People say that I shouldn’t get into these debates online about self-publishing because those who are so vehemently opposed to self-publishing are never going to change their mind. But I like a good debate and I really do believe that for the stigma around self-publishing to fade it’s important to chip away at the criticism in debates like this one. The writer’s basic premise is that self-publishing is deserving of its stigma because:
- There is no quality control of self-published books so book customers are led to buy inferior work.
- Self-publishers are naturally bad writers who just couldn’t hack it in the traditional system.
- The vast majority of self-published books are bad, so statistically you are more likely to read a bad book if it’s self-published than traditionally-published books.
The second and third are easy to refute and I’m frankly sick of refuting them. The traditional system rewards crappy writing frequently and does not reward innovation. Small presses are more open to new writers, but small presses have less money – and not necessarily a better distribution apparatus than self-publishing. Re: #3 – truly bad self-published books are going to be ignored by reviewers and readers alike. And as time goes on there’s an increasing number of self-published books that are gaining attention because of their quality – not just a “small fraction” of self-published books. Etc.
Honestly, I don’t know what “appalling” self-published books these people are seeing. As editor of this site I see A LOT of self-published books. They may not all be great, but a rare few of them are offensive to the English language. It’s true, people are self-publishing books that shouldn’t necessarily be put in between covers – but so what? In all mediums there’s bad work, but (repeating myself again) it’s only in self-publishing where writers are blamed for the bad work of other writers. It makes no sense at all.
I’m more interested in point #1 – because he has some interesting ideas, such as a self-published books should come with a stamp that it has been properly edited by a professional, so buyers can have some assurance that the book’s not a mess before shelling out $15. An interesting idea. Many self-published writers already do this in the acknowledgments, but it’s like he’s asking for a site that only lists these books. One of the reasons I was such a vociferous advocate of Indie Reader is because this site could speak specifically to this type of reader, someone with so many preconceptions – which is to say a lot of potential readers.
Where the posters go afield is saying that they never trust Amazon reviews because they’re all plants – basically stating that all the ways self-publishers can gain some credibility – online reviews – count for nothing. There are many serious and legitimate reviewers reviewing self-published books, so there are plenty of ways that a self-published book can be vetted beyond having a publisher’s imprint. A poster even goes to say that it is “deceitful” to put a publisher’s imprint on a self-published book – because it makes it seem as if it’s gone through an editorial process. It’s at this point that I should have stopped caring about people’s bias. That outlook is conservative to the point of echoing those who criticize blogging as being an illegitimate form of writing. The new media is here, get used to it.
I will freely admit that self-publishing is like a teenager – it’s not fully aged to where it’s going to be. At some point we will have a system where self-publishers can:
- Be distributed more freely through widespread use of in-store print on demand machines and the widespread use of ereaders.
- Be a part of an expanded vetting system as well – through online reviewers, social networks, and self-publishing being taken more seriously by traditional print reviewers.
- Be part of a traditional publishing system that is also utilizing print on demand, peer review sites and other methods of reaching readers that are not yet fully mainstream.
But that’s not here yet: still, it will be. Publishing is becoming more narrow in their criteria for publishing books right at a time when there are more people writing books than ever before. That’s not a system that can work for a growing list of writers. To say that all those writers – a great many who may be very good – are not worth the attention because it doesn’t have the stamp of a publisher (that may be putting out inferior work) is giving way too much power where it doesn’t belong: to the publishers and not the artists. Self-publishing is about giving writers back their voice – yes, some people are releasing books before their voice is fully formed, but count on it: more writers are going to be asking themselves, “Why am I waiting a year just to get another rejection, when people honestly like my book?” These writers need a platform.
Update: Read Zoe Winters’ Why Self-Published Music Sux – she handles this way better than I did.
About the Author: Henry Baum
I’m the author of The American Book of the Dead. The novel won Best Fiction at the DIY Book Festival and the Gold IPPY Award for Visionary Fiction. Largehearted Boy says it's "reminiscent of Philip K. Dick and Haruki Murakami, a book that boldly explores the future and defies genre." I'm also the author of North of Sunset, winner of the Hollywood Book Festival Grand Prize, and The Golden Calf - first published by Soft Skull Press, with editions in the U.K. (Rebel Inc.) and France (Hachette Littératures). Visit henrybaum.com for more information. I’m the editor of Self-Publishing Review.
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
I guess what ultimately puzzles me, SMD, is if you believe all the things you’re saying about how books are sold and blah blah blah, then why on earth would you start a small press to publish anyone? Obviously you don’t seem to believe it’s possible to sell books outside of venues and ways that would be closed to you anyway.
The line between what you’re doing and what I’m doing is so so much thinner than you want to believe it is. So what do you hope to achieve? And why do you think there is a magical set of rules that are different for you, than for an indie?
Tessa Dick said on June 5, 2009
Jumping in here — the original post quoted somebody as saying that amazon reviews are all plants — if that were true, my books would all be rated five stars instead of three
~~~
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
Hey Tessa, over half of my Amazon reviews are from total strangers, so… yeah. While some people I do know online have reviewed me, I met all those people THROUGH my writing. My mother has not reviewed me, nor will she. etc.
Tessa Dick said on June 5, 2009
SMD, I can often tell within 30 seconds when I don’t like a book. I don’t have to read the whole thing if the opening doesn’t grab me. And errors in grammar, spelling, etc. will show up in the first few pages. So the song analogy is flawed.
