Publishers and Self-Publishing

Chat shows? Movie premiers? Do you know anything about the SFF genre?

Are you really interested? I'm sure I should love to discuss the genre with you - and with others, of course. I'm a great fan of friendly exchanges of views and experiences.

I notice you didn't question "award ceremonies" or "your genius", though :D

Thanks, Judge.

I'm going back to the funny pages now....
 
Last edited:
Honestly, regarding what Peter Graham has said, I think it's the truth.

Agents do know their business. They do know the readers. If it's good and marketable work, it's something they can earn off, so why will they reject it?

A simple test is to e mail your manuscript to friends, and just leave them with it. Say nothing to them about it ever again. Don't say: Have you read it yet? Or: So, what do you think?

They will lie, not to hurt your feelings.

I speak as a fellow unpublished writer, people.

If even half of them ever even mention it to you again, without prompting, let alone: Golly gee whizz, that's really good stuff -- and agents are rejecting it ...

But ...

Interference: The music analogy only goes so far. It's essentially a performing art. As you know, musicians have to gig their dues to get a recording contract in the first place. It's how they get better, and how they learn about their audience. And the few who 'make it' -- no matter how good they are, if they're not out there gigging, they're soon forgotten. Not all, of course. But as far as I know even successful bands do not regard album sales as enough to live off. I could be wrong, but I mean, in general, not huge, household name artists.

A book is different. It involves far more reader participation and emotional investment, etc. Above and beyond the ticket or album price, so to speak.

Either way, the essential thing is the quality (and depth) of the work, as we all admit, but may find difficult to apply to our own work -- although it may not appeal to everybody? A performing artist, beyond being original and inventive, must also be polished and professional to keep an audience' attention for any length of time? You used to get mediocre media-created artists (Bros springs to mind) but for all the hype, they soon fell by the wayside. The world doesn't accept mediocre musicians anymore, though.

As Peter has said, we all think our own work is stunning and unique. The ideas indeed, might be -- but in the end it's whether or not they come across to the reader as we see them in our own heads, and that's the difference between me and John Grisham, end of the day.

I think it's honest to accept that if agents are consistently rejecting one's work, one is not really too likely to find success with it on the internet? Really. Realistically?

Whether it grinds you down or polishes you up depends on what you're made of, as they say ...?
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I think maybe the lottery analogy is a little harsh for describing self publishing. Certainly it fits for most self pubbed authors' (like me) chances of hitting it JK Rowling big, but its a lot easier to hit it mediocre and make money at it.

Last month I hit a personal milestone and sold my thousandth copy of Maverick via kindle (yeehah!), and so that's averaging roughly 250 sales per month. On the seventy percent scheme and selling at $2.99 each, that's five hundred US to me a month. And of course I have several other books with kindle all selling in the hundreds per month. So that's a useful amount of dosh to throw on my mortgage along with my salary from work. By comparison my income from years of trying to get an agent and a publisher was precisely zero.

Now I claim no literary success, I think I can tell a good story, I've worked hard on my editing, blurb and cover art, and I've done a little self promotion, Goodreads and an author's blog etc, but I certainly haven't developed a marketing campaign or started advertising etc. So I think my point is that while self publishing may be seen as the route for low sales, I don't think its quite as bad as taking a lotto ticket. You can make money at it. You can probably make a respectable income at it even without hitting it big.

What you need is a goodly stable of books, all modest sellers with maybe one flag ship book, not a best seller but able to sell enough to attract a little interest in your work. The simple secret is keep writing, keep publishing, promote as best you can, and make sure its the best you can do.

I also question the accuracy of the oft quoted mantra that most self pubbed authors will only make one or two hundred sales. That's not been my experience so far (thank heavens!), and I don't know that even if the figure was accurate once, if it still applies as the world moves on. Either way, I don't think that most of the writers here and elsewhere, want to consider their work as 'average'.

There is also one financial consideration to self publishing ebooks compared to trad publishing that everyone seems to overlook. When you epublish yourself, your book what ever it is, is out there for life. That means that every month for the rest of your life, it continues to sell and bring you in some dosh. By comparison with trad publishing, you get an agent, a publisher and a deal, and they do one run, say twenty thousand books. If it doesn't sell its all over. You may as well become an accountant etc.

