It Doesn’t Have to be Either/Or
By Allison Winn Scotch | July 29, 2014 |
photo by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
I was sitting at my desk last Monday, working on my new manuscript (okay, kind-of working, kind-of surfing the internet) when Tweetdeck alerted me to the fact that Random House was offering my second novel, Time of My Life, at a promotional price of $1.99. I was as surprised as I was elated: namely, very. Surprised because I parted ways with Random House (amicably) when my imprint was shuttered (R.I.P. Shaye Areheart Books – I still love you!), and these days, they have no further obligation to boost any of my books. And elated for this very same reason: I’ll repeat – we had parted ways, and frankly, since then, I’ve gone indie. A move which doesn’t always endear you to your former colleagues at the Big Six. (I guess it’s the Big Five now?)
But their willingness to promote a backlist book of mine is one reason that I frequently ask myself, while reading the latest industry news or Twitter skirmishes between factions or Amazon-demonizing from just about everyone: why can’t we all just find a way to work together? I don’t mean to sound Pollyanna-ish, and I don’t mean to imply that, like, we should all return to our Montessori roots (though my mom was a Montessori teacher, and actually, maybe we should). But what I really mean to say is that I truly believe – having published four books at the big houses and one on my own – and having managed to maintain good relationships with many of my former editors or colleagues – is that these days, it doesn’t have to be an either/or. Or perhaps better said: it shouldn’t have to be an either/or. You shouldn’t have to be exclusively indie. You shouldn’t have to sneer at the traditionals and tell them they’re old dinosaurs. And you shouldn’t have to go traditional or bust. While I’m sure that some will (and can) argue with me, I honestly believe that flexibility and creative thinking on both sides could go a long way in changing the industry for the better. Here’s why and this is what I know:
1) Self-publishing The Theory of Opposites was one of the best and most gratifying professional experiences I have ever had. I wouldn’t change it for a second. I had complete ownership of every decision made, from the cover art to the price point to the advertising to all of the people I hired to help me (editor, jacket artist, publicist, copy editor, etc). At this stage in my career and after dealing with frustrations in the publishing process with my fourth book, it was exactly what I needed. I will never regret a second of that decision, and I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that it was one of my higher selling books in years, and that we sold a slew of subsidiary rights: foreign, film, audio, large print. I was no longer at the behest of a schedule I didn’t love, of a publication date I knew was a stinker, of a cover that left me cold, of a price that I knew would turn readers away. Every single book I have written and published has been an invaluable learning experience, but this book at this time in my life was something I needed to do on my own terms. It felt important to me as a person, and that made it important to me as an author. And I think readers knew this – I think they saw it in my joy, whether that joy was contained in the writing or in the promotion. And because of all of these factors, the book (The Theory of Opposites) opened up a new audience for me and led to new readers, which…brings me to my next point. And back to my old publishers.
2) Because of the success of Theory, readers discovered my backlist. I could not HAVE my backlist without the traditional publishers with whom I have previously worked. I’ve tried my very best to maintain strong relationships with many of my former peers at those imprints because I sincerely value what they did for me and my books, and because I recognize – FULLY – that coming up in the traditionals made me the author I am today. I can’t emphasize this enough: whether or not I had grown disenchanted with the current environment, I owe a lot to where I came from. Whenever people ask me if they should self-publish, I ask them how well they know the industry; how much they know about getting a book to market-ready shape; if they understand how many rounds of edits a book needs to endure; if they have thought about promotion and marketing beyond, say, tweeting. My time with my publishers taught me all of that. So that my backlist is being rediscovered is a benefit to both of us, and a benefit that I, quite obviously, couldn’t have without them. But this rediscovery also means more sales for them – I’ve earned out on several of my books, so this is nothing but profit for my publisher. Either way, new eyeballs = win.