Indie publishing is an opportunity for readers to decide whether an author is readbale, even if the big publishers don’t see a nest seller in the work.
~~ Tessa Dick
~~~
Tessa Dick said on June 5, 2009
yes, Amazon let’s everybody jump in and review things — not just friends and family — and my friends and family don’t review stuff — heck, half of them don’t even use Amazon
~~~
SMD said on June 5, 2009
Zoe and Tessa: Neither of you would be considered average consumers. And that’s not necessarily true that errors will show up in the first pages. I’ve read a few where they didn’t start falling apart until the middle grammatically, etc.
“You have said yourself that you are starting a small press publishing someone else. How many copies do you expect to sell? What is in it for you? What is the point of your venture? Are you trying to make a profit? Is t just for the love of publishing? Because I’m telling you, as an indie author, I can do just as well as you. Period.”
We’re publishing a literary journal. I don’t expect to sell more than a few hundred, because the intention was never to sell more than that. We’re publishing young writers under the age of 25, with the target audience being members of my writing website for young writers. Most of the money goes to the authors. The only money we keep goes into the site to pay for hosting and to host writing contests with real prizes, and possibly to have an actual publishing rate later on. I wouldn’t say it’s for the love of publishing so much as just an avenue through which the members of the site can see their work in print in an edited magazine. It’s also somewhat to give them a taste of the kinds of things they’ll have to deal with when submitting short stories at bigger markets, since we do reject stories/poems that we simply don’t want or don’t like.
And I’m sure you can do just as well. I’m not sure why you feel you need to say that. If you’re sure of yourself, then great, but there’s no need to prove that to me. You have your readers (seems like quite a few, actually), and if they like your work, then great. You’ve done your job.
Tessa Dick said on June 5, 2009
SMD, I am an average reader, altho’ not an average writer.
~~~
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
SMD then I’m genuinely continually puzzled by WHY you have such an issue with self publishing. Why do you care? Why is there such a bug up your butt about this issue? You keep pointing out all the flaws with self publishing in general, but it’s been pointed out to you more than one time that those issues don’t really apply to serious indies who are concerned with quality and know anything about marketing. They have nothing to do with sites like this.
But you just seem to want to argue for the sake of it. And I can’t really figure out why. What I want to know is, why are you above reproach. You lay out your goals for the small press thing you’re doing, which is perfectly fine. Well what if a SP author had the same type of goals?
It feels like to me (and I could be wrong, but it’s very difficult to get at your point here in all these arguments), that you have this idea about self publishing authors that most of them suck, most of them are naive, most of them can’t reach an audience, because most readers buy a certain way and blah blah blah. But what does any of that have to do with anything?
What does it have to do with the audience for this blog? What does it have to do with posts made on this blog?
I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m just really slow today, but it feels like all the stuff you’re railing against has nothing to do with us. And I don’t really get why the issue matters to you one way or the other in the first place.
Tessa Dick said on June 5, 2009
SMD , you also ignore the growing trend for established writers to self-publish for a variety of reasons.
~~~~
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
One other thing… I don’t really believe there is this homogenous group of people called “the average reader” which you repeatedly refer to. There are many many different reading and buying habits among different groups of people. And really and truly, there are plenty of consumers who buy most of their books online and if they hear about that book in any way online, and they can get it on amazon, and they can see a sample, then those readers are just as likely to buy as they would any other book in any other venue.
And I speak personally as one of those readers. I shop almost exclusively on Amazon. I couldn’t tell you what anybody’s publisher imprint really means. i.e. I don’t know if it’s an imprint of random house, a small publisher, or an indie author. Nor do I care. I look at reviews. I read excerpts. If I’ve heard of the book anywhere before or it’s been recommended to me, that factors in to.
But I am part of a growing trend of shopping, and your references to “the average reader” acts as if all human beings who read or at least “the average ones” all shop in a certain given way all the time without deviation, and that’s just not realistic human behavior.
There are niches within niches when it comes to what people read and how they buy those things, and my argument is that on the internet, there is a near limitless audience for me to market to, who would in turn buy my book off amazon if they A. heard about it somewhere and B. decided it sounded like something they’d like.
SMD said on June 5, 2009
Zoe: I’m only here because Henry pointed a link to my blog and made an argument. Otherwise I would have left the argument on my own blog in the post he links to.
My problem never was with the good SP authors. Ever. It’s always been with the crap. Yes, of course good indie authors are out there, are doing things and fighting to get the respect that they actually deserve, but there aren’t enough of you to deal with those that don’t give a crap about the craft of writing (or who “care,” but not enough to actually improve themselves or recognize when they just plain suck). My original post even indicated that there are good SP authors out there. My whole argument (here and in some of the comments back on my blog) was never one to say that good folks don’t exist, just that the industry has a flaw that needs to be dealt with more proactively. Just being good isn’t going to help deal with the issues of the industry. And it would help to have easier methods, as I’ve said, to get the good stuff to the consumer and keep the garbage in a metaphysical slush pile.
