Hey folks,
Thanks so much for visiting the site. I’ve got a lot to talk about this week, but I’d like to start with a question.
Do you feel like your book is good enough to publish and that no one in the publishing business recognizes your talent, skill, or ability to connect with readers?
I imagine a good many of you have been treated unfairly, neglected, or just simply overlooked. Yet you have a book that matters, that could change people’s lives, and could get them to appreciate the world in new way… only no one with the power to get your book into those readers’ hands will give you the chance.
And that’s all you’re asking for really. A chance. A chance to see if your book would sell… to see if it would find a receptive audience. Because you know in your heart that it would sell, that people would love it. They’d see your humor, your wit, your ability to tell a story. Your compassion perhaps.
This past week I had the opportunity to interview publisher Kevin Watson, founder of Press 53. One of the major points to come out of the discussion was the realization that the landscape of publishing has changed in a significant and irreversible way.
For the first time since figures have been kept, print-on-demand titles outpaced traditionally-published titles in 2008 according to Bowker. Self-published print-on-demand titles make up a large portion of this expanding sector… self-publishing is a large and vibrant part of the publishing industry today. (Kessler, November 20, 2009)
I believe that self-publishing is part of a larger cultural landscape that has fundamentally shifted in our values regarding entertainment. Namely that shift is from an elitist to populist dissemination of entertainment.
The traditional publishing business model works fundamentally on the principle that a small group of (largely Ivy League-educated) editors select for the rest of us what we should be reading. What I have realized after more than three decades in publishing is that these editors are significantly out of touch with the lives of most Americans.
They didn’t grow up in trailer parks like you and me. They don’t know what it is to make less than 15,000 dollars and wonder how they’re going to feed their families.
Don’t get me wrong. People in major New York publishing are obsessively hard-working. They’re passionate about what they do.
They just simply run with a different crowd than the rest of us.
And their perceptions of what we want to read are grossly out of touch with working class Americans.
This is why traditional publishing must change or risk financial collapse.
This past week Harlequin Books announced a new self-publishing venture called Harlequin Horizons. It was the first time I’ve ever seen a traditional publisher try to merge a self-publishing business model into its practice.
I have said for years that this is a desperately needed change in how traditional publishing works because it allows the rest of us to get our books into print and then we have to sell them. And for the handful of writers who would sell well, you’d have an opportunity to rise to the next level.
Let me state very clearly: the most significant challenge facing publishers today is how to find new writers whose books will sell well.
The traditional model relies on literary agents and a small cadre of editors to guess what the rest of us want to read.
The self-publishing model relies on actual #s of books sold. Books that the rest of us have bought.
Self-publishing is the ultimate American Idol Contest… it is democracy in action. Nothing speaks louder than an individual author who puts her book out there and then sells 5,000 or 10,000 copies completely on her own.
Traditional publishers need to adopt a “farm system” based on the Lulu.com no-fee option of self-publishing. With e-books on the rise in a phenomenal way, any major publisher could create a self-publishing imprint that affords aspiring writers the opportunity to compete to see who sells the best. All in a low-risk option to the publisher.
This is a fundamental and desperately needed change in how new writers are discovered.
So what happened when Harlequin Books adopted this change in its business model this past week?
Professional writers organizations RWA, MWA, and SFWA threatened to remove Harlequin from its list of eligible publishers for their awards. This was the single worst response imaginable, and a sign of how desperately out of touch these writers organizations are with the cultural shift that has already happened in America.
Consumers of entertainment want to select their own entertainment. Whether it’s YouTube, American Idol, Amazon Kindle, or free music downloads from independent bands on independent labels. There is a populist shift that has occurred as a direct response to traditional models for selecting our entertainment, and RWA, MWA, and SFWA are essentially trying to force Harlequin to back down from changing its business model to capitalize on this shift.
The tragedy is Harlequin is losing money on these writers’ books and cannot afford to back down. Nonetheless, Harlequin acquiesced to some degree by agreeing to remove the “Harlequin” name from their new self-publishing imprint.
It is important to understand that if publishers do not change their business models, they will fail.
Harper Studio represents the best compromise I’ve seen, but it still is a traditional model in that a handful of folks decide what to publish.