3) Which is part of the reason that those same publishers are still happy to collaborate. This is where that either/or notion gets shot to hell. Both HarperCollins (who published my debut, The Department of Lost and Found, almost eight years ago!!) and Random House (who did Time of My Life and The One that I Want) have offered $1.99 promotions of my books in the past six months. I may no longer be a current author in their wheelhouse, but they’ve been generous enough to still try to sell the heck out of my books. Again, win-win for everyone. Of course, there are plenty of disgruntled writers who complain that their publishers didn’t do enough for their books at the time (and trust me, I can add myself to that list…which, as I’ve alluded to, is part of the reason I went indie), but when this type of collaboration continues to thrive, it’s a reminder that what we all really want to do is get books into the hands (or onto the e-readers, I suppose) of readers. As authors stress about sales and advances and numbers and all of the things that aren’t being done for them (again: BTDT), and publishers stress about sales and advances and numbers and who to blame when a book underperforms, I feel like this is often forgotten. What matters is getting books out to readers, even if that means dropping the price and (gasp) paying for ads. Again, everyone wins.
4) All of that said, I don’t think I could ever give up the e-rights to my books again. Why? For one: price point…it’s not a coincidence that Theory sold well when it was priced at three bucks. I know that some argue that books shouldn’t be priced so inexpensively, but I ran my numbers and budget and knew what I wanted to get out of it. I also knew that, as I noted in my second point, it was more than just about the one sale of one copy to one reader. It was about establishing readership loyalty. So $2.99 it was. But even as I dig in my heels over my e-book rights, I’m not opposed to thinking outside the box. Getting a hard copy of your indie book in stores is still a high hurdle, so – in the spirit of axing the either/or mentality – why not consider a model where authors turn over paperback rights over for a higher royalty rate? Or accelerating the speed of the snail-like pace of the current publishing process? (One benefit to self-publishing is that you eliminate all of the middle-men and can turn out the same quality book in about half the time that the publishers do.) Or find a way to hybrid the process: as I said, I hired everyone I worked with for Theory, but there were times (certainly), when I would have been happy to have, say, Random House’s typesetters lay out my book or taken advantage of their savvy editors or copy-editors or whatever. But I wasn’t willing to compromise on price or pub date. Maybe there’s a middle ground where a publisher takes a small percentage in exchange for services provided. Or the publisher bundles your indie book with your backlist online? I DON’T KNOW. These may be terrible suggestions. Truly. You may all be rolling your eyes at them and thinking: girlfriend has drunk way to much spiked kool-aid. Maybe. But none of that changes my final point:
5) Something has to change. Honestly, right now, everyone in this industry is being forced to adapt to a brave new world. Without getting too Darwinian, those who do, those who adapt or find creative ways to change, are going to be the ones who thrive. I was unhappy with my lot, so I adapted. And I (at least so far) survived. The publishers who aren’t afraid to stop doing what they’ve always been doing have a fighting chance too. Amazon, certainly, isn’t afraid to think outside of the box. I’m not even sure they know what that box is. (And if they do, and you pay for Prime, that box comes with free shipping.) If this means that we all have to put our collective heads together and come up with a way to emerge better, stronger, more accessible to readers, more supportive of authors, then I am in. I’m more than in. I’ll lead the way. In the meantime, I’ll be happily tweeting about the lovely $1.99 promo that my old publisher was savvy enough (and generous enough) to offer. A win-win. Not something you hear about all too often these days in our little corner of the world.
What do you think? Who has ideas for collaboration between the indies and traditionals? Anyone? Anyone?
Allison Winn Scotch is the bestselling author of six novels, including IN TWENTY YEARS, THE THEORY OF OPPOSITES, and TIME OF MY LIFE. Her seventh novel, BETWEEN ME AND YOU, will be released on January 9th, 2018. In addition to fiction, she pens celebrity profiles for a variety of magazines, which justifies her pop culture obsession and occasionally lends to awesome Facebook status updates. She lives in Los Angeles with her family. For more about her and her books, go to allisonwinn.com or follow her on Twitter at @aswinn.