Average consumers are based on statistics. And you’d be surprised what is ‘realistic human behavior.” We’re a gloriously habitual species. Philip K. Dick even noticed it in the 60s and called it the “android personality.” And this is actually what I study currently and what I will be studying in graduate school: the human. Our problem has always been that we are too easily sucked into habit, into “tradition.” In some cases it is not a big deal, but in others it’s obviously a problem. This is very true of the consumption habits of human beings. Capitalism in its merchantile form essentially demands impulsiveness in consumers in order to operate; the fact that some buyers are outside of this spectrum really only points to the minority who aren’t a part of the habitual consumptive model. Whether getting rid of this “traditional” model of consumption is possible, or even a good thing, is a whole other discussion.
I am not, generally speaking, one of those average consumers either, Zoe. There’s nothing wrong with being outside of the majority, but that doesn’t mean that impulse doesn’t operate as a dominate feature within the buying habits of the majority. You said it well: niches. Niches are always small, and always isolated figures in a main group.
The Internet is probably one of the best new marketing tools out there, particularly since those buyers who are not traditionally impulsive tend to get their product information online. It’s possible this will shift more and this “niche” will grow, but I think that really depends on what happens economically in the U.S. and in other capitalist societies over the next few years. It’s not looking good, though, since the way the markets have been run (in a sort of endless financializing/debt-selling/buying cycle) seems to have been upheld with the lack of required payback in the recent stimulus package (all for bailing out companies so long as they have to pay us back with interest…).
But this is getting too political for the discussion at hand…
Henry Baum said on June 5, 2009
I think we’ve reached the crux of where you’re coming from. This is a whole other can of worms, but I think this kind of statistical analysis is dangerous: reducing people to numbers rather than individuals. Yes, there are trends, but it leads to mindsets like you have – because most people do something one way, there’s no reason to try another way. It’s a really spiritless way to look at reality. Most people are conformists, fine: but why accept that and try to fight the people who are nonconformists, non-androids? That’s what you’re missing. I don’t think PK Dick would ever say, OK, screw it, the marketers win. But maybe we should ask Tessa.
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
Hey SMD,
I guess that I rely on the idea that the “average consumer” (pretending there is such a thing), buys at least SOME of their books via recommendation.
So I don’t HAVE to be able to directly reach every reader. All I have to figure out how to do is to directly reach the niche group of people that I can most effectively reach, and if those readers like my work sufficiently then they will recommend my work to others.
It’s not that complex of a concept to me and it doesn’t require an entire reworking of how any given nebulous majority does their shopping.
Though I still can’t really fathom why you’re so worked up about self publishing in general. Yes you’ve pointed out several times you think there are some good self pubbed books out there but that there are way too many bad. Yes, but why am *I* judged on that based on my method of publication?
I’m not saying you personally are doing that, but you seem to think that everybody judges self pubbed books based on all the bad apples out there. I’m not sure that’s really true. Since the “average consumer” you are talking about, doesn’t know crap about publisher labels.
As I think Henry has stated, they don’t know the difference in random house and authorhouse. So you are applying your savvyness level to this “average consumer.” Who frankly doesn’t know who publishes anything, nor do they care. Most readers do not care who publishes a book.
And if it looks good/professional and has good reviews and a good excerpt and blah blah blah, it looks no different to most readers than any other book.
Frankly the good self pubbed books, most readers won’t know they are self pubbed because they will be of such quality that they blend in. Given that, what DIFFERENCE does it make if most self pubbed books suck?: Really? I’m really trying to understand your arguments but you’re all over the place here. And you’re applying things to the “average reader” that just aren’t realistic… such as this idea of bad self pubbed books bringing the rest of us down. No, the only people doing that are other writers, who are endlessly and anally obessed with “who is your publisher?”
SMD said on June 5, 2009
I’m going to have to respond to these later. I need to get some of my own work done (two essays over 15 pages long, fiction, and a load of other stuff due in about a week).
Sally Hanan said on June 5, 2009
Is this the perfect moment to advertise my editing business or what?? LOL.
We all know that SP has gained more popularity in that more great writers are taking this route to publish their books. Yes, it can be a hodgepodge of good and bad, and the possibility of finding worms in the apples is high, but the good ‘uns will get good reviews and the bad ‘uns will not. I would like to see more reviewers of SP books; that’s a high calling though.
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
LMFAO Sally, OMG that was awesomely hilarious!
Tessa Dick said on June 5, 2009
SMD called upon the magical name of my husband, so Imust respond.
If the Internet form of SP had existed in the 1970s, Philip K. Dick’s VALIS trilogy would have been published ten years earlier, instead of posthumously, beginning around 1982.
Phil couldn’t sell VALIS and the other books, despite his reputation. In fact, his agent begged him to quit writing and just live on the royalties from what he had already written.
SP would have brought readers his most mature work a decade earlier, and that would have been a good thing.
~~~
Cheryl Anne Gardner said on June 5, 2009
Sally: Thank You
Finally, in all this mess of a conversation, the real issue has floated to the surface. This is what I have been saying all along. The “average reader” is not going to be inundated by a tsunami of bad books because of self-publishing. The “average reader” has little to no exposure to these books; in fact, they have little to no exposure to the vast number of books published in general. SP is a not swine flu. The real issue here is about gatekeepers. So let’s come right out and say it. This has nothing to do with the Indie business model. It’s about the changing of the guard. If the average consumer were at all concerned about quality, they wouldn’t be buying cheap lead paint-based toys produced by child-labour in foreign countries. The “average consumer” has no idea what quality means. The “average reader” reads between a 5th and 8th grade reading level. Look at the Flesch-Kincaid score chart if you don’t believe me. This all goes back to what I said before. If gate keeping and quality is the real issue, then we need more legitimate reviewers. More sites like this, among others, where the review staff has expertise not only in the field of SP but also literary expertise, which means theory and the craft in itself. Yes, we, as reviewers get exposed to much more crap than the “average reader” ever will, so it’s easy to become jaded, but it is our job as the new-world-order-gatekeepers to make sure the good work rises to the top.