What is needed is a major publisher like Harper, Random House, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Putnam, or Macmillan to adopt a very real and vocal self-publishing imprint that offers a no-fee option to writers… the Lulu-business model based on Long Tail Economics.
This past Friday night on my podcast Book Chatter, I invited one of the most vocal critics of the Harlequin Horizons label. We brought on the show four traditionally published authors and three self-published authors to debate these issues.
It’s kind of a moot point to even debate because it’s going to happen. Publishers are struggling because they rely on the traditional model: a model lets a handful of editors select what millions and millions of us will read. Traditional publishing does not give consumers adequate freedom to select what they want to read. In a Web 2.0 consumer culture, traditional publishing as it currently exists will collapse.
The future (and quite honestly the present because it’s already here in Amazon Kindle) will see this model change to allow anyone to publish his or her book. The traditional publisher that adopts the best imprint to facilitate this (as Harlequin was trying to do) will have access and loyalty of the greatest number of aspiring writers… and out of this mass, a few will rise and sell exceptionally well. Those are the authors the publisher could then take to the next level with broader distribution.
To conclude, I would ask anyone reading this who feels compelled to send RWA, MWA, or SFWA an email to let them know that you disagree with their stance on Harlequin Horizons. Because theirs is a stance that ultimately holds you down as an aspiring writer and reader and prevents you access to self-publishing your book at Harlequin and to new voices from which you have the freedom to choose what you want to read.
Sincerely,
Stacey Cochran
NOTE: Comment Moderation is on.
29 Comments
November 23, 2009 at 2:13 am
I think that you are misunderstanding the objection to the Harlequin Horizons venture. Self-publishing is a legitimate outlet for many aspiring writers whose work does not fit a traditional mold. What Harlequin is doing however is quite different from Lulu.com or other true self-publishing outfits.
With Lulu, for instance, the author retains control and receives 100% of the net of the book.
With Harlequin, the author must pay to have the book published and then receives only 50% of the net. Harlequin is on record as saying that it will not provide editing, marketing or distribution, so what is it doing to earn that 50%? This is what is called a vanity imprint.
In addition, there is a serious conflict of interest in that Harlequin is selling this “service” to people whose writing it has rejected. In other words, Harlequin is taking writer’s money for work which Harlequin considers unpublishable.
So, the problem isn’t with self-publishing. It is with the unethical nature of the new imprint.
Mary Robinette Kowal
Secretary, SFWA
November 23, 2009 at 2:39 am
Mary, thanks for the feedback. The Creator Revenue split at Lulu.com is actually 33% when the books are sold through Lulu’s site (i.e., Lulu takes 67% of the profit per book). When the books are sold on Amazon, it is less than 5%.
Only when the books are printed at base price and directly purchased by the author is there no creator revenue. And still, though you won’t find the #s anywhere on Lulu’s site, they make money on base price sales to the book creators.
That’s how Lulu makes money.
November 23, 2009 at 2:58 am
This is why I said “net” as opposed to “gross,” or profit, or revenue.
Lulu makes its profit on the money it takes to print the book. Harlequin makes its money on the authors AND on the money it takes to print the book.
November 23, 2009 at 3:08 am
Okay, so then the 60,000-dollar question… Would SFWA be okay with Harlequin (or Tor/Forge, for that matter) if they changed their model to a hybrid self-publishing/traditional publishing model, if the self-publishing side was based on practices closer to Lulu’s?
November 23, 2009 at 3:36 am
You are missing the part about the conflict of interest. That’s a huge part of the equation here.
How would you solve that problem in your hypothetical?
November 23, 2009 at 3:13 am
“The tragedy is Harlequin is losing money on these writers’ books and cannot afford to back down.”
I really doubt they are. Harlequin has been very profitable in these last few quarters. They pay a flat advance and have guaranteed slots & distribution for the vast majority of the books that they publish.
A lot of publishers are struggling, but Harlequin is not one of them.
November 23, 2009 at 3:18 am
I’m very glad this whole discussion has taken place. Because it’s clarified a lot for me. I’ve been listening very closely to the arguments for the “new models” and I have a much better idea now of just exactly what the “new models” are.