Brava, Allison! You know I hold you in such high esteem for what you did and more than that, the honesty with which you did it. I HATE the snarkiness that goes back and for between trad and indie publishing people….I’m indie right now, but that doesn’t mean I won’t consider traditionally pubbing next time. I’m doing it on a case-by-case basis. I admire and support ALL authors. Thanks for reminding me. :)
Allison–thanks for your post. I certainly agree that those who adapt will prevail, and those who don’t will slip into history. And I certainly can understand why, as a new indie writer, you would be glad to see Random House again offering your second novel for sale. But assuming the book on offer is an ebook, I don’t understand why you see this as a gesture of goodwill, as some evidence of comity on the part of your former publisher. Isn’t the royalty rate the same as ever for you? Won’t Random House make much more than you will? If the book on offer at $1.99 is a paperback, that’s different. But the people who design covers and format my books tell me that something like 80% of the books on offer from commercial publishers are now being done as POD books. If this is true (maybe it isn’t), then it would seem Random House is seizing an opportunity to market your work without the costs or commitment represented by a print run, etc., with the intention of later raising the price.
If I’m wrong on all this, please correct me. Thanks again for your post.
Hi Barry,
There are a couple of things to reply to here. 1) As I mentioned above, the royalty rate (i.e. money earned) isn’t the primary objective ALL of the time. (And I’ll get to that below, because the royalty rate misconception should be cleared up.) Here’s what happens when a publisher discounts your book: normally, because this book published six years ago, I’d sell, I dunno, let’s say 500-1000 copies a year. When they discount a book and promote it, as RH did for Time of My Life, I may sell, just in these past few weeks, about 10,000. (I’m using round numbers here. It could be less, could be more.) Regardless of the immediately income that this generates, this opens up a SLEW of new readers for me. Reader loyalty and reader eyeballs matter now more than ever. Even if 1000 of these new readers then buy Theory of Opposites or buy my next book or buy my backlist, this is a WIN.
2) Re: royalty rate: it is true that I believe that authors deserve a bigger piece of the pie with e-books. Right now, the standard royalty is 25%. However, it is LOWER on paperback books (and hardcover). So it’s not correct to suggest that lowering the paperback to $1.99 is actually more of a service to the author. We’d earn less money if that were the case (significantly less). Also, the odds of selling the same number of the paperback as the e-book, at this juncture and without the marketing tools like Bookbub (which only feature e-books), are extremely low. Again, I don’t look at these situations as a pure money grab: there are a lot of elements in play, and they all need to be considered.
Oh that’s OK, what’s in a name?
You seem to think I miss seeing how much good it can do you–as an indie writer–when your commercial publisher offers a backlisted book for sale, at a sale price. Of course I see that. And of course the marketing value, not income is the key. My only point was that it seemed as though gratitude had led you to interpret the publisher’s action as being taken with your best interests in mind. There we party company. If, though, you’re grateful for not being punished for “going indie,” that’s different.
Hi Barry,
Ah, I see. Yes, of course I know that the publishers are doing this for their bottom line. They’re a business after all, and their focus on their bottom line is part of the reason I left. However, just because this is good for them doesn’t mean that it can’t also be good for me. It is, and so for that, I appreciate it. There are millions of books which don’t get this spotlight, and I can be happy that mine does. (For the reasons that I’ve stated.)
Allison
My first reaction was already aptly dealt with by Barry, so I won’t reiterate that here. The only value I could see for you in the remarketing of these titles is one of promotional value and brand building for you. I would assume you’ll not see any monetary benefit from those sales.
But reimagining the whole process is what we, at Atomic 27, and many other people have been doing. The question is more about when the Big 5 (arguably Big 6 with Amazon’s publishing imprints now taking over the 6th spot) will actually come around to this. If you view Amazon as a publisher, then their authors are certainly the first “published” authors to receive fairer treatment from their publisher in terms of percentage of sale.