This is a higher calling, definitely. Over at the Podpeople, Emily started with like 12-17 reviewers. We have dwindled to a mere 3. It’s a tough gig, no doubt about that. (Anyone want a job?) We as reviewers also have to rise to the occasion. Arguing business model semantics is a waste of energy. We should be reviewing, expanding our readership, and thus earning our gatekeeper status. I can tell by a query whether or not a book is going to be worth looking at. If not the query, the first few pages. If it makes the cut, I review it, and I am a hardass when it comes to quality. I don’t look for mainstream diatribe; I look for an artistic literary approach and readability. I don’t mind a few typos or grammatical missteps so long as they aren’t egregious or widespread. Why? Cause the “average reader” won’t notice them anyway: they certainly don’t notice them in mainstream works, even if I do. Readability, relatability, and emotional relevance, that’s what Literature is all about. Grammar and style take care of the first part — that’s the writing bit — and the other two are subjective.
Therefore, as a final note from me, if we want better self-published books to make it to the “average reader” then we, as reviewers, need to be the tried and true gatekeepers. The job has fallen upon our shoulders, whether we like it or not. We, the Indie reviewers, are the Editors of the new age. Crap job maybe, but someone has to do it.
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
LMAO @ SP is not a swine flu.
My issue in this debate has been trying to get a handle on where SMD is going in all this. I’ll admit that his first impression with me was a bad one with a post over on his own blog. He can come off very reasonable in comments, but then I’m left trying to figure out if he’s arguing just for the fun of it or what his “ultimate point’ is.
I could be wrong in this, but it feels like there is an “anti-self publishing agenda” going on. (wow that sounds impressive and scary lol.) Maybe that’s my own misguided perception. Maybe I look like a giant arrogant ass trotting my numbers out (which I will be the first to admit aren’t like ZOMG wow or anything, but they certainly aren’t the “average” 100 or so books that supposedly is the most SPers can expect to move) but I’ve been trying to ascertain where he’s going with all this. And his earlier post involving SP and 500,000 sales, made me think he had unrealistic expectations of what is considered “successful” for average book sales.
The point isn’t/wasn’t to say, “oh look how great I am.” I have much room left for improvement as a writer, publisher, and marketer, but… it is possible and even realistic to be able to reach an audience of several thousand through self publishing. And I feel like that point very often gets obscured in the noise over how much of it is crap.
I also feel that many self publishing authors set their goals way too low in an effort not to come off as too self-important or naive. But setting goals low makes it unlikely you’ll rise about that. Maybe selling 100,000 copies is unrealistic. But certainly 5,000 copies is not an unrealistic goal to set for a book. Not saying it’s easy, or that you’ll get it on your first book out, but unless you’re writing something so niche that there just aren’t that many people to buy your book in the first place, it’s my opinion that you can reach that many at some point.
Some SP’ers have no desire to build an audience of any given number. And that’s okay too. But very often I see an argument against self publishing having to do with reach and your ability to sell a certain number of books, as if it’s any easier for a small press pubbed author, or even “much” easier for a trad published author.
Distribution isn’t marketing. If it was, then every book on mainstream published bookstore shelves would sell… at least until a certain number people decided they felt any one given book sucked.
If what you put out is of a high enough quality it does not matter what other people are doing. We can’t judge self publishing as a concept or self published books based on the bad ones. That’s a type of prejudice we don’t allow in most other areas. But in the area of publishing we seem to almost snuggle that prejudice like a warm fluffy kitten.
Henry Baum said on June 5, 2009
Actually I would make the very stupid argument that self-publishing is Swine Flu. Widely reported as bad, but not really as bad as it seems.
Zoe Winters said on June 5, 2009
LMAO Henry. When she mentioned swine flu I thought “well that’s not as bad as people thought” but then I didn’t make the further connection you did. Kudos! hahaha.
Cheryl Anne Gardner said on June 5, 2009
Nice Henry, very nice. But I don’t think a self-published book ever made anyone sick enough to be hospitalized let alone killed anyone. Some of the SP forums I have stumbled into have given me a rash, but that was about it. Nothing dire.
Tom Dark said on June 9, 2009
The publishing industry belched out over 276,000 new titles last year. Sales plunged worse than ever. Which of them were good? I get e-mails from people who’ve walked out of a Barnes & Noble or Borders empty handed and angry. They feel “condescended to,” quote. Publishing bigwigs are blaming readers’ “shortened attention spans,” quote. Which of you has lost a portion of your attention spans? Know anybody who has?
Zoe Winters said on June 9, 2009
Hey Tom, I’ve walked out of bookstores with nothing too. Partly I’m disgruntled by “more of the same” everywhere, and partly I’m disgruntled by so many books in my face. The choices are overwhelming.
Ironically, though Amazon.com has millions of books, because I can’t see them all at one time, I am significantly less overwhelmed. I’m also able to search reviews and do google searches on books before clicking the buy button.
Tom Dark said on June 9, 2009
Great little attention span, there, Zoe! Someday let’s read something complicated together, eh?