I see now who makes sense, and who cries wolf. Who understands what they’re talking about and who doesn’t have a clue.
“The tragedy is Harlequin is losing money on these writers’ books and cannot afford to back down.”
Wow.
Just…wow. I’m speechless.
Thanks. Whew. It’s been an excellent and very enlightening discussion.
(P.S. I do thank you for the typography on this blog, being an old fuddy-duddy I can SEE it! Love it, thanks.)
November 23, 2009 at 4:43 am
Yes, to understand where RWA, MWA, and SFWA’s strong response is coming from, imagine the consequence if a publisher created a self-publishing imprint and the self-published authors sold as well (or better) than the mid-list writers who make up the majority of RWA, MWA, and SFWA’s membership.
My hunch is that the fear of self-published authors overwhelming their sales en masse is the main driving force behind their swift decision to force Harlequin to back down.
November 23, 2009 at 5:01 am
If the self-published authors sold as well or better than mid-list writers, then the mid-list writers would all be self-publishing. We are organizations for WRITERS not for publishers. If there’s a better way to make money through writing, then most of us will follow it. I know I certainly would.
The reason SFWA is opposed to the new Harlequin imprint is that it is an unethical business model that takes advantage of naive writers.
Please do not lose sight of that.
November 23, 2009 at 5:17 am
First, you should note that RWA’s membership is comprised mostly of unpublished authors. So the majority of us are not midlist at all – though the majority of the published among us are most certainly midlist.
Second, you say:
“My hunch is that the fear of self-published authors overwhelming their sales en masse is the main driving force behind their swift decision to force Harlequin to back down.”
Actually, the driving force is the fear that sales will suffer because the sudden glut of unedited, unvetted vanity/self-published titles competing with quality titles – yet carrying the Harlequin name on the spine – will convince readers that Harlequin only puts out crap. They’ll stop buying. Is the fear lessened now that Harlequin has backed away from sticking its brand on these vanity books? A little. The main issue with RWA has and always will be what makes a career possible for its members. Can you have a career where you’re spending at minimum $600 per book and then have to hand-sell every copy? Not likely. Can you have a career where you get an advance and market your ass off? Yes, very likely. RWA supports the latter. Are they behind the times on e-publishing? Absolutely, but that emerging business model is a completely different discussion.
Also:
“For the first time since figures have been kept, print-on-demand titles outpaced traditionally-published titles in 2008 according to Bowker.”
I still don’t understand how this is even a discussion point. The number of titles outpaced traditional titles? So? That just means the technology exists for more folks out there to publish, and they’re going for it. Some are new publishers using POD technology. Some are self-published. Some are vanity. Where are the numbers for what’s selling? Do the folks who grew up in a trailer park (and I’m one of them) mob the POD store? Do they turn their noses up at the traditional pickin’s at the B&N or the library? I bet not, but I haven’t seen the numbers that say one way or the other.
And in the end, it’s sales that matter and NOT the number of titles being published. One would think the titles coming off POD presses are printed because of demand, but that’s not necessarily the case. POD titles that land on the shelves in a bookstore are just as likely to be stripped and returned – perhaps even more so because they are trade size and more expensive. But where are the numbers on that?
I’ll believe self-publishing is an emerging business model when I see the numbers that say what overall sales are. But even then, I’m going for traditional publishers because *they* have the means to market and distribute my books in ways I cannot and the self-publishers won’t.
November 23, 2009 at 5:59 am
Gotcha.
Keep going!
November 23, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Stacey, I’m going to respond to you, point by point.
“Do you feel like your book is good enough to publish and that no one in the publishing business recognizes your talent, skill, or ability to connect with readers?”
Then either (A) your book isn’t as good as you believe it is; (B) your book isn’t the right book for the publishers you’ve been submitting to; or (C) the publishers don’t believe your book is marketable.
“For the first time since figures have been kept, print-on-demand titles outpaced traditionally-published titles in 2008 according to Bowker.”
Titles? What about **sales**? How many of these titles are actually being bought by readers?
“I believe that self-publishing is part of a larger cultural landscape that has fundamentally shifted in our values regarding entertainment. Namely that shift is from an elitist to populist dissemination of entertainment.”