Publishing services are valuable in the marketing of any story, and I don’t think any successful author, indie or traditional, would argue that. It all comes down to who manages the production, marketing and sales. If you, as the author, have the skills and the cash to do that, then you should manage your team and pay on a fee-per-service basis. If you would rather stick to the writing and have someone else handle everything else with no upfront cash outlay, then a percentage of sales makes sense.
But, that percentage arrangement needs to be more fair. For sake of argument, let’s say an author can produce a quality book, at most, once every three months (yes, I know, some can write 16 in that time, where others can write one every year, but as I said, “sake of argument”). Now, an editor can go through that book in a week or less. A designer can put together a beautiful package in a day or two. A marketing person can manage the work involved with getting several books into the market every day, and so on. So we believe the lion’s share of the royalty belongs with the author. While we understand that there are many books written, but quality stories and storytellers that delight readers on many levels are still rare, and those who excel at it should receive most of the compensation from the sale of that work. Period.
Any business arrangement that leaves the author as the “keeper of the light” in their career, and doesn’t take their work from them for life, I believe will be the way the industry will and must go, regardless of the various versions and sizes of publishers we will undoubtedly see come to light. The channels were once limited and now they are open. The creators can and should now reap that benefit.
If the author is happy with the arrangement, as you are, then that is really all that matters. I just hope that
Lee – I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t see any monetary benefit from them promoting my backlist. I do – I replied as much to Barry. In fact, certainly, I see more money than if they hadn’t promoted it, even at a reduced price. Further, as I stated, readers then go on to buy other books. There is NO downside to this. True, as I’ve stated repeatedly, the royalty rate should be higher. But I wrote Time of My Life before e-books were even much of a thing, and I signed that contract, and it is what it is. The only card I could play, all these years later, is go indie. I don’t begrudge an old contract and I certainly don’t begrudge new sales.
On the other points, I agree with you. However, we’ll agree to disagree that a great book can be written and edited in three months. Most books should go through at least several rounds of editing – four or five, IMO – and I don’t see how this is feasible in three months.
But again, sure, we agree on ways that writers can take back their power.
My apologies that my post was taken as negative. I certainly didn’t intend it as such.
I’ll deal with the book time frame below, as Barry seems to want to have me drawn and quartered for even using such a mindless analogy, where you only ask for a public flogging :)
On the point about your compensation for the $1.99 book, my response was based on other authors that I’ve talked with who are in similar positions as you are who have not had such favorable terms or sales. You had not divulged your actual numbers in the original post, so I apologize for the assumption. Certainly if RH can move 10K copies of your backlist book in a month, and you have a contract that gives you $.50 a sale with no further expenses taken out of that, then you are obviously the better for it. And I believe I stipulated to the promotional help that pushing one of your other books provides for your current efforts. Trust me, if you read enough of my blather, I’ll give you plenty of opportunity to bash my stupidity for real without manufacturing bad points for me :)
But the fact that you no longer have any idea when, if or how RH is going to promote your book until you happen to pick it up off Tweet Deck would lead me to believe that the “partnership” definitely has a one-sided feel to it.
Hi Lee –
No worries – negative or positive – we’re all here just to have a discussion! Yes, I do see your point about finances, but as I had mentioned in my original post, I’ve earned out on this book (actually, to be fair, I only said I’d earned out on several, so I apologize if this was confusing), so any sale from here on out is money in my pocket. Real money that will show up as a check in six months time. (Again, one benefit of self-pubbing is the monthly check, but ah well). It’s hard for me to see a downside in that, given that this book is six years old and unlikely to be revitalized unless something like this marketing/promo happens or the film option gets revived. So hey, I’m happy with this as it is.
