Following
my post on “The
Way In: Where to Publish,” a reader wrote with questions so
well-articulated that I asked if I might answer in a more public forum. Here,
our Q & A:
Q: I am so disappointed I can't be there
for your self-publishing seminar. I just read your piece on what happened with Dana (Stabenow) after she decided to
re-issue her own out-of-print titles. It certainly helped that she had a big
name and a built-in following. What I'm curious about are NEW novelists who
don't go through gatekeeping but who decide to digitally self-publish (the ones
who do actually have their work proofread first!). How do these authors fare
financially?
A: According
to recent data, it’s true that hybrid authors who have already established a
following among readers fare better than authors launching a first title on
their own. But keep in mind we’re talking averages here. Some traditionally
published authors have no idea who their readers are or how they would reach
them through even a basic tool like an e-newsletter. Others, like Dana, have
been effectively connecting directly with readers (hers call themselves
“Danamanics”) for years.
On the
other hand, there certain books from newly published authors that surprise
everyone by breaking through the clutter and noise to achieve phenomenal sales.
The odds are very much against this, but it does happen, for both
self-published and traditionally published books. The difference, of course, is
that traditional publishers do their best not only to predict the books that
become big hits but also to try to make them hits by throwing lots of money
into creating buzz about those titles. Increasingly, however, publishers are
less likely to have such confidence (as demonstrated by large marketing
budgets) in brand new authors.
Q: Without a built-in audience for your
work, self-promoting is a LOT of work, whether you use social media as your
main marketing reach or not. It's still tough to get peoples' attentions, and
when books aren't reviewed, either, well...
A: Even
as the market shifts and fewer publications are doing formal reviews of new
books, reviews still matter within the “literary community” — that is, for
librarians and booksellers and what we might call, in perhaps a snooty way,
“discriminating readers.” For these readers, reviews provide social proof; that
is, the book is acknowledged as having merit by “smart” readers who move within
their cultural and intellectual circles.
But of
course readers choose books for many reasons. The so-called “beach read” is a
great example. Even readers who care deeply about the social proof of reading
well-reviewed books will choose something lighter and more entertaining in
certain contexts in which reader reviews in online venues may play more
directly into their choices than reviews in places like Kirkus or Booklist.
All of
that being said: yes, it’s tough to get people’s attentions. When if you land a
book deal with a traditional publisher, you’re going to be expected to
self-promote; in fact, in weighing their publishing options, some authors have
chosen the independent route because they understand that, either way, they’ll
have to do most of their own marketing. Why not have control of the process
while earning substantial more on each sale, these authors reason, which means
of course that they need fewer sales to generate the same income.
Q: I have met someone in Europe who
recently published her novel on Amazon's self-publishing division (my understanding
is that Amazon also has its own imprint and that they have an editorial staff
in-place for those who go through the Amazon gatekeeping route, but maybe I'm
mistaken about this?)
A: Amazon
is a living, breathing animal that’s always prowling new territories and
adapting to market changes even as it helps create those changes. As they
monitor the market and look for opportunities, they are experimenting with
imprints that operate like traditional publishing, with editors and a selection
process, but which also have the advantage of working outside some of the usual
industry practices, incorporating strategies such as flexible e-book pricing,
for instance, and print-on-demand instead of warehousing large numbers of books.
Within the traditional industry, Amazon still gets branded as the evil empire,
and that may potentially affect whether titles from some of its imprints get featured
in bricks-and-mortar stores, but in terms of overall sales, I’m not sure how
much that will matter to Amazon’s bottom line.
Q: Do we have marketing info on what genres
are selling more than others in self-publishing world? Is it sci-fiction and
fantasy? Or romance? Is anyone self-publishing literary fiction, for example?
And what's happening with self-published NONFICTION?
A: Marketing
data from all aspects of publishing, especially traditional, is notoriously
hard to come by and difficult to interpret. Within the traditional system of
distribution, this is primarily because of returns—there might be high
front-end orders of a particular title, but when it doesn’t sell as expected,
those “sales” are diminished by a high number of returned books, and the
reporting on that comes in long after the launch.