Print on demand and self-publishing are certainly shaking things up, and publishers are trying to figure out how to ride that wave. But I think you’re confusing the act of writing with the act of reading. Reading is for entertainment. Writing is not for entertainment. And you’re making the assumption that everyone can write equally well. That’s simply untrue. Can everyone do math equally well? Can everyone play piano equally well? Of course not.
“The traditional publishing business model works fundamentally on the principle that a small group of (largely Ivy League-educated) editors select for the rest of us what we should be reading.”
And tell me why you claim that editors are largely Ivy League educated? And what that has to do with anything?
“What I have realized after more than three decades in publishing is that these editors are significantly out of touch with the lives of most Americans.”
You’d never know that from the bestseller lists.
“[Editors] didn’t grow up in trailer parks like you and me. They don’t know what it is to make less than 15,000 dollars and wonder how they’re going to feed their families.”
Wow — you know this how? And do you have any notion just how **little** editors are actually paid?
“And [these editors'] perceptions of what we want to read are grossly out of touch with working class Americans.”
Wow. I guess the publishers haven’t been making money for years and years and years.
“This past week Harlequin Books announced a new self-publishing venture called Harlequin Horizons. It was the first time I’ve ever seen a traditional publisher try to merge a self-publishing business model into its practice.”
First: it’s Harlequin Enterprises. Second, Harlequin Horizons is a vanity publisher, not a self-publishing venture, no matter that Harlequin claims. Third, you are overlooking things like what had been Bertelsmann’s (parent company of Random House) Xlibris (which is now, after many years, owned by vanity publisher Author Solutions) , or HarperCollin’s Authonomy, with its CreateSpace POD venue.
“I have said for years that this is a desperately needed change in how traditional publishing works because it allows the rest of us to get our books into print and then we have to sell them. And for the handful of writers who would sell well, you’d have an opportunity to rise to the next level.”
Again, you’re making the assumption that everyone’s books are good enough to be published. This isn’t some award ceremony where everyone gets a prize just for showing up. The plain truth is **not everyone can write well enough to be a professional author.**
And what, exactly, is the “next level” you’re talking about? Being published by the very publishers you’re claiming are “out of touch”? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that traditional publishers aren’t doing the job right, and then aspire to be published by those publishers.
“Let me state very clearly: the most significant challenge facing publishers today is how to find new writers whose books will sell well.”
This is blatantly false. Publishers are absolutely not hurting for having authors — both established and debut — writing for their imprints. If anything, what publishers could use is help plowing through their submissions. If you think that suddenly growing an editor’s submission pile exponentially is going to change anything, you’re mistaken.
“The traditional model relies on literary agents and a small cadre of editors to guess what the rest of us want to read. The self-publishing model relies on actual #s of books sold. Books that the rest of us have bought.”
Literary agents act as a gatekeeper to separate the contenders from the also-rans. But a number of publishers, including Harlequin, don’t require that manuscripts be submitted through an agent. Those publishers allow authors to submit their manuscript directly. And **all** publishing — traditional, small press, and electronic — relies on actual numbers of books sold. (Again, have you seen the bestseller lists?)
The POD press that self-publishers use relies on fees paid for by the author to print their books.
And the vanity press model relies on fees paid for by the author to print their books, AND the vanity press takes a hefty profit on sales on top of that.
“Self-publishing is the ultimate American Idol Contest… it is democracy in action. Nothing speaks louder than an individual author who puts her book out there and then sells 5,000 or 10,000 copies completely on her own.”
The average number of self-published books sold per author is about 100 copies. That’s a far cry from the 5,000 or 10,000 copies that you’re claiming.
“Traditional publishers need to adopt a “farm system” based on the Lulu.com no-fee option of self-publishing. With e-books on the rise in a phenomenal way, any major publisher could create a self-publishing imprint that affords aspiring writers the opportunity to compete to see who sells the best. All in a low-risk option to the publisher.”
Frankly, I agree that publishers should figure out how to ride the self-publishing wave, because that will make money for them — not because this will help authors. And true self-publishing has **no** risk to a publisher, because those books are not published. They are printed.