Here’s my secret plan unveiled publicly here for the first time: mix the bookstores and coffeeshops together. I mean put the tables among the shelves. Stock just single copies of the books for sale — ones that can get greasy and dogeared. Let people browse around, siddown with their coffees and such, and pick something out to read.
“Whatcha readin’?” Is the very best and only true reliable sales device a book has ever had. If people want to buy it, they can have a barrista go get a fresh copy in the stockroom, or order it online, or download it electronically.
In the meantime, coffee and socializing keeps the bookstore operating. People pay “rent” with a coffee, minimum.
Okay, now that I’ve revealed this publicly for the first time, who’s going to do it?
It’s been working great for a coffeeshop/bookstore in Berkeley CA for decades. What I don’t understand is why it hasn’t spread. Maybe these corporate execs not only don’t read, they’re too good to get out among the real people who do.
Zoe Winters said on June 9, 2009
LMAO @ “someday let’s read something complicated together”
I actually had a similar idea. Thought it would be cool to have a coffee shop with one of those espresso book machines in it. Order a coffee and sandwich on your lunch break, and a book. The coffee shop could feature bands on the weekends and book discussion groups for different genres during the week.
I think it’s cool Berkeley has that. Of course Berkeley also supposedly has “vampire clubs” too. So you know… it’s Berkeley hehe.
Tom Dark said on June 10, 2009
There we go, Zoe! Book on Lunchbreak. That’s exactly what I used to do on my lunch hour, and I still have a book with barbecue-sauce stains in it to prove it.
I spent 10 years taking a daily break at one of 2 local coffeeshops. Half the customers were always reading, and I always took note of who and what age was reading what. In 10 years I never saw anybody reading anything that was on any best seller list. Somebody may’ve been, out of my notice, but the preponderance was always classics and authors who were generally dead — on one occasion a young lady was reading Erica Jong’s latest. She didn’t finish it and neither could I.
This suggested to me what I now contend: the reason the publishing industry is in such trouble is because they’re not putting out much of anything people really want to read, among these 276,000 cookie-cutter titles last year alone. As to self-publishing and its supposed demerits, nobody wanted Shelley or Keats, either. They had to self-publish. And for better or worse, but in terms of sales, the mega-sellers Neil Whatsisname and Stephanie the Vampire writer also had to do the same.
Re-vitalizing the coffeeshops — which experience an upturn because the entertainment there for a good long hang-out is far cheaper than a 2-hour extravaganza of computer graphics blowing stuff up real good — would indeed be a key.
Friends sell books among friends… I rather doubt it’d work by stocking a coffeeshop/bookseller with paid shills.
Another thought — the coffeeshop would pay for the overhead and the barristas. The barristas themselves would have intellectually challenging jobs.
I’m going to see if I can’t make two separate postings. I have a news item worth noticing. Hang on.
Tom Dark said on June 10, 2009
(There. Now, what if these two stores did as suggested, above? If they ain’t got no good books, at least they could get along on good coffee)
Shaman Drum Gives Up the Fight to Survive; Wisconsin Store to Close After 113 Years
Owner of Ann Arbor bookstore Shaman Drum Karl Pohrt will close the store at the end of June. “I feel like I’ve had this charmed life to sell books in Ann Arbor for nearly 30 years,” he tells the Ann Arbor News (which will also close soon.) “That’s a good run.”
The store’s site says, “On the advice of my accountant and my business manager, I am closing Shaman Drum Bookshop June 30. Despite a first rate staff, a fiercely loyal core of customers, a very decent landlord and my own commitment to the community of arts and letters in Ann Arbor, it is clear to me that the bookshop is not a sustainable business.”
Pohrt had said earlier in the year that he was trying to save the store by reconstituting as a nonprofit. He indicates that plans to establish the Great Lakes Literary Arts Center continue, though he does not have a location for the center yet. On the store site, he notes that “I am decoupling Shaman Drum Bookshop from the Great Lakes Literary Arts Center, which should simplify and streamline our IRS application. I will pursue this new venture after we close the store.”
AA News
Also set to close is Conkey’s Bookstore in Appleton, WI, where the shop has operated for 113 years. Owner John Zimmerman tells the local paper, “We’ve done the best we can under the situation we’re in now. What hurts the most is what will happen to the people who work for me.” He has not set a firm closing date, while the store holds a sale and employees look for other work. Mayor Tim Hanna says, “It’s one of those anchor stores … an icon in downtown Appleton.”
Zoe Winters said on June 10, 2009
They need to turn their bookstores into coffee shops. Totally.
And Walt Whitman also self published. Leaves of Grass. He even set the freaking type himself. Even if I’ll never be as great as someone like Walt Whitman or Poe, being in the company of those people as far as the “indie spirit” is something you can’t put a price tag on, IMO.
Tom Dark said on June 11, 2009
Gee, Zoey, I just read your self-publishing 5 minutes’ hate parody. I THOUGHT I liked you for some reason. You a musician or what? Ask me about Melissa Ferrick some time. Or google “Tom Dark Melissa Ferrick” for an artifact. We made that gal’s sales go ZOOOOOOOOOOOOM, we did. It’s a lesson for self-publishing in literature too.
K.M. Weiland said on June 11, 2009
Thanks so much for sharing these thoughts. As a self-published author who adamantly defends self-publishing and rejects the prejudices and stigmas attached to it, my only caveat is the lack of quality control. I too believe the system will eventually grow to a place where some kind of quality control will evolve. Your post gives me hope that such will be so!