Cheers, Greg.
 
Thing is even the traditionally published authors I know need to do all of that to sell more than a couple of hundred copies and receive something reasonable financially in return. Many do the school visits, library visits, bookshop visits, websites, twitter, forums, facebook etc

It is very possible to only sell one hundred copies with a traditional publisher.

Only if the traditionally published authors you know are selling their books to small presses (or vanity presses masquerading as traditional publishers of which there are probably more than the legitimate kind these days, because there is a lot of money to be had preying on aspiring writers).

If you sell your book to a major publishing house and you sit home and do zero self-promotion, and the book is a total flop by industry standards, you will still have sold a few thousand copies. Self-published or with a small press, you generally have to work very hard indeed at self-promotion to sell that many copies.

There is also one financial consideration to self publishing ebooks compared to trad publishing that everyone seems to overlook. When you epublish yourself, your book what ever it is, is out there for life.

This is the greatest advantage of self-publishing, and I don't think anyone is overlooking it, but you still have to go out and work to make sure that people know the book is there. Sitting there in 4,000,000th place on amazon is not going to bring in any sales, even if the book is there for a hundred years.

I'm in the process of self-publishing my back-list. I could definitely use some money coming in, but I am also eager to get the books out there into the world again, because there was no chance of my publisher reprinting them after all of these years, and essentially I want those books to live on and not disappear during my lifetime.

As for sales, as a traditionally published author I already have a modest fan base, and I hope that those who have already read these books will recommend them to others -- or want to buy nice new trade paperbacks to replace their yellowing mass market editions. But also I think I am wiser than I was even a few years ago, and intend to do much more to promote my books than I ever did before. (Including letting those who have liked my books in the past know about the new editions as they come out.) A lot of us have to get over the idea that it is somehow crass to bring our books to the attention of other people, and so we just sit there and hope that somehow the word will get out in spite of our shying away from spreading the word ourselves.

I think I've pretty much got over that idea now.
 
... When you epublish yourself, your book what ever it is, is out there for life. That means that every month for the rest of your life, it continues to sell and bring you in some dosh. By comparison with trad publishing, you get an agent, a publisher and a deal, and they do one run, say twenty thousand books. If it doesn't sell its all over ...

... This is the greatest advantage of self-publishing, and I don't think anyone is overlooking it, but you still have to go out and work to make sure that people know the book is there. Sitting there in 4,000,000th place on amazon is not going to bring in any sales, even if the book is there for a hundred years ...

I had never considered this angle. It is probably the most realistic and convincing argument for internet publishing. After finding a publisher, after the champagne corks stop popping, comes the realization that you have just signed away the rights to your own work, forever!
 
Is it possible that your work was rejected by conventional publishers or agents because it just wasn't good enough? Or all they all really just useless chumps who wouldn't know quality or true innovation if it woke them up at 6 a.m. in a silk negligee?

Peter Graham - that had me rolling on the floor, laughing to the point I nearly had a coronary:eek:

Its so right but that aside, I love the dryness of your humour. Keep it coming.:)

And I do remember, those silk negligee days!
 
I don't we should under estimate our own skills as writers and the ability, nowadays, to sell work online.

Off course, the secret is having a story that is unputdownable and written in a way that is readable (Dan Brown at the worst)

If you've got that and you haven't found and agent then don't despair.

Go for it in another way!

Their are plenty marketplaces that you can succeed. Ebay, Amazon, Gumtree, ITunes etc.

My mate Scarfy is trailblazing a career in selling his Honour of the Knights as an Ebook. I will make a prediction and say he will be picked up by a traditional publisher and his two books will get a deal.

The simple fact is when someone says "I want to self-publish." Its just an empty statement. If you look deep into the eyes of the writer, it all boils down to how much they want it. The people who will succeed will have that sparkle in their eye.

Alot of people are flippant when they say this. Like everything in life it is possible to succeed unconventionally but you have to believe in yourself.

