Self Pub vs Traditional: A year in figures

[millymollymo]

For those writers who are weighing up the pros and cons, this happened across my Twitter feed (Via Kameron Hurley). Brooke Johnson breaks down sales from both sides, along with the reasonings and other bonuses that are thrown in.

A Year in the Publishing Game . . .

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Interesting reading.

 

[ratsy]

Yeah the numbers are interesting. Thanks for sharing

 

[Brian G Turner]

Sobering - trad vs self resulted in 2000% more sales but only 50% more income.

This quote stuck out for me:

it is far less about the money than it is about as many people reading my books as possible.

This IMO is a fundamental problem in the writer mindset. A traditional publishing contract is supposed to be a business arrangement that benefits both parties, and not be an exercise in pity. This is one reason why publishers are increasingly getting away with more and more punitive contract terms that work against the writer.

Brooke Johnson also doesn't say anything about which rights she gave up for Harper, or for how long.

 

[Phyrebrat]

an exercise in pity.

Is it about pity, though? I'm not sure that's the right word. If you have something important to say - artistically or ethically - and you want it disseminated, you're going to be more interested in reader numbers than money, surely?

I take your point, though, and would go further to call the trad trade exploitative in that sense. I wonder how many people go in there with their eyes open to that, though, and would rather be heard than paid.

pH

 

[zmunkz]

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

it is far less about the money than it is about as many people reading my books as possible.

This IMO is a fundamental problem in the writer mindset. A traditional publishing contract is supposed to be a business arrangement that benefits both parties, and not be an exercise in pity. This is one reason why publishers are increasingly getting away with more and more punitive contract terms that work against the writer.

Mind if I poke you on this one a bit? I actually agree with that line of thought entirely. The more people that see your work, the more people that will come back for the next book (and the next). The more people that will tell their friends to check it out.

It does seem crazy that such a change in sales units translates into such a small revenue boost, but I actually interpret this new arrangement as setting the groundwork for a much more profitable career longterm. No?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Okay, as someone who does both self pubbing and trad, I'll put in my (longer) twopennies worth.

I won't go into the details of my sales - suffice to say I'm pretty happy with them based on this comparison (I have a tendency to compare myself to those selling mega-loads and be hard on myself, so that's a nice place to be.)

At the moment, for my first two books I have comparative sales figures for both and comparable income. Why? Because, unlike the person here, I did pay for editing for my sp work, so it took a little bit of time to break even whereas with the trad published book I was in pure profit right away, if you like, as I had no upfront work. I also have much more generous terms with my trad publisher.

In terms of work put into the titles - promotion, running kindle, supplying stores etc - my sp book does take a little more work. But only a little.

Having said that, I have a new book coming out next summer with a new publisher and I already have a lot less work to do on it - they are following up on promo for me, they're contacting people for blurbs, organising ARCs, review sites, arranging a launch (I didn't do one for Sunset yet as I have so little time to organise it, despite having a great venue) etc. I really have very little to do other than write it and push it on my existing platforms.

From now on, one of my first questions to any potential new publisher won't just be about percentage and money (I do, of course, make more per copy sp and my terms with my two publishers vary) but the crucial question - what will you do for me? (The same goes with short stories - I have several coming out this year and there is a vast difference between how each is being promoted/expectations on me/ support given. That is coming to matter as much as the money on offer.)

Here's the thing. I'm busy with writing now. I wasn't a year ago. I could churn out book after book and didn't see that each word is a precious thing. That there would come a time when it wasn't enough to be able to write and edit quickly because I had a long queue of words waiting for me to get to them. And, in the middle of that increased demand (there is one short story submission at least I don't think I will get to this year, and a couple of others I've had to say no to), I don't have the time to chase my own ARCs etc, and essentially be my pwn publisher.

So, that's what trad can give a writer (and, yes, you have to give up some of your potential income for it) - support to give you time to write. Because, to be successful, that's what you need to do.

@ralphkern talks about being his own brand and how I feel is along those lines but not quite the same. I am Jo Zebedee. No one else can write my books. But I'm also Joanne Zebedee, who has ran a consultancy under that name for years, and I am very aware that we must be professional when working in any role and not allow our personal quirks to undermine that professional work. It's not a brand, per se, but a pride in being who I am and a realisation that any mature writer has a Unique Selling Point (and I say mature simply because it takes a while to establish your own style and give people expectations of what they'll pick up and read, which may not be limited to genre - mine is close character work and a focus on personal and interpersonal conflict). It's up to me to protect that name and to build it.