“This is a fundamental and desperately needed change in how new writers are discovered.”
New writers are discovered all the time, through the slush pile and through agented submissions.
“So what happened when Harlequin Books adopted this change in its business model this past week? Professional writers organizations RWA, MWA, and SFWA threatened to remove Harlequin from its list of eligible publishers for their awards. This was the single worst response imaginable, and a sign of how desperately out of touch these writers organizations are with the cultural shift that has already happened in America.”
No, no, and no. It’s a sign that RWA, MWA and SFWA are supporting its members: published (and, in the case of RWA, aspiring) authors. These organizations recognize vanity publishing for what it is: a vehicle that takes advantage of aspiring authors and does not help an author’s career.
“Consumers of entertainment want to select their own entertainment. Whether it’s YouTube, American Idol, Amazon Kindle, or free music downloads from independent bands on independent labels. There is a populist shift that has occurred as a direct response to traditional models for selecting our entertainment, and RWA, MWA, and SFWA are essentially trying to force Harlequin to back down from changing its business model to capitalize on this shift.”
You’re lumping readers and writers into the same group. And there are more ways for readers to access books than ever before: traditional print, electronic, audio. This is completely separate from publishers taking advantage of writers, which is where RWA, MWA and SFWA have stepped in.
“The tragedy is Harlequin is losing money on these writers’ books and cannot afford to back down. Nonetheless, Harlequin acquiesced to some degree by agreeing to remove the “Harlequin” name from their new self-publishing imprint.”
Harlequin Enterprises is very profitable. Romance is the majority of the fiction market, and Harlequin is the top name in romance. The notion that Harlequin is going to be hurt by not having a vanity arm is simply wrong.
The reason why Harlequin is removing its name from Horizons is because Harlequin authors were worried about Harlequin diluting its brand through the vanity publishing venue — because these books will not be of the same quality of Harlequin books. How can they be? ANYONE who wants to pay to be printed can be printed. This goes back to the notion that **not everyone is a good writer.**
Harlequin itself has **nothing** to do with the Horizons printing process. Between that and the way vanity publishing **hurts** authors, of course Harlequin authors complained to Harlequin about this. Removing its name is the **least** Harlequin can do. And it’s not enough to make this right.
“It is important to understand that if publishers do not change their business models, they will fail.”
Publishers absolutely have to figure out how print books can compete with a growing e-book marketplace. This is not the same thing as publishers failing if they do not have a vanity publishing arm.
“It’s kind of a moot point to even debate because it’s going to happen. Publishers are struggling because they rely on the traditional model: a model lets a handful of editors select what millions and millions of us will read. Traditional publishing does not give consumers adequate freedom to select what they want to read. In a Web 2.0 consumer culture, traditional publishing as it currently exists will collapse. The future (and quite honestly the present because it’s already here in Amazon Kindle) will see this model change to allow anyone to publish his or her book.”
It’s never moot to debate important issues.
As of 2008, Publishers Weekly reported that nearly 300,000 titles were published every year by traditional publishers. And that doesn’t even get into the number of e-books or small-press books. It’s not a question of there not being enough stuff to read.
What your argument is boiling down to is “Traditional publishers are not publishing MY book. They’re wrong not to give me a chance. So there must be something wrong with their business model.”
Could it possibly be that the book isn’t good enough to be published?
“The traditional publisher that adopts the best imprint to facilitate this (as Harlequin was trying to do) will have access and loyalty of the greatest number of aspiring writers… and out of this mass, a few will rise and sell exceptionally well. Those are the authors the publisher could then take to the next level with broader distribution.”
Harlequin **PAYS AUTHORS TO WRITE BOOKS.** It already has the loyalty of every aspiring romance writer out there.
What would the “broader distribution” mean — getting published traditionally? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t decry traditional publishing and then say that in the end, you want to be traditionally published.
Look, if you honestly believe that you are better off self-publishing, go for it. But at least do it through a true POD press, not a vanity publisher.
November 23, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Jackie, I should start by saying I respect you and that I appreciate the energy, time, and thought with which you have responded. Clearly this is an important issue to you, and your heart is completely invested in it. I respect that tremendously.
