to write. I'm that guy who's looking at the future and seeing that writers better start shifting their expectations or they're in for a massive shock. I'm the guy arguing for love and not dollar bills. That's who I am.

You don't think Facebook and twitter are about making money? I saw an interview with someone involved in creating Twitter and he was saying the makers are disappointed they having found a way of making any real money from it yet. Next you will be saying Google was just a project to earn respect from the web community right?

There may be communities within the web, facebook, twitter or whatever that are doing their thing just for the fun and respect of it all but don't be fooled into thinking that if 99% of them could up and sell their community for a buckload of money they wouldn't jump at the chance.

Well both Twitter and Google were started with very little investment at all, by people just as interested then in the coding/intellectual aspects of their respective technologies as they ever were in the monetary gain. Google continues to show that same pioneering/inquistive spirit even now after earning ridiculous amounts of money with projects such as Google Summer of Code and the open-sourcing of API's to do with a lot of their respective IP. I'd actually defy you to find any of these startups that weren't initially thought of by people who wanted to push boundaries, who wanted to break with old traditional models and prove a point. That they can or can't make money means little to the end user on the web.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this one!!

You really believe the internet is where you find honest declarations of intent??

The net is more open to scams than anything else. It's biggest advantage is exactly what you are proclaiming as the biggest advantage to writers. The FREE or LOW COST scam! So easy to convince someone to part with a little bit of money, to give something a try, to take a punt on the unknown. There is a whole industry built around teaching people how to drive web traffic to their sites, how to market their sites and how to grab a few bucks from the unsuspecting.

Yes, I do believe that the web is the place for honest intent. The scams you talk about are seen through immediately by anybody with a brain, and by this I include most people who don't regularly watch American Idol. IDIOTS fall for these scams. I can't do anything to cure IDIOTS or argue that there aren't a lot of them. But by that token I would say that most people who like to read books are generally speaking not drooling-morons.

So in a way you are correct. Unpublished(and generally speaking, unpublishable) writers will make more money by going it alone on the net. However, they will generally do so by scamming people into taking a punt and parting with a small chunk of change to try something new.

Maybe I have a more kindly view of people, but I would put good money down that most writers who are offering their books for free are not 'scammers'. Trying something new for a low cost is no worse than the several billion publisher/bookstore sales we see all the time.

As is the vast majority of fan fic and other shite that people self publish on the net. What's the point?

Success can be measured in many ways. You may think these mass produced books are crap but obviously many disagree with you. If only "literary masterpieces" were ever allowed to be published there would be far fewer people reading today. Many people just want a bit of escapist fun. A bit of drivel that passes the time. Why should they not be catered for? Why should not someone who enjoys, and is good at, writing such stuff seek to earn a living from doing so?

I don't know about fan fiction, never read any and never been tempted so I can't comment on the quality or lack thereof. But I have read a lot of independently published material this year and all of it, at a higher ratio than actual pay-for-books, has been very good. In fact, Boyd Morrison's thriller 'The Ark' was better than all of the thrillers I read last year from the best seller list, and by a vast margin.

I don't recall ever saying I don't want 'escapist fun', but I certainly don't want drivel, and anybody who wants to make a living producing drivel, well, I'm not going to stop them. Have at it, I say. Produce your shite and let the idiots lap it up. If I wanted drivel I can turn on the TV at any time of the night and watch US imported dramas or some of our home-grown crap that plagues the box. If all you want is drivel then I can't argue with you. Although I can recommend a novel by a writer called Dan Brown.

Money is bad, mmmkay.

Sometimes, yes.