Todays unconventional way to market is tomorrows standard. I know it's a cliche here but look at Mark Robson, 50,000 book sales, deals dropping of the publishing tree like apples ripe for Grandma's crumble.

He's not superman, powered by kryptonite. He's just an ordinary guy with extraordinary belief - it's not rocket science. Everyone can do it I believe, if you want it enough!!
 
comes the realization that you have just signed away the rights to your own work, forever!

Well, no. In the US at least, unless your books stay continuously in print, you can always invoke the reversion clause once your books have been OP for a little while. Any contract from a reputable publisher will have such a clause, and if it doesn't have one, don't sign. The clause says that if you write to them asking for the rights back and they don't reprint the book within x number of months they have to revert the rights back to you. I have reversion letters for all my books published by Ace. There's no fuss. You simply write them a registered letter/return receipt requested (so that you know the letter was received) and in a couple of months they send you a letter saying they return the rights to you.

Although what this all means in terms of ebooks, which publishers will offer to to the public much longer than print books, I don't know. Still, I think there must come a time when they no longer want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping accounts on the book and sending out royalty statements that say it hasn't sold a single copy in years and pull the book.

The contracts in some countries even have automatic expiration dates.

So no, even though in theory you have sold the copyright forever to a book sold in the US, you really haven't.

Someone else will have to tell you what the situation is in the UK.
 
If you sell your book to a major publishing house and you sit home and do zero self-promotion, and the book is a total flop by industry standards, you will still have sold a few thousand copies. Self-published or with a small press, you generally have to work very hard indeed at self-promotion to sell that many copies.

Is that in the UK? If your book is picked up by the likes of WH Smith, the supermarkets etc then yes it will sell - if it isn't then less than a thousand is likely, and an author will have to promote and work hard to sell the amount needed to make it viable to their publisher. In the case of the latter financially they would have been better off self publishing.

Getting picked up by the likes of Waterstones etc doesn't always guarantee sales. My best friend works in the library and deals with authors from what I can gather what I would consider fairly well known authors in Scotland can sell less than three thousand copies.

The two ebook publishers approaching me for my book were asking for the rights for three years.
 
Ah, but while it is difficult to sell a book published in the US to a publisher in the UK (unless it's a very popular book) it is not the same the other way around, and in the UK your agent or your publisher -- depending on which rights you've sold -- will be more zealous in selling the foreign rights.

And a thousand copies is better than a hundred, and it is the truth that the average self-published writer sells less than one hundred copies, no matter what the companies who want to lure you into self-publishing with them want writers to believe.

It is also true that many successful self-published writers jump at the chance to get a contract with a traditional publisher, because they are tired of the grind of self-promotion and would rather spend their time writing their books.

Writing many books and keeping to a more or less regular schedule releasing them is the best way to build a following.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Is that in the UK? If your book is picked up by the likes of WH Smith, the supermarkets etc then yes it will sell - if it isn't then less than a thousand is likely, and an author will have to promote and work hard to sell the amount needed to make it viable to their publisher. In the case of the latter financially they would have been better off self publishing.

Not necessarily true. My first book for Solaris, The Noise Within, was not picked up by WH Smiths or the supermarkets (needless to say). Initially published in May 2010, the UK edition went to a second printing in Feb 2011. I'm told the initial run was 1,800 copies. Not staggering sales by any means, but certainly more than your post suggests.
 
Hi Gary,

I can neither confirm nor deny what sort of nightwear I might be wearing at six a.m. in the morning! But I'm sure I'd wake the chumps up!

Cheers.
 
Although what this all means in terms of ebooks, which publishers will offer to to the public much longer than print books, I don't know. Still, I think there must come a time when they no longer want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping accounts on the book and sending out royalty statements that say it hasn't sold a single copy in years and pull the book.

My reversion clause covers ebooks - if it ceases to be available for sale online, I can ask for the rights back. Of course it's such early days with ebooks that one cannot be sure how this would work out - what happens if your publisher goes bust and Amazon still have the Kindle edition for sale?

