A few words about e-books

[Viki63]

I don’t understand the obsession reference. Collect a list of sites. In your case, Christian sites and forums that allow for free promotion. It doesn’t have to be a fancy press release, it could just be, “If you like action-adventure suitable for Christian readers, please consider my latest release - Western Action Stories (not a good title, I know), which is available from [links].” Followed by a short synopsis. That’s pretty much all I do, along with another coworker who sends out full-blown press releases.

May I recommend the Catholic Writers Guild?

catholicwritersguild.com/index.php?name=Content_3&pid=5

Their web site is a little too busy, visually, for my tastes, but check out their forum.

Best,
Ed

Thanks for the information. I will check them out.
What I meant by obsession is constantly pushing one’s product (book, website, etc) into every conversation, posting, and even friendship. I don’t think anyone was offended, but I got tired of it.
But your information is helpful.

 

[edwest2]

I am confused – you often rail about how the moral degeneration of fiction at the hands of a biased and deliberately immoral (/amoral) industry that promotes bad content. Now, after I have claimed that this can occur and is an abuse of power, you essentially assert that “control” is not an issue. Please help me understand your change in position.

Bear with me, but I really don’t understand your comments. Where did I change my position?

Ed

 

[jimmy]

Probably 90% of what is on the shelves at any book store is poor quality. Maybe the grammar is acceptable, but the writing is poor. Anyone who can hold a pen writes a book any more, and most of it stinks.

 

[Kamaduck]

Probably 90% of what is on the shelves at any book store is poor quality. Maybe the grammar is acceptable, but the writing is poor. Anyone who can hold a pen writes a book any more, and most of it stinks.

Hasn’t it always been that way? I for one am glad that everybody writes; writing is fun! It just means that I and others starting out have to be really, really good for anyone to notice us. But that’s OK, we should be striving to be our best anyway.

 

[jimmy]

I have no problem with a sample chapter or two or a detailed synopsis. That’s always been available and books can be read for free if borrowed from a library. That’s fine and I have no problem with that. I know all about samples (and a lot of wineries–the one where I work included–charge a small fee for a tasting program) and how they can generate sales.

What bothers me most about the free offers of any kind of artistic work–music, movies, books, etc–is that it gives many people the idea that the created work now belongs to the public at large and paying for it seems like highway robbery. The outcry against piracy is treated like a joke or the artists demanding pay for their work are considered to be greedy. I also have a big problem with buying used media (books, music, movies) for the same reason. I want my favorite authors and artists to continue to create and, unfortunately, it takes money to make a living. I’m not expecting my writing to support me right off the bat, but if getting paid royalties helps me to eliminate one of the other two jobs (yes, writing IS a job) then I can perhaps devote more time to the writing. I doubt I’d still be selling wine or decorating cakes for the sheer joy and artistic expression if I weren’t getting paid for it. I have to eat and pay rent, too.

And while no pay will not keep me from writing, it will, after a while, keep my publisher from publishing.

Sorry, Ed, I know this went off on a tangent, but my writers’ group met last week and one woman who writes a lot of online fan fiction (another pet peeve of mine, but enough for now!) made the comment that she would much rather have a global audience than make big bucks for her work. This was after I had given everyone in the group an invitation to my book launch party and signing. The fact that part of her success was due to the fact that she was basing her stories on wildly popular characters created by someone else and that most online fanfic sites don’t have an editor apparently did not cross her mind. And big bucks isn’t why I got into writing in the first place. I fought the temptation to self-publish for a long time. I was fortunate enough to find a friend and mentor in an author from an independent publishing house whose work I liked and he encouraged me to keep working and submitting. And you are right, promo work is actually a lot harder than WRITING the book in the first place! I’ve spent a lot of time getting the word out about my novel and praying like crazy for enough commercial success for my publisher to keep wanting to publish my books so I can have time to write them!

I have a problem with an entertainment industry that denies me ownership to the media that I BUY. If I want to sell a book that I OWN, then it doesn’t matter what the author or publisher thinks. It’s one thing to say someone can’t copy and reproduce something, it is another to deny their right to sell what they own.

 

[curlycool89]

In the end, the same point applies for all self-published books. Bypasing editorial review and quality control means more sub-par books enter the marketplace, in print or as an e-book or both.

I think you’ve missed an important point, or don’t consider it all that important.

Bypassing editors can be a good way of getting around editorial bias.