Allison
Lee–
I’m going to assume you’re a truth-telling kind of guy, and as such I’m hoping you’ll do me a favor: please identify at least three fiction titles that meet your criteria as “quality books,” and that you know were written in three months. Ideally, these titles will be available on Amazon, and come with the “look inside” feature.
I’m sure you know why I’m asking this. The rhythmic, labored sound of someone being flogged is what I associate with experts telling writers that the key to success is great quality, matched with assembly-line production. This matchup can only occur–to my way of thinking about books and writing–when “quality” is synonymous with “unit sales.”
Barry, I’m deeply sorry I used a completely fictitious time frame to make my point. Though I needed to pull a number for my analogy, and couched it twice in a “for the sake of argument” banner, I’ve hit a nerve.
Because I was not intending to use the time frame as anything more than an arbitrary reference, I don’t really want to debate the necessary points that make up a “quality” novel. Let’s say, instead, that it takes 3 years to right a “quality” novel, and we’ll agree that your idea of what books you like and what books I like personally could be two separate things, based on our assumed mutual humanity. Or 5 years. For the sake of argument. No tag-backs. :)
My point was, and I think you would agree, that the labor a writer puts into a book far exceeds the labor required to edit, package, market and distribute said book on a per-title basis.
If it takes you 5 years to write a quality novel, this would limit your output, as a professional artist, to possibly no more than 10 books published in your lifetime. If only earning 7% to 15% of sales, as many traditional contracts paid, it seems quite possible that the above example would most certainly lead to a life of poverty, with very little control given to the artist who actually created the work in the first place, while the publisher is free to market the book where and when it feels the time is appropriate, at whatever price it sees fit. Or not. That’s not much of a business partnership as I view it.
I think that we actually agree that there are very few good storytellers, while marketing, promotion and distribution are commodities that are certainly not worth giving up all of your rights and 75% or more of your income.
Hi Allison, I hear established authors with an strong track record in their genre (and high readership) are creating their own publishing companies. Now that’s exciting if you are in that position. I’m betting that in publishing this will be “the new black.” More power to authors!
I have the reverse of your situation. I self-pubbed my ebooks (fiction) and a small indie publisher liked them and published the trade softcover editions (ebook rights are mine). Coming out of the gate as self-pubbed is a struggle to establish readership. While my indie publisher is wonderful and that stamp of approval is a plus, they don’t have much money to advertise or promote so the struggle goes on. I’m working on my third novel and some short stories. But the goal is the same for all of us, isn’t it? Keep writing well and keep putting the work out there wherever and however we can.
Lovely post today, thanks.
It takes a lot of courage to do what you did, Allison, but you make a very good point: the traditional houses have developed and refined the cutting-edge model for book production and distribution and an author who thinks going indie without being fully aware of this model treads in dangerous waters.
But that doesn’t mean an author can’t learn how the process works and ensure the book they produce goes through the same ringer – information is so readily available there’s no reason why one can’t do one’s research (other than laziness or haste). This is important, I think. Not everyone who chooses to embrace the changing current will have the opportunity to have started out in a traditional house, and that means the importance of learning via collaboration and careful networking / research is vital for those authors who want to go indie and rise to the top.
I myself am divided, so I will take no side. If I had the finances ($20,000+) to afford properly investing in the process, I’d self-publish in a heartbeat – it is a great business venture. But I would never self-publish if it meant taking short cuts.
At any rate, I’m not in a place where I have to worry about it. What matters right now is that I develop my prose so they are strong enough to be accepted, either in a traditional submission, or by readers who will hold me to the same standards as the high-quality books produced by the Big 5.
Allison-
I was interested by a couple of things you wrote…
“…coming up in the traditionals made me the author I am today.”
“…self-publishing…you eliminate all of the middle-men and can turn out the same quality book in about half the time.”
Same quality. Hmm. Now, the Theory of Opposites is a wonderful read. It’s engaging and although my mental blue pencil twitched now and then I truly enjoyed it. It sent me to your backlist, natch. Classic book consumer pattern. Exactly what you describe and hoped for.