To be honest, right now I'm just enjoying the ride, because I don't expect to make it big with my first couple of books, if ever. Being commercially published gives me access to "perks" that (for now at least) few self-published writers can enjoy - blurbs from some of my favourite authors being one of the most awesome :)

ETA - a timely article (though not covering SFF, it echoes Ian's figures):

http://www.bubblecow.net/how-many-copies-do-novels-sell
 
Someone else will have to tell you what the situation is in the UK.


Much the same, I'd guess. In lay terms, a publishing contract is just another type of contract. It imposes obligations both ways (try and ensure you get one which includes a positive obligation on the publisher to actually publish within a reasonable timeframe!) and will usually be for a certain term. If that term is not fixed, it will normally be determined by the happening (or non-happening) of specified events. The happening (or non-happening) of other specified events will often allow for an earlier get-out.

It's good to hear that some folk are doing OK via the self published route. But I would still argue that the average likely return for a traditionally published author will be significantly better than the average likely return for a self published author. Not in every case, I grant you, but as Interference implies, there is undoubtedly a tendency for writers to say:-

"If I can't get a traditional deal, I will self publish"

rather than:-

"If I can't get a traditional deal, I will look to see whether it might be something I'm doing wrong which I can improve upon."

Of course, 200 sales a year via SP is better than no sales a year via a failure to engage the traditional route. So perhaps another fair question for the prospective self publisher to ask themselves is this:-

"Do I want to produce the best book possible to stand as my towering legacy for future generations or do I just need a modest amount of extra cash by way of a second income?"

In the latter case, the next question might be:-

"Do the overhead costs of self promoting my work, together with a nominal hourly rate for my time in writing the thing combine to mean that I'd be financially better off earning my second income gutting fish on a rusty old trawler on the Dogger Bank?"

We all scorn the vanity press - and rightly so - but I fear that for many (although not all), self -publishing is little more than the vanity press in binary.

Regards,

Peter
 
We all scorn the vanity press - and rightly so - but I fear that for many (although not all), self -publishing is little more than the vanity press in binary
...as opposed to bindery.


One sees the word, marketing, bandied around a lot. Those using this word often mean selling and promotion. Marketing, in the rest of the professional world, is much more than this: it includes looking for what the market wants before a company goes to the expense of producing a product.

It seems to me that we tend to see agents and editors (for publishing houses) as gatekeepers with regard to quality. But while this is an important part of their work, knowing the market is also crucial. The publishing houses do know what's selling, at least with regard to their own list(s). They may turn down a perfectly decent book (well-written, with a strong voice and engaging characters) because they don't think it will sell in the market they see (and foresee for the date of publication).

Now we can all haunt bookshops to see what's on the shelves, trying to gauge the market for ourselves, but just as with self-promoting, it's time consuming and hit-and-miss. Not that anyone has a crystal ball**, but knowledge and experience of the marketplace is something that publishing houses do have and we authors (aspiring or not) usually don't.




** - As shown by those well-known examples of huge best sellers that weren't snapped up by the first publisher that saw the manuscript.
 
The publishing houses do know what's selling, at least with regard to their own list(s). They may turn down a perfectly decent book (well-written, with a strong voice and engaging characters) because they don't think it will sell in the market they see (and foresee for the date of publication).

There's also the matter of the house/imprint's style. One editor's "ZOMG this is brilliant cutting-edge work" might be another's "OMG this is way too dark for our readership", whereas the second editor might absolutely love a book that the first one found bland and predictable.

Clarke Award-winning author Lauren Beukes has been tweeting some of her more amusing pre-publication rejections. My favourite was "Like Brett Easton Ellis at his best. We still don't want it." :D
 
Not necessarily true. My first book for Solaris, The Noise Within, was not picked up by WH Smiths or the supermarkets (needless to say). Initially published in May 2010, the UK edition went to a second printing in Feb 2011. I'm told the initial run was 1,800 copies. Not staggering sales by any means, but certainly more than your post suggests.

It isn't going to be always true - and to be honest who knows how true the figures put out in newspapers, Writers and Artists Yearbook publications, on award sites etc are. They are averages so some people will be way under and others will be well over.

If I self published my first 1000 would be a fairly easy sell - after that would be a bigger struggle without some kind of effort.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top