|
|
Post by mlhearing on Dec 8, 2014 8:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 8, 2014 8:58:14 GMT -5
Was there a point to all that rambling?
|
|
|
|
Post by newsy1 on Dec 8, 2014 11:18:45 GMT -5
Well, I guess his point is he is a fast writer and he evidently makes more money by being fast and we should keep track of how fast we write and blah, blah, blah. That is my take...
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 8, 2014 11:47:23 GMT -5
This is timely. I browsed the WC the other day for the first time in months. Low and behold, another DWS has wonderful ideas post! Some things never change, I guess.
All was not lost, however. I was happy to see that someone has taken up my cause. The poster, “WV” (or some such), did a good job of exposing his usual conceits about magical numbers and fast writing. Granted, I haven’t read DWS’s recent post. But I’ve seen him make the same two arguments in different words so many times that I’m confident in asserting that reading the latest version would be a waste of time. Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true.
Here’s snapshot of DWS’s magical thinking.
1. Fast writing/publishing works!
Any historical examples he’s cited (and that I could find on my own) don’t fit his model. All the contemporary examples—including his own secret pennames which supposedly do well—are never named, only alluded to. Conclusion: fast writing/publishing doesn’t work, but he sure wishes it would because he sells courses that teach people how to do it.
2. Marginal sales is the answer/make money on the “long tail”!
Every piece of research I’ve looked at tells me that the long tail (i.e., averaging a few sales a month across 40+ books) doesn’t work with small numbers. Small numbers are erratic. You need to sell massive numbers (e.g., Stephen King numbers) to see a long tail forming. Phoenix Sullivan (who obsessively tracks a large number of her books and those she sells for others) has backed me up on this point. Her small numbers are erratic.
ETA: If someone has a counterexample, I'm all ears. And if someone wants clarification, I can provide it. Don't let the seemingly strident tone make you think I'm obsessed with the whole thing. I just don't bother debating the true believers anymore.
ETA 2: One of DWS's biggest backers--someone who used to upbraid me for questioning him--became (for a while at least) one his biggest critics. I forget her name on WC, but she once posted a long comment detailing how wrongheaded she'd been in listening to him and how things had improved when she'd stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 8, 2014 12:52:34 GMT -5
Every piece of research I’ve looked at tells me that the long tail (i.e., averaging a few sales a month across 40+ books) doesn’t work with small numbers. Small numbers are erratic. You need to sell massive numbers (e.g., Stephen King numbers) to see a long tail forming. Phoenix Sullivan (who obsessively tracks a large number of her books and those she sells for others) has backed me up on this point. Her small numbers are erratic. ETA: If someone has a counterexample, I'm all ears. And if someone wants clarification, I can provide it. Don't let the seemingly strident tone make you think I'm obsessed with the whole thing. I just don't bother debating the true believers anymore. I agree that the long tail doesn't function very well in the Amazon ecosystem. For an environment to accommodate the long tail, buyers must have ready access to the products at the end of the tail. That's not the case on Amazon. By necessity, Amazon gives shoppers an extremely limited window with which to view the book catalog. They try to give shoppers more windows through categorization, but the sheer volume of titles makes visibility extremely competitive even at the individual category level. On Amazon, the tail is stubby. I also agree that sales at the low end are erratic. My evidence for this is anecdotal, but unwaveringly consistent for all of the books I've ever tracked. The erratic behavior is partly a function of the Amazon algorithms. One of the graphs near the end of my release journal demonstrates the rank instability that sets in as you drop out of the top 10K. It only gets worse from there. By the time you are in the 100K-300K range, you'll see astounding swings in ranking from just a single sale. However, the swing in the reverse direction is just as rapid and severe, so those individual sales do nothing for visibility. Since the odds are low of someone actually finding your book on Amazon when it is ranked at 300K+, I'm betting that those random individual sales come from external sources, such as your own web site, word of mouth, that blog tour you did last month, reviewer sites, and so forth. This is why word of mouth is so important. It is what keeps your sales alive when you lose the attention of Amazon's merchandising system. Amazon only helps you sell more books when you are already selling books. |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 8, 2014 13:18:46 GMT -5