I notice a similar scenario in self-pub authors whose fiction makes me want more: The majority (not all, but the majority) started in print. To put it differently, you and they had to work longer and harder to clear the hurdles. In the process you and they became better authors.
Indie authors can learn form that. It’s not print or “e” that makes you a solid author, it’s your commitment, standards, time invested and sweat equity. Many indie authors tell themselves they’re committed to quality in their writing but, honestly, only to a point. We know that because we read their work and we don’t always want more. (That can be true of print authors too, of course.)
There’s a lot one could say about print production time (3x the unit sales takes longer, it just does) and pricing tricks, but really that’s not the point, nor what you are asking.
To me the hope for the future isn’t about finding new patterns whereby traditional and indie can work together. What’s most effective, I observe, is something that authors alone can do: push deeper, work longer, and raise their own bars high.
Your indie experience has been good–so glad for this follow-up report!–but I suspect that’s mostly because your writing is excellent.
What has to change, ask me, is not the industry (it will change on its own, always has) but authors and their commitment, like yours, not to publication but to moving hearts.
Hi Donald – a) thank you for picking up Theory and b) thank you for your kind words. I don’t think that you and I are too far apart from each other in thinking, though perhaps a bit in actuality and how things need to evolve. But one thing we DEFINITELY agree on is that e-books are not the holy grail for someone who wants to be published – e, pbk, whatever – it has to be great before it hits the world, and too many aren’t. Of course, it’s always difficult to know exactly when your book is really, really, really done, but I’m grateful that I learned these lessons via my time at Harper, RH, etc. It’s hard to replicate that experience and is certainly truly valuable when and if you venture off on your own.
Interesting!
As a newbie to this business, I’ve seen so much about hybrid publishing that I haven’t considered it to be an either/or endeavor! I’m a little nervous but mostly confident that I could do both if I wanted to, even simultaneously! Maybe releasing self-pubbed novellas to supplement my novels in between traditional release dates…?
I’m excited to be on the forefront of digital-first publishing, and I think it might be the way things go in the future for the traditional route.
Just started reading “Theory of Opposites” last night and, true to your post about building readership, I went directly to Amazon and bought “Time of My Life.” Looking forward to both.
I recently signed with a digital-first publisher (paperback to come 6–9 months after e-book), which seems like a 3rd category—not one of the big 5, but not indie either. Maybe somewhere in between? Looking forward to seeing how it compares. I’ve actually had experience with one of the big 5 for non-fiction and indie for an embarrassing first novel; will be interesting and educational to see how it all plays out.
Thanks for checking out the books, Densie!
As always, Allison, your posts are always interesting, inspirational, and fun to read. (I so miss your blog). So glad that your self-publishing experience went well. I hope one day you might consider writing an e-book about the whole experience.
Thanks, Allison, for your post. I’m looking forward to checking your books.
As for your experience, I have to agree that it would be lovely if there was a meeting of minds in the publishing world. I happen to be jumping in with my first self-published book this October. It’s not the first novel I’ve written, but the first that will be published. As I have grown to understand how much is involved in putting a book out, I have taken my time, hired the professionals I needed, and am currently working hard on my marketing plan.
I also have another book completed and for this one, I’m looking for an agent and/or publisher. I believe like you, that it shouldn’t be either or, as both avenues have much to offer.
I’m glad you had this experience and that you still maintain a good relationship with your publishers. It’s good to know authors can successfully self-publish and still work with back-lists owned by the publishing houses. But for any author who is picked up now, the contracts are probably quite different and I’m not sure how easy it is to go in the opposite direction, which is where most aspiring authors are.