Which means, essentially, I think the writer of the blog is right. Going with Tor grew their name further than self publishing did. Yes, the terms weren't great - and being agented might have helped, there, but more and more of us are operating quite happily without one and questioning the value of an agent in this age of open windows etc, so it might be a moot point (plus, of course, the terms would have had to be 15% higher) - but their name is what will sell future books and getting people to find that name and sample your USP is the single biggest challenge in the modern age of writing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Is it about pity, though? I'm not sure that's the right word. If you have something important to say - artistically or ethically - and you want it disseminated, you're going to be more interested in reader numbers than money, surely?

What I mean is that some publishers give such terrible contractual terms and royalty rates that anyone would think they are publishing writers out of pity.

It used to be the case that publishers would provide thorough editing and marketing support - now they generally don't do either. Additionally, contractual terms increasing look to take as many rights away from the author as possible - and for as long as possible.

The royalty rates are truly awful - writers are treated not as suppliers or producers, but as affiliates. And if there's any reduction in sales income, the billion-dollar multinational publisher will ensure the writer shares the hit equally with them.

Too many writers are simply interested in seeing their name on the cover of a book. It makes writing a vanity project for them, and publishers are taking advantage of that.

Once upon a time publishers arguably were interested in writers, protecting, developing, and promoting them - because everyone really cared about books and stories. That view is probably still shared by the underpaid and undervalued editors - but the publishers themselves are run by bean-counters who treat writers as commodities to be squeezed for maximum profit - namely by taking as much from them as possible.

The result? Traditional publishing increasingly looks like vanity publishing, the difference being whether costs are charged up front or deferred.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think calling trad publishing vanity publishing is taking it a little far. There are many great publishers out there, still .

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm not saying that traditional publishing is always bad thing, as much as writers need to be increasingly wary, increasingly professional, and start thinking more in business terms. And be less misty-eyed about having their name on a book cover.

There are good and bad deals out there, and IMO some of those bad deals are little better than vanity publishing for what they offer. That doesn't mean to say that criticism applies to all companies and contracts. But from what I'm reading from writers, agents, and publishers, the trend continues to move in a direction that does not have a writer's interests at heart.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I think calling trad publishing vanity publishing is taking it a little far.

Absolutely. Besides you can't choose it.
There still are vanity publishers, sadly*. As opposed to people that will cheaply print a book and other people than can be paid to market.
Traditional publishers are marketing companies.
Self Publishing may or may not be vanity.
Most of Facebook and Web serials are vanity publishing, some is not. I can't see how Traditional Publishers are ever vanity publishers.

[* Vanity Publishers look for money, publish any work and do little more than print it, they make their profit almost entirely from the Author, not sales]

 

[Toby Frost]

Too many writers are simply interested in seeing their name on the cover of a book. It makes writing a vanity project for them, and publishers are taking advantage of that.

Well, yes and no. I think to begin with, that is an objective for a lot of people. It’s a big step, especially if it’s someone else who is making the decision that your work is publishable. And there are people who are happy with that and that’s fine. It can also be a good way of getting your name out there (although I am suspicious of the concept, which is often a line fed to writers to enable someone to get work done for free). But for me, I’ve always wanted to write for a living, or at least semi-professionally (and I couldn’t make self-publishing work. I’m not suited to it). In my experience, the finishing line just moves back a little with each success. Getting one novel published is great, but wouldn’t getting a trilogy out there be better? And so on.

The trouble with this is that if writers accept bad contracts because the money doesn’t matter compared to getting in print, that makes it harder for the more financially-minded types and pushes writing more and more towards becoming a cottage industry – while still making publishers rich. You shouldn’t have to starve in a garrett if you don’t want to. After all, if you’re working at a professional level, even if you don’t intend to do it full-time, you should be treated like a professional. For a long time I’ve felt that there is a growing feeling (in relation to most creative trades, not just writing) that because you’re doing something enjoyable, you don’t deserve to be paid properly for it.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Okay, sorry Brian, I misunderstood what you were saying.

I don't know, in all honesty. I know I'm not tenacious or motivated enough to do the amount of self-promotion that either strand requires but I have things to say and that's it.

But on a slightly separate note; from your posts on chrons in the past I always saw you as a trad-only aspirer. What changed that - is it a recent thing?

pH

 

[Brian G Turner]

It does seem crazy that such a change in sales units translates into such a small revenue boost, but I actually interpret this new arrangement as setting the groundwork for a much more profitable career longterm.

Certainly it makes good business sense to invest in establishing your brand, even at an initial loss. It's certainly not something that should be sustained. But low royalty rates makes it difficult for writers to earn a living wage from their income anyway.

I always saw you as a trad-only aspirer. What changed that - is it a recent thing?

I used to presume that agents and trad publishers were the gatekeepers of quality, and that self-publishing was all fluff. That was shattered when Jo Zebedee self-published Inish Carraig, which I thought was an exceptional book. She almost got a Big 6 publisher, but the bean-counters rejected it.