Let’s not be naive here, publishing houses exist to make money. They are purely capitalistic motives, and anyone who says that they are there “for the love of reading” is either ignorant or drinks too much of the corporate kool-aid.

As capitalists, the point is the maximize profit. That can lead to what we call in entertainment the lowest-common-denominator. You throw in all the stuff that people like and therefore the most people will buy it.

But what I really think this comes down to is control. We’ve had this discussion before Ed, and I don’t think you ever replied. All the FUD that’s spread about e-books is nothing more than scare-mongering much of the time because publishers want to stay in business and make more money (I mentioned capitalism, right?). Now, writers have other options they can choose, and publishing houses don’t like that because that’s lost revenue and lost control.

I will even end my post by giving a nice, capitalistic recommendation: Separate the editors out from the Publishers. If you’re mad about book quality, then start up a company that offers editorial services to independent clients for a fee. Call it “editorial consultants”. Editors don’t have to be connected to publishers, and anyone who says they do is in league with the publishers and has a bias opinion. There’s no need to have the two connected.

 

[edwest2]

Probably 90% of what is on the shelves at any book store is poor quality. Maybe the grammar is acceptable, but the writing is poor. Anyone who can hold a pen writes a book any more, and most of it stinks.

There are places to check for book reviews. Amazon is worth browsing for comments. And the 90% figure is too high. It’s probably much closer to 40%. Publishers need to sell books, not see them returned.

E-books, on the other hand, I don’t think even the New York Times Book Review reviews them. Again, have a look around. I almost bought an expensive book until I read comments that said the binding was poor and pages started falling out, followed by comments that told me the book was a rehash, with poorer quality photos, of previous Star Wars books. So I got something else instead.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think you’ve missed an important point, or don’t consider it all that important.

Bypassing editors can be a good way of getting around editorial bias.

Let’s not be naive here, publishing houses exist to make money. They are purely capitalistic motives, and anyone who says that they are there “for the love of reading” is either ignorant or drinks too much of the corporate kool-aid.

As capitalists, the point is the maximize profit. That can lead to what we call in entertainment the lowest-common-denominator. You throw in all the stuff that people like and therefore the most people will buy it.

But what I really think this comes down to is control. We’ve had this discussion before Ed, and I don’t think you ever replied. All the FUD that’s spread about e-books is nothing more than scare-mongering much of the time because publishers want to stay in business and make more money (I mentioned capitalism, right?). Now, writers have other options they can choose, and publishing houses don’t like that because that’s lost revenue and lost control.

I will even end my post by giving a nice, capitalistic recommendation: Separate the editors out from the Publishers. If you’re mad about book quality, then start up a company that offers editorial services to independent clients for a fee. Call it “editorial consultants”. Editors don’t have to be connected to publishers, and anyone who says they do is in league with the publishers and has a bias opinion. There’s no need to have the two connected.

I’ve heard this before and it need not be an issue today. Go ahead everybody, publish on your own. What’s stopping you? So your argument is a non-argument.

Separate the editors from the publishers? How will that stop editorial bias? And how will that stop wanna-be editors that are sub-par from flooding the market as consultants? I was handed a manuscript that was 5 times the length it was supposed to be and poorly written in parts. So, I had to treat it as two books, not one, and make the necessary corrections in 3 days as opposed to the usual 2 weeks. Only experienced editors can do that.

So spread the word to everybody: don’t work for any established publisher. But for some strange, unknown reason, people still are. Perhaps you can explain.

Ed

 

[Pat_Payne]

Writing is a craft that takes time to master, but some would rather not take the time. From a trade web site, which states, in part:

“One of [the] main points Franklin made during the session was that publishers acted as a gatekeeper to have some measure of quality and control. When it comes to publishing with Smashwords or Kindle Direct Publishing, anything is accepted. This creates an inundation of sub-par books that often get lost in the shuffle. This prompts authors to turn to social media channels and SEO and even buy social media followers.”

Ed

What this essentially boils down to is the publishers are worried that their power to dictate taste and “proper writing style” is diminishing. Sturgeon’s Law, as far as I know, was never repealed even in the hey-day of the publishing houses.

 

[edwest2]

What this essentially boils down to is the publishers are worried that their power to dictate taste and “proper writing style” is diminishing. Sturgeon’s Law, as far as I know, was never repealed even in the hey-day of the publishing houses.