This has been a favorite topic of mine lately. Yes, we can all work together. I understand that change suckss. I avoid it myself whenever possilbe. But change is not coming. It is here. My suggestion is that publishers offer contracts that return electronic rights back to the author after one year of launch or six months after last print. It seems to me that the publisher no longer expects a big return off your book at that stage. We have to crush this rumor that a writer cannot live off of what he or she earns. In the current traditional model, that is probably true in most cases. If the publishers return the electronic rights to their writers, they allow the writer to make use of a sales funnel and capitalize on out of print books. It’s a win-win for all. Why wouldn’t the publishers want their writers writing full-time? We can’t do that by surrendering our rights forever and accepting the a small percentage of the sales. Thanks for the post!
As an unpublished writer, I hope my first step will be with “traditional” publishing because I haven’t learned what Allison has about how to bring a novel into the world. When my work is ready to query, I want to know what professionals think of it.
For newbies like me, the critical juncture may be when agents/publishers decline the MS. Is that a sign to go indie or to revise? It depends on the feedback, of course, but I hope I won’t see rejection as a green light for me to go it alone. Authors make that choice and some succeed, but I want my time to be spent on writing and revision, not becoming a one-person publishing house, even if Amazon makes it scary-simple.
Allison’s journey makes sense for her. For me, I hope I’ll have the patience to hang in there, at least for my first novel. The worst thing about self-publishing is that it’s available. It feeds my urge to transform my MS into a book in one sitting, to be able to say I’m published, to see a cover with my name on it, and to cherish my very own ISBN. That makes it a shortcut, the very thing I’m writing against. Authors with Allison’s savvy know better than to treat self-publishing as the easy way out. I like to think I do, but it still calls like a drug, promising me relief from another morning lost in the plot and dumfounded by a scene that insists on going slack.
For now, I ignore the call and continue to write, revise, groan and hope.
Kate –
Just wanted to chime in quickly and say that I admire that you haven’t caved to the “easier route.” Good books come from endless drafts and dogged rewrites and…a lot of time and perseverance. Good luck to you. I really hope it works out.
Allison
Great post. Always nice to see both sides of the fence.
Hi, Allison:
Oh you flaming Pollyanna, you! Pshaw, I say! How dare you suggest people cooperate! Don’t you realize that only through ruthless pursuit of self-interest can anything truly great be achieved! Have you never read Ayn Rand (aka Nietzsche for Dummies)?
I like Donald’s remark that publishing will adapt, it always has. I might qualify that remark by saying it will adapt or die. But I was at a writing conference this weekend and the words “Amazon is evil” were uttered not infrequently, and by people who are smart and devoted to books.
One was a publisher who admitted 35% of his income comes from Amazon. We should all have such evil adversaries. He added that Amazon wants to destroy independent bookstores and if Hachette caves, it will spell doom for publishing as we know it. Another person, a bookseller, when informed by a writer that his publisher was Thomas & Mercer, aka Amazon, stated flatly: “You need to find a new publisher.”
Like you, I find the animosity, the name-calling, and the to-the-ramparts rhetoric unsettling, and sad. I may look back at my Random House experience a bit ruefully, but I’m very fond of everyone I worked with and appreciate all they did on my behalf. Ditto Penguin. And I love indie bookstores. But the times, as they say, are a changin’.
I’m reminded that Engels, in his history of the Peasant Rebellion, remarked at how the princes employed Caesar’s favored method of conquest: victory through division. I don’t like comparing authors to peasants, but sometimes it feels like we have as little power. In the end, though, it may be writers themselves who have to unite to find a solution to all this.
Wonderful post. Thanks.
I love this post, Allison. From what I’ve read and heard, some authors are starting to negotiate print-only contracts with publishers, and many of the long-time “traditionals” are leveraging multiple avenues of publication.
But unfortunately, right now the only writers allowed into the happy Kumbaya circle are the ones who have already “made it.” They’re the traditional bestsellers or the tiny handful of indie mega-successes with the leverage to dictate their own terms. The newbies, being too great a business risk, get the tiny advances and Machiavellian contract terms, which only drives them into the welcoming arms of the Gatekeeper Haters.