At the risk of oversimplifying, your argument in my mind distills down to two key points. 1) A definition argument based on the criteria that HH is “vanity publishing”; 2) HH should not dilute their brand (and thus lower the credibility of traditional titles) by associating their brand with it.
My position is a proposal argument based on: 1) defining the issue by comparison (struggling publishers / positive sales for self-published authors in new media); 2) offering a solution to fix the problem (e.g., create a hybrid self-publishing/traditional publishing business model).
From this perspective, your argument offers no serious solutions and asks publishers to continue as is. Furthermore, your main point (segregating self-published and traditionally published authors) doesn’t capitalize on the direction that new media is headed. I trust the consumers’ intelligence (both readers and writers) about how to spend their money. If HH wants to create a self-publishing imprint, I trust the consumers to make informed decisions. At the very least, we should be given the choice about how we want to spend our money. Your position removes our choice and freedom.
I think it’s time to tear down the wall that divides traditional publishing and vanity publishing. The publisher who takes that bold step will position themselves well in our new media economy.
November 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Have you looked at CreateSpace? This is a legitimate POD press, a subsidiary of Amazon. HarperCollins, through its free social networking service, Authonomy — in which authors can upload their manuscripts for readers to share, read, rate and critique — offers its Authonomy members the opportunity to print their manuscripts via CreateSpace. HarperCollins does not take any of the profit from the authors; it does, from what I’ve been told, get a referral fee. This is not vanity publishing. And this is something that may be working very well for HC and its Authonomy members who choose to print their books through CreateSpace.
New media doesn’t make **better** books. It does, however, make it easier for people to access books. These are two different things.
November 23, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Stacey,
I agree that the publishers are forced to go after the long tail in publishing. They can’t maintain pricing on the best sellers at this point (see Palin’s shrinking book price, for example), and the midlist is a gamble. So what’s a publisher to do?
There’s revenue in those thousands of rejected manuscripts . . . not from the readers, but from the writers, who are eager to be “published”.
That Harlequin has embarked on this venture shows just how desperate the publishing industry has become. They are fighting a battle (the same one the legacy music industry fought when digital music took the lead) they can’t win.
The digital publishers will pull ahead (same as iTunes did in digital music distribution — Apple is now the largest music retailer in the US).
November 23, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Wow, you really don’t get the difference between “self” and “vanity” publishing at all, do you?
November 24, 2009 at 3:50 am
Side note: I have to add that I’m learning more about CreateSpace — which, as it turns out, does get some of the profit after all is said and done — so I’m starting to rethink some of my distinctions between what I was calling vanity publishing and self-publishing.
November 25, 2009 at 7:26 am
Stacey,
I agree with everything Jackie Kessler said…she did such a good job that I am not going to repeat the same arguments. That said, like her, I take issue with some of your bizarre assumptions about NY publishers. In the 2o+ years that I have been a published author, not one of my editors has been “ivy league educated.” And most of them could *easily* sympathize with someone earning $15,000-a-year, since the ones I’ve known have had to scrimp to survive on the tiny incomes they were earning.
Your vision of NY publishing is simply a baseless and comically ridiculous fantasy.
But those are minor points…let me tackle your big issues. You have totally and completely misunderstood the reasons behind the outrage expressed by the MWA and other professional writers organizations…or why there has been such widespread support for the stands they have taken.
The problem isn’t that Harlequin is launching a self-publishing operation…it’s the outrageously unethical and predatory way in which they’ve integrated it into their editorial side. That’s why the MWA is outraged at Harlequin…and why they are not concerned about Random House (or is it Harper Collins?) and xlibris. The difference is that there is a ‘Wall of China” between the “traditional” operation and the “for-pay” operation at Random House… the same can’t be said for Harlequin.
And therein lie the huge problem, one made much, much worse when Harlequin allowing the self-publishing operation to use the Harlequin name (which they have also dropped). They mislead aspiring writers into believing that they were
a) being published by Harlequin, only paying for it.
b) that they would be working with Harlequin editors and c) that they are actually being published by Harlequin when, in fact, it’s an iUniverse book.
And by mentioning the Harlequin self-publishing service on the manuscript submission page for their “real” Harlequin, they were creating the mis-leading impression that paying to have your book published by Harlequin was a pre-requisite or a short-cut to being published by the “real” Harlequin.