I don’t believe in Sturgeon’s Law. I do believe our law: over 90% of the manuscripts we get are junk. Of the 2% that are good, less than 1% are worth publishing. This has resulted in a backlist of our titles remaining in print for decades, because the quality is there. Most “real” publishers make most of their money on their backlist and one or two “star” writers, the rest is used to fill shelf space. The rule for bookstores is if you’re an established publisher and you have space for 12 new releases every month, you have to fill that space, or lose it. Miss by one book, and your shelf space is now down to 11.

Trust me, there is an ocean of writers out there. A ton. Self-publishing, whether it’s worth reading or not, allows them to flood the market with sub-par books. But “real” publishers are not out to stop that. For example, I went to lulu.com and scanned some of their book titles, and spotted a fantasy book that looked interesting. They had some sample pages, which I read, and they contained every common writer mistake I know of. In fact, it was a textbook example of how not to write a book. I stopped in on their forum, and saw a post from the author: “Why isn’t my book selling?”

People don’t have to be editors to spot poorly written books.

Ed

 

[curlycool89]

I’ve heard this before and it need not be an issue today. Go ahead everybody, publish on your own. What’s stopping you? So your argument is a non-argument.

Separate the editors from the publishers? How will that stop editorial bias? And how will that stop wanna-be editors that are sub-par from flooding the market as consultants? I was handed a manuscript that was 5 times the length it was supposed to be and poorly written in parts. So, I had to treat it as two books, not one, and make the necessary corrections in 3 days as opposed to the usual 2 weeks. Only experienced editors can do that.

So spread the word to everybody: don’t work for any established publisher. But for some strange, unknown reason, people still are. Perhaps you can explain.

And here’s where your bias gets in front of facts.

Your key assumption that you’ve made here, without any justification I might add, is that good editors only work for publishing companies.

Again Ed, I think the publishers are really afraid of just loosing control. Otherwise, why is you argument filled with nothing but FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) about about going the non-traditional (non-established publisher) route? If you can’t make an argument without resorting to FUD, it’s a key indicator that you’re just trying to discredit the opposition instead of trying to prove why the old model works better.

 

[edwest2]

And here’s where your bias gets in front of facts.

Your key assumption that you’ve made here, without any justification I might add, is that good editors only work for publishing companies.

Again Ed, I think the publishers are really afraid of just loosing control. Otherwise, why is you argument filled with nothing but FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) about about going the non-traditional (non-established publisher) route? If you can’t make an argument without resorting to FUD, it’s a key indicator that you’re just trying to discredit the opposition instead of trying to prove why the old model works better.

So, where do good editors come from? Just like writers, it takes years to be a really good editor. I’m not spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Yes, there are print on demand publishers that don’t care how good or bad the book is - you can publish whatever. The same with e-books. I’m neither for or against the concept. It exists and as the quote I offered contends, without any sort of quality control, what happens? I have years of evidence that most manuscripts are bad, therefore, it is a lot easier to get those manuscripts published as e-books. It doesn’t bother me one way or the other that people go that route. I’m saying the old “model” (a word I never use in conversation) works better in all respects, but let’s break it down.

1. Announcing a new book from a BIG NAME publisher. As a reader, I’m more inclined to scan their latest offerings because they have years of experience putting out quality books.
2. The reputation of the publisher is a known quantity. If an unknown is published by one of the Big Six, their 4 editors, book cover design department (an art in itself) and marketing department are behind that author. Depending on the size of your advance, marketing can include an ad in Publishers Weekly, talk show appearances, bookstore appearances and press releases to the trade and e-mails to the public, along with being featured on their web site.
3. If you’re a hit and your first press run sells out, that will be trumpeted to the trade and more copies are made available to distributors. Plus you get another marketing push. Probably smaller than the first.

The down side:

1. Contracts and fees. Writers are writers, not lawyers. Contracts are often written in an archaic form of English known only to a select number of initiates that can write and decode them. [Note: None of the following is meant to be taken as legal advice. Always hire a copyright attorney before signing a contract.] So as you read your contract, does it include North American Rights, Foreign Rights or Global Rights? What about country specific or region specific rights? What about translation rights, e-book and other electronic readers both known and yet to be manufactured? How about TV and Movie Rights covering all electronic devices that are capable of receiving and showing the TV show or Movie? There’s more but that’s a taste.

Your agent and publisher take a cut.