Zoe Winters said on June 11, 2009
LOL nope, not a musician. Just thought many of the common arguments about why Self publishing is clearly the bane of all existence, sounded goofy if you changed it to music.
And Cool.
Tessa Dick said on June 11, 2009
Self-publishing is not going to go away, so the literary snobs better just get used to it.
And the internet is making self-publishing cheaper, easier and better.
~~~
Tom Dark said on June 11, 2009
Tessa, I believe your husband is the author of a story I read as a boy that continues to haunt me. It was not the clever device of a man stepping on a butterfly in prehistoric times which then turned George Abnego president in their return to the present, but the fact that I’ve seen the Abnego persona in every presidential regime since I noticed the similarity.
And that’s what literature is for. It isn’t for “average readers.” The notion that there’s such a thing is illusory. It doesn’t matter if a potboiler can sell a hundred million copies. It does matter that those selling books know one when they see it. So, demographics are invented, marketing studies done, corporate drone editors given specific guidelines, and just about everything they pick tanks. They think they’re making scientific decisions based on the imaginary psychology of “the average reader.”
Nobody wanted Dr. Seuss! Nobody wanted Kerouac. And nobody wanted JK Rowling — more telling, because by that time, corporate mentality was in full swing among the so-called “traditional publishers,” who aren’t traditional at all — the old names have long been taken over by corporations owned by mega-corporations.
The parallels with the music business aren’t simply similar, they’re copy-cat. The corporate publishing industry is headed to where the music biz went: living off their catalogues and year after year producing “demographic models” of crap nobody wants to listen to. They’re both top-heavy with executives and surrounded by choosers chosen for their pliability and shows of fake gung-ho, not their imaginations.
It is a widespread illusion that a “traditional publisher” — again, read “corporate publisher”, somehow validates and justifies a writer’s being. It’s akin to “god loves me! Oh, you’re self-published? God doesn’t love you!”
For those still aching with this illusion, you should know that the average sales in 2007 through corporate publishing was 500 books per author. This means they made maybe 840 bucks. The rest got flushed down the labyrinth of executive salaries and so on. I haven’t yet seen the stats for 2008, but I know various corporate publishers did much worse in ’08.
As with genuinely talented musicians (I’ve known quite a few and been one), self-publishing now makes more sense than ever. And aside from all-important matters of soul, as with any business prospect, eliminating every possible middleman, chief corporate feudal executive, and any bottle-washer not absolutely necessary and effective, has always been the way to go.
Tessa Dick said on June 11, 2009
thanx, Tom Dark
— Phil was stuck in the relative obscurity of Ace doubles for many years
— it was the science fiction equivalent of the Harlequin romance
— and look how much respect he gets now, finally
~~~
Zoe Winters said on June 11, 2009
Actually, Tom, aside from a couple of publishers, Harlequin being one of them, almost no publisher is doing much in the way of market research and demographics studies. And if they are, it’s an incredibly recent phenomenon. I could respect the idea of corporate publishing more if more general business principles were applied to publishing, like they are applied in other industries. It seems like publishing can’t decide if they want to be in the business of selling “art” in which case, profit is generally a secondary concern, or if they want to sell widgets. Until they figure that out, it’s going to continue to be this way.
As for sales, it was my understanding that your average NY pubbed book was selling at least 5,000 copies, because if it couldn’t sell that many they wouldn’t take it on. NY publishers seem to be looking in the neighborhood to sell 25,000 copies of a book or more. Am I mistaken in this notion? Where are your numbers from?
Thanks.
Zoe Winters said on June 11, 2009
Hey Tessa,
It’s sad that he couldn’t have gotten more of that respect when he was still here. Hopefully he’s somewhere where he can see where his writing has gone in his absence.
Tessa Dick said on June 11, 2009
I really do wish that Phil could be here to enjoy this.
He would probably self-publish his Exegesis — in ten volumes.
~~~
Tom Dark said on June 12, 2009
Zoe, my numbers come from the various daily trades and sometimes direct from the publishers. It’s my job. The ’07 overall profit figure was .03% (BK Journal), which makes 500 books a lot more likely than 5,000 all-around. The fact that contracts aren’t being honored is first-hand as well as hearsay. Penguin-Putnam seems to be doing okay, and nearly all of Hatchette is being supported by Stephanie Meyers, so it appears. Returns from stores are “horrendous.” I also find that most of the editors are kids right out of college, usually young women (a long-standing corporate practice), the over-40s are still being fired, editor communications are largely in short little buzzwords, manuscripts aren’t actually being read before they’re sold (Editors from France and UK), and marketing departments are doing the whizz-work described, overriding what editors choose.
Tess, years ago I was a critic for a couple-three East Bay papers in Oakland. I attended a lecture by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., titled “How to Get a Job Like Mine.” The answer: You can’t. Not even Mark Twain would have survived, he said, except that he married rich. So don’t think about trying to make a career as a writer, he concluded. He didn’t even say “just write.” I say “just write.” And if you don’t have to, don’t.
The floor of history is littered with writers who died poor, who nevertheless live today in quite a few peoples’ minds. They were more of the order of prophets, weren’t they? Was not your husband one of them? “Not without honor in all places but his own country?”