Even worse, and more repugnant, was the fact that editors were recommending the self-publishing program in their rejection letters to authors.
To use editors to refer aspiring authors to their own self-publishing house is repugnant and highly unethical. There needs to be a total separation in every way between the editorial side of Harlequin and their for-pay ventures.
*That’s* the issue, Stacey…not that Harlequin is offering self-publishing services…but they are doing so in such a predatory, dishonest, and unethical manner.
Let me tackle another one of your points…
You argue that that self-publishing is the future. Unfortunately, that just isn’t born out by the evidence. Most self-published authors don’t come close to earning back what they’ve spent to be “published” (and I use that term very lightly). The self-publishing companies make their money selling books to writers, not to readers. In other words, the authors are the primary customers of their own books…and that’s hardly a formula for success. You could argue the authors are selling the books they buy to readers….but that’s also not true. The vast majority of self-published authors sell fewer than 75 copies. That is not the future. That is a scam.
But we do agree on one thing…and that’s the opportunity created by the Kindle… where self-publishing *costs authors nothing.* It is a publishing format that doesn’t rely on taking advantage of an aspiring author’s fear, desperation, and naivete…or emptying their bank accounts on false promises.
Lee
November 26, 2009 at 2:08 am
[...] was quite the debate on the whole vanity/self/traditional/commercial publishing thing over at Online Book Review, complete with comments from Jackie Kessler who has several posts on the whole HHz/DellArte Press [...]
November 28, 2009 at 6:17 pm
FYI – Random House sold xlibris to Authorhouse…the same company Harlequin has teamed up with to on their vanity press.
by Jim Milliot — Publishers Weekly, 1/8/2009 3:18:00 PM
Authors Solutions continues to consolidate its hold on the self-publishing market, acquiring one of its major competitors, Xlibris, for an undisclosed price. Xlibris, founded in 1997 by John Feldcamp, was one of the first companies to use digital technology to allow writers to publishing their own books. One of its earliest backers was Random House. The purchases adds 20,000 titles to Author Solutions, bringing its catalogue up to nearly 100,000 titles.
Keith Ogorek, Authors Solution spokesperson, said the addition of Xlibris will strengthen and broaden the marketing services that Author Solutions can offer to all of its authors. Feldcamp will remain with the company during the transition period and the sales team based in Philadelphia will be retain along with production facilities in New Jersey and the Philippines. Other functions in the Philadelphia offices will be consolidated at Author Solutions Bloomington, Ind. offices.
Xlibris is the second rival Author Solutions has acquired within the last 18 months. In September 2007 the company bought iUniverse. Authors Solutions was originally known as Author House, but changed its name after its purchase by the private equity firm Bertram Capital Management two years ago. Ogorek said the even with the recession, business remains strong, noting that November and December were the best months ever for the Author House, iUniverse and Xlibris brands.
Lee
November 29, 2009 at 9:02 am
[...] Cochran in Online Book Review Harlequin Horizons and the State of Publishing I have said for years that this is a desperately needed change in how traditional publishing works [...]
December 10, 2009 at 7:32 am
Stacey wrote “That authors can make more by selling for less is why the recent trend is that traditionally published authors are moving their titles to Kindle as self-published books (e.g., JA Konrath, Lee Goldberg, Simon Wood, Allan Guthrie).”
That’s not accurate. I have taken my previously published, out-of-print titles and made them available on the Kindle. That’s very, very different than what you are implying. I can’t make more on the Kindle than I am making as a published author…not even close. I am certainly making more than I would going to a vanity press.
Lee
February 4, 2010 at 5:52 pm
As an aspiring romance writer and diehard Harlequin reader, I heard through the publishing grapevine that DellArte’s first release is a Christian women’s fiction. It received excellent reviews. I heard DellArte was so impressed with this debut author that they decided to absorb the costs. I’ll believe it when I read it.
November 23, 2009 at 5:31 am
Thanks for the feedback. You raise a really good point: “the driving force is the fear that sales will suffer because the sudden glut of unedited, unvetted vanity/self-published titles competing with quality titles – yet carrying the Harlequin name on the spine – will convince readers that Harlequin only puts out crap.”