Because of the vitriol on both sides, many writers are choosing their routes to publication for the wrong reasons. They self-publish because a famous angry blogger convinced them that agents and publishers are the minions of Satan, or they want to publish with big houses because another angry blogger (or their teachers, friends, family) convinced them that self-publishers are greedy, talentless nitwits uploading Word docs to KDP from their mothers’ basements.
I started my fiction writing “career,” such as it is, during the Indie Gold Rush of 2010-ish, so I was in the first category, bombarded daily with horror stories of the Big 6 Bogeyman. I self-published my first novel (well, technically my third, but the first one I wanted others to read) without sufficient revision or any capital for editing, cover design, or marketing…so of course it flopped. I learned a lot from writing and publishing it, but now I know I want to try the traditional route at least once before I commit either way.
Maybe in the future it won’t be necessary to commit–we can settle down and work together without the the snarling and scratching. But it may take a few years. Authors have many decades of built-up resentment to get out of their systems, and publishers have a century of hitherto reliable business practices to update.
Alison, I’ve been delighted (and encouraged) by your success in publishing Theory yourself.
I’ve been publishing both indie and traditionally for more than three years (traditionally much longer), only stepping out with new work the past year, and it’s been both very challenging and thrilling. Because of my contacts over 25 years in the industry, I have access to nyc editors and copy editors who do that heavy lifting, people I formerly worked with and contacted when I knew I was going indie.
I’m also still publishing with Bantam and spent a very enjoyable evening last Thursday with my long-time editor, having discussions on all aspects of the business, including the indie arm of my career and the amazing success of How to Bake a Perfect Life, which just had another big run thanks to a Bookbub ad and promotional pricing by Bantam.
In other words, I think you’re right. We all have to step up and realize it’s all changing, faster and faster and we all need to be flexible, open-minded and slow to throw flames.
I’ve been thinking about indie-publishing a collection of my short works at some point. No novels; nothing big. Just seven (so far) pieces that’ve been bought and published already. I figure I’d get three more done, wait until those rights also revert back to me, and then indie publish a book containing my (at that point) ten published pieces.
Any ideas? I’m open to anything and everything. I think the $2.99 price mentioned in your piece sounds good. But how do I get the money sent to me, and how do I get my books sent to the buyers? I was thinking of PODs.
Thanks.
Thank you so much for this excellent and informative piece.
As an aspiring author, I find it especially important to understand what’s happening in the publishing biz and how things are evolving.
I love your approach and insight.
I have also enjoyed the different points of view brought forth in some really great comments.
Thank you!
Allison,
One hybrid author to another, I heartily agree with you. I, too, cut my teeth as a tradpub author with 15 women’s fiction novels to show for it. I wouldn’t be the writer I am today if not for that experience, and along the way I met and worked with some wonderful editors and publishers. What many naysayers forget is that publishing is not a field you go into to make big bucks – ask any MBA! The margins are slim. In global corporations like Bertselman and Hachette the publishing arms earn but a fraction of the more profitable sectors. There are still people in tradpublishing who are committed to literature and who champion authors – yes, even midlist authors.
The bulk of my backlist titles are published by Open Road Media, and I have a 50/50 deal with them, so it’s more a partnership. It’s been a positive experience overall- they work really hard and are really good at their job. I’ve had several of my backlist titles in Amazon promotions as a result of their efforts. CEO Jane Friedman is a really, really smart lady and she has a crack marketing team headed by Rachel Chou. (In fact, I hired a former marketing person from Open Road to handle the marketing for my indie pubbed mystery.) They’ve coordinated with my own efforts by including back of the book links to “Bones and Roses” in the titles of mine they publish and they understand that it’s better for all us if we work together. In a perfect world all publishers would think that way.
Eileen: I love your work! Glad to see you reply on this thread. :)