Zoe Winters said on June 12, 2009
Hey Tom, are books published by small presses included in that, or are we talking imprints of major NY houses as well?
And if we’re talking about major NY houses as well, how on EARTH are they surviving if some of their titles are only selling 500 copies?
Of course if that’s so, it really underscores my point that distribution is not the same as marketing. So many titles all the marketing they get is the marketing necessary to sell it (on consignment) to bookstore buyers. That’s basically distribution. It’s not marketing. And it doesn’t count as sales until it sells-through to the end reader.
Also… That is a bone of contention for me, these editors right out of college. *I* can easily get that kind of editing for my own work outside the system. So why would I need a trad publisher for the magically wonderful NY editing, if so many editors are so young and inexperienced? Whatever happened to Maxwell Perkins?
Tom Dark said on June 12, 2009
Damned if I know, Zoe. It probably all came from BookScan, or whatever that service is called. They list the sales of the majors, anyhow. I did read in PW that the little houses aren’t hurting as bad, but it’s up and down, some are going under. Remember, 500 is an average between, say Obama’s Book of Crowing and a lot of people who sold jack-nothing. How are they surviving? Back catalogues, I said, plus, apparently, loans. Some have decided to start cannibalizing a percentage of their authors’ personal appearances. Various novelists are now required reading in colleges, too.
WHOOOAAAA about marketing. There are other comments above that are similarly non-sequitur (since when does somebody buy a book without first reading a bit of it, or hearing from a friend, etc. etc.? Are these hapless consumers just stupid?). Amen amen I say unto you, marketing doesn’t sell a book or a CD. They sell themselves from reader to reader, listener to listener. Recent marketing story? Well, let me not mention the name. But this writer went on Oprah. The publisher had 250,000 books shipped and sitting in the stores timed with the appearance. Plus, this writer got in TIME magazine and all this other happy stuff that costs a LOT to rig. In 3 months, only 7,500 copies had been sold. It’s since sunk out of sight. That’s how many books sheer “marketing” sold. I couldn’t read the damned thing. That’s one of a number of examples I learned about this past year. It really IS like they’re not reading what they’re selling.
I’m 57. Imagine my non-plussment when I see a 26 year old cutie who’s somebody’s niece who has the title “Senior Editor.” And I get little fwippy notes with misspellings like “definately.” Perkins? Cerf? Ross? Anybody? They’ve probably worn themselves out rolling over in their graves.
There’s now e-books. A wild card. Nobody knows what to do yet.
Well Tess, Philip K. Dick is a god now, isn’t he? Anything stopping you from sorting out how to sell his unpublished works?
Maybe not something to discuss in a public forum, but, a thought to mention aloud.
Zoe Winters said on June 12, 2009
Hey Tom,
Yeah, Marketing is just to make people “aware of” your book. It’s that whole thing about leading a horse to water. You hope to sell enough through your marketing efforts and for the book itself to resonate with people enough, that at some point you reach critical mass and the book feels like it’s selling itself because it’s fueled based on word of mouth.
I wonder though how it’s possible for someone to sell jack nothing if they’re published by a major publisher and have major distribution. It just feels like they ought to all be selling 5,000 at least if they’re put out by someone like Penguin or some such.
Tessa Dick said on June 12, 2009
I am not in charge of Phil’s estate. His & Ann’s daughter is running the show.
Wish I had a say.
But then, I do have my own books.
~~~
Tom Dark said on June 12, 2009
Well Zoe, I’ll say this one out loud: Aviga’s WHITE TIGER got jillions in marketing. Jillions. They’d started that January. by that April they’d sold 4,000 books in India. Then Jamie Byng of Canongate went on record to say the MAN Booker prize, which “Tiger” won, was fixed. All I can tellya is I stopped into a bookstore a couple months ago to see about “Tiger” and the lady told me they’d sold less than before the MAN prize, tho’ all the hype said it’d since sold 200,000. Hmm. Nobody I know has yet read it. I tried — somebody made a gift of it — and got bored toot-sweet. They prob’ly sold “some.”
So, I think back to when Green Day, Counting Crows and Smashing Pumpkins were all reported to have sold 12 million copies each, all in the same few months. I was living right where GD and CC lived, and never heard so much as a peep of them out of local windows (college town) and cars; just a bit from local radio. Then I read one of the guys in Green Day complaining that if they’d sold that much, how come they didn’t have any money? Then I learned this: the marketers make false claims. That many albums were printed and shipped to record stores. How many actually bought ‘em is… a secret.
At the same time, a producer pal of mine had an act on the Beverly Hills 90210 album. 3 million copies, they said. That’s 14 cents a pop for each act on it, just to start with. But his 2-man act: one was in jail ‘cuz he couldn’t pay his traffic tickets, the other, working at a convenience store. No money at all. 3 million copies printed and shipped, no sales, no artist made any money.
I also talked to a LOT of kids, Green-Day et-al buying age. Yeah, a few of their friends bought it, but nerds. One kid told me he bought it because he heard it sold a lot.
So there’s the state of marketing. Snake-oil. On the other hand, ever heard of Slim Whitman? Self-promoter. He actually did outsell the Beatles.
Hey Zoe and Tess, look at this:
S&S Puts Almost 5,000 Titles On Sale At Scribd.com
In a release originally set for announcement today that hit the wires last night after Business Week violated the embargo, Simon & Schuster is offering almost 5,000 of their titles available for sale on Scribd.com through a branded “storefront” on the site, including books from some of their bestselling authors. The books are priced at 20 percent below print retail, and the site provides the publisher with 80 percent of the revenue. S&S is also providing free previews with links to purchase print books from the publisher’s website.