1. Distribution. The average distributor, prior to 2008, would take a press run of say, 10,000 copies. They remain on the bookstore shelves for a specific time period. Some sell, some don’t. The average return rate was 50%, so that means 5,000 copies come back. The distributor will take 120 days to pay the publisher and you get the returns, which are often in non-resellable condition. We dealt with a major national distributor for a while, but one day, management changed, their terms changed and we dropped them. The distributor gets a cut as well.
2. The network. Without naming names, certain practices in the print book industry have become common. Publishers, agents and distributors all want to make money. They meet and discuss trends and some may, I cannot confirm this, have their own agendas. I’m not talking about a conspiracy but just like the newspaper business - I’m talking the big papers - they tend to have biases and know they cannot only publish or report on certain things, but influence public opinion. Once again, I cannot confirm this 100% but I can say with reasonable certainty, that book publishers can create, ride the coattails of or ignore certain trends or ideas. Part of it is comes from what they know makes financial sense and at least a small part is a desire to do a bit more than occupy a large desk.

That said, there are many, many small presses that specialize in their niche, and I’m sitting on quite a few books from companies that few have ever heard of. I’m not joking. The bigger niche publishers, like the Naval Institute Press, focus not just on the modern Navy but naval and even aviation history.

---

Losing control? Of what? Every year, a fresh crop of writers, artists, actors, etc. go out looking for work. Do you know how many members of the Screen Writers Guild make a living from writing scripts? It’s a small fraction of their total membership. Do you how many actors with agents are waiting tables in LA hoping for that phone call?

Unless all of these people are being affected by some sort of mind control, they are doing what they want to do. We get a steady stream of writers and artists looking for work. As I wrote, most of them have not developed their skills to the point where they are publishable but every now and then, we get someone great. We picked up a great artist a week or two ago. By carefully adding outstanding talent to our freelance workforce, we get to bring our readers better books. We even publish ‘very good people with potential’ sometimes, which means rewrites on our part. But we’re happy to give talent a leg up.

So, UNLESS the big name publishers are the only game in town - which we both know they are not - they are not in control (or losing it) unless individuals make the choice to work with them.

Ed

 

[Baelor]

I’ve heard this before and it need not be an issue today. Go ahead everybody, publish on your own. What’s stopping you? So your argument is a non-argument.

Not at all. There are reasons to publish with a publisher. That does not mean the publishing industry is free of bias. Your own retort is completely irrelevant to the point made.

And how will that stop wanna-be editors that are sub-par from flooding the market as consultants?

First, there is no guarantee that the current system produces top-notch editors. Second, the current system can still restrict output based on bias rather than quality.

So spread the word to everybody: don’t work for any established publisher. But for some strange, unknown reason, people still are. Perhaps you can explain.[/quot]e

The capitalist system, obviously.

Again, for someone who rails against Hollywood and the alleged institutional and organized effort to produce nasty and immoral movies, you seem reluctant to make any sort of similar claim here.

So, where do good editors come from?

Good editors could perpetuate themselves independently of publishers.

 

[edwest2]

Not at all. There are reasons to publish with a publisher. That does not mean the publishing industry is free of bias. Your own retort is completely irrelevant to the point made.

First, there is no guarantee that the current system produces top-notch editors. Second, the current system can still restrict output based on bias rather than quality.

So spread the word to everybody: don’t work for any established publisher. But for some strange, unknown reason, people still are. Perhaps you can explain.[/quot]e

 

[Baelor]

Double-post.

 

[Baelor]

I see what you want and you are going outside the stated subject. This is not a post comparing what Hollywood does to what major book publishers do in terms of subject matter.

I do not “want” anything other than to mention an issue that is relevant to the discussion of publishing houses and independent (or e-book) self-publication. It is perfectly relevant to the OP.

Also, I do note that you do not actually deny my claim of…inconsistency. To be clear, are you claiming that the current publishing industry puts out material without bias (other than whether a work is good or bad)?

1. We have hired and fired sub-par people, but that was long ago.

“You” are not the entirety of the publishing industry.

1. You can provide zero evidence that print publishers do not hire people for the editorial role and put them though a process that no school can prepare them for.

I never said that they do not. But it is absurd to claim that only if editors are in-house at print publishing firms are they capable of developing editorial skills; there is no reason to believe that an independent editing company would never be able to produce equally skilled editors.

1. All this talk about control and bias is pointless. The bottom line - individual people are doing what they want.

Those individual people are, in some cases, arbiters of what gets published and what does not.