Incidentally, I posted about my 5-month self-publishing #s here. Of course, that’s just one perspective.
November 23, 2009 at 5:44 am
I’m glad you’re having success at self-publishing but the model you’re following is far, far different from what Harlequin has set up. The confusion comes in when people conflate self-publishing with vanity presses.
According to an Author House rep, “actual sales of titles average fewer than 100 copies, all of which are bought by the author.”
Out of curiosity, what’s the percentage that Amazon takes of each of your sales?
November 23, 2009 at 7:02 pm
FYI: Writers Digest says the average number of sales is 75.
November 23, 2009 at 7:04 pm
The author royalty on Amazon Kindle is 35%.
I interviewed literary agent Allan Guthrie about self-publishing his titles (he’s also an award-winning writer) on Kindle, and he offered this comparison… 7% royalty on mass market paperback sales of a $5.99 copy equals $0.42
A 35% royalty on a $1.99 Kindle book is $0.70/copy
That authors can make more by selling for less is why the recent trend is that traditionally published authors are moving their titles to Kindle as self-published books (e.g., JA Konrath, Lee Goldberg, Simon Wood, Allan Guthrie).
Konrath makes the argument that he’s actually losing money by selling his e-book rights to his traditional publisher; that the hardcover and paperback sales don’t recoup the money he lost by giving the digital rights away… had he kept them and self-published them at a lower price on Kindle himself.
It’s an interesting argument.
November 23, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Yes, but both the authors you cited had long standing, built in audiences BEFORE going into self publishing that followed them there.
I am absolutely not against self publishing as an option but I think you are skewing the words of people to suit your needs.
Furthermore as a self publishing venture Harlequin Horizons frankly sucks. Look at their package list. They are horribly overpriced! The social marketing package consists of signing you up for 10 completely free social networking/blogging tool web sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, WordPress and Flickr and Hh expects you to pay $959 for ten things you can do yourself for free (and that you will also have to maintain yourself). their editorial prices are insane, as are all their prices.
And if self publishing is the choice you know you want to go with there are a number of options that don’t charge you this insane money and only give you 50% of your NET sales.
Frankly, I feel self publishing advocates should be upset at Harlequin for dangling the carrot of their recognizable name over them, only to follow it up with “Oh but you won’t get our book placement, distribution, marketing or anything else that might give your book an equal chance as a “traditionally” published book.”
November 24, 2009 at 2:33 am
Okay, this will seem like a tangent for a moment, so bear with me.
So your self-published ebooks are international best-sellers and according to your numbers your gross income was $2735.85 off of those two titles.
Now, to figure out your net I need to know how much you spent on the cover design and marketing, including the time spent. (You don’t have to factor in the time it takes to write the book, although people really should.) What hourly rate do use to calculate your time?
Compare that to the book advance for my debut novel, which was $10,000. (This is about average for SF and very low for literary.) I don’t have to factor in cover design or marketing because someone else is doing that for me, but I do have to take out 15% for my agent (money well spent) which leaves me with a net profit of 8,500 per book. This is before I start seeing royalties of course. The reason that they can pay me that much is that they expect to sell enough books to do so and still make a profit. They will sell significantly more books than I am likely to sell on my own because they are tied into the distribution system.
My point here is that the reason that most writers go the traditional route is that it just plain pays better. There’s nothing wrong with self-publishing it’s just way harder to succeed.
Vanity publishing on the other hand is not going to be a successful career choice, no matter how you brand it, because the authors have to a) handle everything, b) pay for everything, c) get a fraction of the profits and d) often give up some of their copyrights.
The problem with the Harlequin imprint is that they are trying to make it look like it will give authors the same success as a traditionally published author. Most new writers do not understand what their rights are or how the publishing industry works and this takes advantage of the naivete of those writers. It makes money from their hopes and dreams.
Look, the publishing industry isn’t perfect and you’re absolutely right that it will have to change because of the internet and ebooks. The Harlequin imprint is not going to help authors have successful careers.
Bottom line is that what I care about is seeing writers or any orther artist get paid a fair wage for their work.