Since then I've read quite a few seriously good self-published genre novels, and struggled to enjoy trad published ones.

Also, I began to submit earlier this year and been astonished by some of the things I've learned about how the industry works. I've been especially appalled at a royalty system that treats authors as affiliates, rather than producers or suppliers.

Most of all, I've learned that if a writer can afford to have their work edited to a high standard, and believes they can realistically market their work, then it makes business sense to consider self-publishing.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

This is another writer that does a combined type of publishing. Ben Galley who's conducting it is entirely indie and happy with that. (I've been lucky to have had a lot of help from Ben) Both are incredibly professional about the way they do things. I've had a lot of really lucky breaks recently that is making me excited about the book coming out. Mum being broken into last year set things back financially and I decided to wait, but I'm glad I did because i changed the book I'm focusing on. The interview reflects a lot of what Jo has said. My main goal is to sell enough books to apply to go on the Scottish Book Trust list in a couple of years which will bring in substantial pennies from talks (of course government cuts may mean that needs to change).

I'm happy to self publish Black's Nest because I want to have full creative control with that book, but I'm in the process of building my publishing team for self publishing. Black's Nest is an incredibly important story to me, and after my experiences with the BBC I feel better with it being all mine. I will employ the editor. Mayhem or my detective stories are less personal and so I'm hoping to get the detective stories in with a traditional publisher but only after I've stuck with Black's Nest for a time. An self publisher with an established name and brand who has learned a lot about the industry as they get their book out appears to be in a stronger position even if they add traditional publishing to that bow.

They appear to be getting better deals than writers I've met who've been traditionally published from the start (some of whom are treated appallingly by big 6 publishers)

 

[ratsy]

The one problem I have with viewing numbers like this, is we don't know how much work either side did for marketing and promo. I like to think that if the indie treats it like a business, with reviews, blurbs, professional covers, professional editing, that they could do much better financially, and perhaps even in total books sold. That being said, it is a lot of work, when they could be writing like Jo says. I think it comes down to the author and what they are willing to do and how much work they want to put into the business side.

Starting a small press, I wanted to do things right, but with just me at the helm, I do rely on the authors to do a little promo too. All I ask with collections is that the fans of the authors know about the release, and are willing to perhaps do some interviews and that type of thing. If they know some tricks or have some experience trying a certain angle, I love to hear it because these are primarily indie pubbed and do it themselves, or they are with small presses and have hands on experience too.

As for reviews, and promo, that kind of thing falls to me the publisher, again, unless an author knows someone, or wants to assist in any way. I am starting spreadsheets with reviewers for different genres, and as my business grows, this is going to be invaluable.

And to Brian's point, getting 8% off list for Trad paperbacks when the big guys are deep discounting those said books, really leaves not much in the author's pocket.

But ask me again in a year and I will give you a much different opinion I think.

 

[Brian W. Foster]

The one problem I have with viewing numbers like this, is we don't know how much work either side did for marketing and promo. I like to think that if the indie treats it like a business, with reviews, blurbs, professional covers, professional editing, that they could do much better financially, and perhaps even in total books sold. That being said, it is a lot of work, when they could be writing like Jo says. I think it comes down to the author and what they are willing to do and how much work they want to put into the business side.

Exactly.

It's seems like there's a pretty clear consensus among successful indie authors that the difference between coffee money and writing as a career money is the elements you mentioned, especially promotion. Oh, and the minor little detail of publishing a freaking lot of books ...

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I've just noticed that among the writer friends I have (the ones that put author down as their full-time job) that the workload isn't a huge amount different between those that self publish and those that trad publish. And I think part of the reason the self published ones make more money is that they had to be savvy about the business side of their book selling which is a useful skill in trad or self publishing. Of course I may change my mind next year

 

[Martin Gill]

used to presume that agents and trad publishers were the gatekeepers of quality, and that self-publishing was all fluff.

Yet I keep picking up traditionally published books that are drivel. Not just ones that aren't my genre, but are just badly or Uninspiringly written. My parents in law are into fantasy. Every time they come to stay I read the first page of their books and nine times out of ten I shudder. I was at my dads this weekend and he's eating something historical,mi didn't even bother to remember the author. Again... Awful.

 

[Brian W. Foster]

Yet I keep picking up traditionally published books that are drivel. Not just ones that aren't my genre, but are just badly or Uninspiringly written. My parents in law are into fantasy. Every time they come to stay I read the first page of their books and nine times out of ten I shudder. I was at my dads this weekend and he's eating something historical,mi didn't even bother to remember the author. Again... Awful.

I read a quote a while back that I love:

There are two types of drivers - idiots who drive slower than you and maniacs who drive faster.

I think of writing the same way. We're all someone else's idiot and, simultaneously, another person's maniac. Your awful might be exactly what I like and vice versa.