Scribd’s files are viewable online and download only as protected PDF files that the WSJ says are not currently viewable on Kindle, but will be viewable on the iPhone OS after a software update from Scribd.
A Scribd spokesperson declined to provide information on sales so far of books in general following the launch of their beta store a few weeks ago. But Kathleen Miller indirectly acknowledged our assessment based on the site’s own displayed “views” that sales of books have been modest at best. She told us “it’s been our experience (with “pre-commerce” documents) that it often takes a while for things to take off.” Miller added that “‘views isn’t a good snapshot right now. We’ve experienced a glitch that undercounts views by up to 50%. We are in the process of fixing it.”
S&S chief digital officer Ellie Hirschhorn says in the announcement “we’re pleased to offer them this convenient, user-friendly option for discovering, sampling, and purchasing Simon & Schuster books, any time and anywhere.” Scribd uses the release to remind publishers of their “Copyright Management System,” said to “help prevent the upload of unauthorized written works” by comparing them to legitimate files already provided to the site. Indeed, Hirschhorn tells the AP “It’s a way for them, in terms of technology, to match our files against any have been uploaded, to identify those uploaded files and then tell whether they’re legitimate. If you’re not in their program, the entire onus falls to the publisher, or to the author, or to the agent, for finding a pirated book. And now it’s a shared responsibility.”
But Carolyn Pittis at HarperCollins says of that system, “Theoretically, it sounds great that technology can, in real time, alert Scribd about a pirated copy and prevent someone from actually uploading it. But I don’t know how sophisticated that system is and whether it can work on a large scale.”
S&S Scribd store
Press release
AP
Zoe Winters said on June 12, 2009
Hey Tom, yeah it’s that whole idea of perceived popularity makes you popular. (at least in theory it does) It’s why someone hitting the bestseller list means they’ll generally sell more. Because having: “NYT Bestselling author” on the cover of all future books is a marketing strategy.
What you say about the dude that outsold the Beatles is interesting because just the other day I had someone ask me how many people had actually made money self publishing fiction. It’s assumed that you’ll have heard someone’s name if they’re making money selling fiction, but that’s not necessarily true. 20,000 copies would be an incredible amount for an SP author to sell and would be very healthy money. But selling 20,000 copies of anything isn’t really national news. Who is going to just ‘hear” about that? Even if it happens? How would one tally how many people had sold even 5,000 copies through self publishing fiction? (Another difficult feat, though not impossible, and probably there are a healthy number of people doing it. They just aren’t what people see as the “average self publishing author.”)
Also on the music front, part of why indie music was embraced so strongly is that record companies really were screwing over the artists. Most people thought these famous recording artists were rich, but it was all just window dressing. They were indentured servants to the record company.
Publishing at least isn’t run quite like that. There’s not a lot of money in publishing, but that’s true for publishers as well as authors.
And yeah, I get PW Daily in my inbox each morning. They announced the S&S Scrib’d thing. And I have to admit I find it mildly annoying. Sites like Scrib’d weren’t really made to be platforms for corporate publishers to peddle their wares. I find it mildly annoying that after the denigration of ebooks within the industry, that now publishers are starting to flock to all these places to put their ebooks.
Tom Dark said on June 12, 2009
Tell me about it, Zoe. I visited Little Richard when he was living off his mom in Riverside CA years ago. I also knew Matthew Katz, who’d ripped off Jefferson Airplane and a lot of others when they were young and dumb. On the up side, a couple famous producers I knew who’d done a STRING of biggies from 60′s-80′s… called them up out of old time’s sakes a couple years ago and there they were, now in their 60s, living in their studio. So, nyah nyah.
Well, I reckon indie music has been embraced because “they” are putting out more listenable stuff than the corporate wigs are. Here’s another plug for Melissa Ferrick; Ani DiFranco too — the only albums I’ve bought in 10 years, minus some old artifact stuff. With corporate music you’re paying to listen to a lot of expensive engineering tricks. Hear it once, toss it away.
What worries me is that big publishing houses have been going the same way since their corporatizations; smoke, mirrors and a lot of shifty accountants. The scoop was, the average or traditional profit had always been 4%. On corporatization, they were all expected to make 20% profit. Send in the clowns!
Any predictions we can make about the future of writing can only be ham-handed at best. Is S&S trying to dilute scribd?
They were down 20% this past quarter, nearly double from 1st quarter last year. It sounds like HIV — that is, HIV is a retrovirus analogous to dead leaves that are harmless of themselves, except when they plug up the drainpipe.
Here’s you, your keyboard, and you’re surrounded by people who read. What is on your mind?
All, to this secret poet, boils down to: what is the point of being “a writer?” Money and fame? Why, please? I love to write. I’ve got lots of fans. I don’t care if they pay me or not.
Zoe Winters said on June 12, 2009
I believe if new york publishing is going the way of music, then it can only be good for indie authors.
Tessa Dick said on June 12, 2009
Tom Dark, the purpose of writing is to write. It’s like breathing — it keeps you alive.
~~~
Tom Dark said on June 13, 2009
There ya go, Tess. We write because we have to.
It’s like watching a glacier break up in every direction, Zoe. And I think this has to be, too…