But back to the subject. Based on my experience and the experience of contacts and colleagues in the publishing trade, I contend that everybody can publish an e-book if they want to but without quality control, the oceans of bad material have just swelled in size.

This is self-evident.

You appear to want to create a reality for editors that will just not happen. Oh sure, you can hire a freelance editor but how do you know if he’s any good or if you can afford him or if he’s charging a fair price?

There are independent advertising firms all over the place. How can I guarantee the quality of the advertising I will receive? There are independent college counselors and ones that operate with schools. How can I guarantee their quality? How can I guarantee the value and quality of any service or good I receive ever? What a non-argument.

Your personal idea is not reality. It’s something you wish could happen but won’t - at least not as you describe it.

Really? Could you please quote me where I supported or advocated for this system?

 

[edwest2]

I’ll just close by saying I read multiple publishing trade publications, that I must provide tangible proof regarding trends and sales in print and e-book markets, and I’m on an industry only mailing list that provides all the inside information anyone in publishing could hope for, including names and advances for all the newcomers entering the field that are supported by the current system, including six figure, or more, advances. The current system has been around for a long time. The money to hire staff and talent does not come from nowhere.

Ed

 

[curlycool89]

1. Announcing a new book from a BIG NAME publisher. As a reader, I’m more inclined to scan their latest offerings because they have years of experience putting out quality books.

I would like you to point out 1 person (outside of the publishing industry) who actually choses books based on on the publisher.

I have several authors whose books I read, and so does my mom (who is an even bigger reader than me). I have no idea who publishes the books, and if the author switched publishers I wouldn’t know nor care. Your singular emphasis on publishers is crowding out the people who actually matter for books: the authors.

1. The reputation of the publisher is a known quantity. If an unknown is published by one of the Big Six, their 4 editors, book cover design department (an art in itself) and marketing department are behind that author. Depending on the size of your advance, marketing can include an ad in Publishers Weekly, talk show appearances, bookstore appearances and press releases to the trade and e-mails to the public, along with being featured on their web site.

I follow 2 big authors pretty well and buy their books pretty regularly: Vince Flynn and Bernard Cornwell. You know how I found both of their books? I walked into Chapters (a bookstore here in Canada), and found their books on the shelves. I picked them up and found them interesting, and decided to buy them.

You know how I would never choose which books to read: advertisements. I don’t care who’s on TV, or who’s in Publishers Weekly.

Here’s the other big one I’m reading: The Game of Thrones Series. You know how I found out about that? Word of mouth from friends. I had heard about the HBO series but knew nothing about it (I rarely watch TV).

All your advertisers and talk show appearances mean nothing to me. Actually, a talk show appearance might actually make me less likely to buy a book. Authors are much more important.

The current system has been around for a long time. The money to hire staff and talent does not come from nowhere.

And that presumably includes the money to try and perpetuate the industry. At any cost, if need be. Including discrediting those “not on the in” just because they’re not.

I guess we won’t bring up how Apple and the industry got his with a collusion lawsuit by the DOJ. Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan Publishers, and Penguin Group all settled with the DOJ. Penguin paid $75 million.

And that’s not slander because it’s just a fact. Monopolistic behaviour is characteristic of a firm (or cartel) that is trying to stay bigger then they are by using their acquired wealth to prevent competition (that’s an economics definition). I’m sorry to say it Ed, but your opinion seems to fit nicely into that collusion narrative.

 

[edwest2]

Who’s stopping anyone from independently publishing any e-books?

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure when this turned into an evil print book industry vs the e-book industry conversation, but I thought I’d raise a few points about amazon.

1. Their Kindle is sold at cost. No profit there.

nbcnews.com/video/cnbc/49394755

1. And what about e-book sales in relation to hardcovers and paperbacks? A chart from Publisher’s Weekly.

publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/001/1044-1.jpg

Publishers Weekly tells us Amazon has 27% of the e-book market.

1. Things are beginning to plateau in the e-book market as far as growth.

E-book Sales Growth, 2008 - 2012 (in millions)
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Sales $64.00 $291.0 $869.1 $2,109.0 $3,042.0
% chg – 354.0% 198.0% 142.0% 44.0%

E-book Unit Growth, 2008 - 2012 (in millions)
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 10.0 36.1 125.0 320.0 457.0
% chg – 260.0% 247.00% 156.00% 43.0%

Source: Bookstats as published by Publishers Weekly.

Sorry, but I can’t straighten that out to line up.

Ed