In
2011, when the floodgates opened and the self-publishing stigma began to fade,
the change happened first in genre fiction, especially romance, where readers
care less about whether a title is reviewed in Publishers Weekly and more about when they can get their hands on
the next book by an author they love. Nonfiction in certain categories also does
well, especially self-help in various niche markets that are underserved by
traditional publishers, who with their aversion to risk equate platform with
celebrity status. Oddly, biography does well through independent channels; I’m
not sure why.
Literary
fiction, which is what I write, has been late to the party—or, if you think of
it in another way, literary fiction is an area of self-publishing in which the
market is less crowded and therefore offers some unique opportunities for
authors who are willing to think outside the traditional boxes. Amazon knows
this: they were one of the big sponsors at this year’s AWP, and you’ll also see their Kindle
Direct Publishing on the masthead page of The
Writer’s Chronicle.
In one
sense, the literary community has been self-publishing for years; they just
haven’t called it that. Literary journals don’t depend on traditional
publishers. For the most part, the writers whose work they publish aren’t
concerned about getting paid. And the readers are few – probably on par with
the numbers who read the average independently published e-book. Yes, journals
have gatekeepers, but other than that, the model is not all that different.
Another
sign that writers who deem themselves “literary” are exploring new
self-publishing options: an interview (well
worth reading) on self-publishing in a recent issue of Poets & Writers.
Q: I know the stigma for self-publishing
has greatly diminished but I am still one of those dinosaurs who is holding out
and trying to get my manuscript picked up by a brick-and-mortar publisher.
This is also why it may take me 10 more years!
A: It’s
true that the stigma associated with self-publishing has diminished, and it will
continue to fall away as more authors of truly fine books embrace that option,
assisted in some cases by forward-thinking agents like Kristin Nelson who help their clients
navigate in both arenas. Within a few years, we may even find that much of this
binary thinking about publishing slips away.
I don’t
see authors who hold exclusively to the traditional route as “dinosaurs.”
There’s a certain validation that comes from getting through the traditional
gates. Authors who’ve traditionally published, as Dana and I have, enjoy the
psychological advantage of our work having been validated in this way. Authors
need to follow the paths best suit them and their books.
Time is
certainly one factor to consider. Waiting is important to the creative process.
But waiting for someone to decide your book is worth taking a chance on in an
increasingly crowded marketplace? For me, that kind of waiting is a source of
huge frustration.
Q: There's this attitude from certain
"writers" out there that they can just put what they want up on the
Internet so that their friends and family can share in what they're doing as a
kind of writing album or something, to say "I have a novel, or I have a
book of poetry, and you can buy it cheap on _____." Meanwhile,
other writers are working themselves to death honing their craft, going through
the submission and rejection agonies, paying close attention to language,
attending writing seminars and degree programs, studying all aspects of
structure and storytelling, etc. And they pull their hair out or have nervous
breakdowns while they wait, and wait, and wait.
A: The
floodgates have opened, that’s for certain. What I see is a distinction between
writer and author—and please note, I’m creating my own semantics here; others
use the terms differently.
If
you’re literate, you can write. And if you have something to say, something to
share, and you want your friends and family to be able to read it, go ahead and
put it out there on one of the digital platforms. It can cost as little as nothing. But
don’t succumb to any delusions that your work will be discovered beyond your
own circles.
Authors
have a different mindset. For them, writing isn’t a hobby; it’s a way of life.
They care deeply about craft and recognize that they’re always learning. They
aim for each book to be better than the one before. On the merits of their
work, they hope to connect with readers they’ll never meet, though they
understand that in today’s market, regardless of how their books enter, they’ll
need to be strategic about helping that happen. Are they going to wait and wait
and wait for validation? That’s up to them.
Books
by all these people, books that are gems and books that are trash, these co-exist
in the marketplace, now more than ever. With publishing that’s accessible to
all, titles by “writers” will always outnumber titles by “authors.” But readers
can tell the difference.