Every piece of research I’ve looked at tells me that the long tail (i.e., averaging a few sales a month across 40+ books) doesn’t work with small numbers. Small numbers are erratic. You need to sell massive numbers (e.g., Stephen King numbers) to see a long tail forming. Phoenix Sullivan (who obsessively tracks a large number of her books and those she sells for others) has backed me up on this point. Her small numbers are erratic. ETA: If someone has a counterexample, I'm all ears. And if someone wants clarification, I can provide it. Don't let the seemingly strident tone make you think I'm obsessed with the whole thing. I just don't bother debating the true believers anymore. I agree that the long tail doesn't function very well in the Amazon ecosystem. For an environment to accommodate the long tail, buyers must have ready access to the products at the end of the tail. That's not the case on Amazon. By necessity, Amazon gives shoppers an extremely limited window with which to view the book catalog. They try to give shoppers more windows through categorization, but the sheer volume of titles makes visibility extremely competitive even at the individual category level. On Amazon, the tail is stubby. I also agree that sales at the low end are erratic. My evidence for this is anecdotal, but unwaveringly consistent for all of the books I've ever tracked. The erratic behavior is partly a function of the Amazon algorithms. One of the graphs near the end of my release journal demonstrates the rank instability that sets in as you drop out of the top 10K. It only gets worse from there. By the time you are in the 100K-300K range, you'll see astounding swings in ranking from just a single sale. However, the swing in the reverse direction is just as rapid and severe, so those individual sales do nothing for visibility. Since the odds are low of someone actually finding your book on Amazon when it is ranked at 300K+, I'm betting that those random individual sales come from external sources, such as your own web site, word of mouth, that blog tour you did last month, reviewer sites, and so forth. This is why word of mouth is so important. It is what keeps your sales alive when you lose the attention of Amazon's merchandising system. Amazon only helps you sell more books when you are already selling books. There’s also confusion about what “long tail” means. There’s the argument that retail success in the future means, as the trendy expression goes, “selling less of more” (there’s a book title by that name too). The idea is that firms like Amazon make money by selling a little bit of everything, especially those things that are hard to get elsewhere. Amazon can do this because it has so little overhead. A retail store can’t support infinitely large warehouses at every location. This is one sense of the long tail in business. The other meaning of long tail is a reference to sales of backlist titles spurred by sales of new titles. Simple idea: people come across the new book; some of them like the author, so some of them buy some of the old ones too. As you suggest, Amazon’s ecology doesn’t work so well here, because any book can pop up and disappear from view if you’re not a big seller. Then there’s DWS’s idea of long tail, which isn’t long tail at all. What he’s talking about is “marginal sales” or “passive revenue” or whatever other name the same idea has traveled under for years. The same idea—very persuasive but very false—underlies every single bogus get-rich-quick internet money-making scheme ever devised (e.g., “All you have to do is sell a few items a day. How hard can that be!”). I’m not saying DWS knows that it’s a get-rich-quick scheme—he very well might not see it that way. But I am saying it doesn’t work. It’s extremely hard to sell “just a couple of x’s” a day—or a month. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 8, 2014 14:11:47 GMT -5
Having read part of Chris Anderson's book, his definition is usually the one I use. That was what I was thinking of in my earlier post. However, I've learned that few people know about the "selling less of more" definition and usually apply the term to the way sales of a particular product "tail off" over time. Whatever. I can be flexible.
I see a sales event as having three critical components:
* Motive: the shopper must be motivated to buy the product (motivated = want or need on an emotional level).
* Means: the shopper must be able to afford the product.
* Opportunity: the shopper must be aware of the product.
That last one, opportunity, is usually where passive revenue schemes fail and where the long tail fails on Amazon. Visibility always requires work on someone's part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 8, 2014 14:21:06 GMT -5
Since the odds are low of someone actually finding your book on Amazon when it is ranked at 300K+, I'm betting that those random individual sales come from external sources, such as your own web site, word of mouth, that blog tour you did last month, reviewer sites, and so forth. This is why word of mouth is so important. It is what keeps your sales alive when you lose the attention of Amazon's merchandising system. Amazon only helps you sell more books when you are already selling books. Daniel, this is my assessment, too. This is where I've always been a bit dubious about the DWS method. It relies on people actively seeking out the backlist, but that will only happen because of the things you mention above or what WH mentioned -- a brand new title prompting people to look up old ones. Either way, it all depends on quality -- the stuff you're producing has to be good enough to provoke word of mouth; to generate blogger interest; to prompt people to seek out your backlist, even when you're writing unconnected shorts instead of a series. So whatever "quality" means -- that indefinable thing that makes people really, really like your writing, like it in a way that motivates them -- you gotta have it, because everything depends on it. Amazon is not going to be helping you. And there's the contradiction: I know there are people who can produce great material very fast, but I think they're relatively rare. So the DWS method depends on two things -- outstanding ability to motivate readers and extreme speed of production -- that are only occasionally found in the same writer. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 8, 2014 16:45:38 GMT -5
Since the odds are low of someone actually finding your book on Amazon when it is ranked at 300K+, I'm betting that those random individual sales come from external sources, such as your own web site, word of mouth, that blog tour you did last month, reviewer sites, and so forth. This is why word of mouth is so important. It is what keeps your sales alive when you lose the attention of Amazon's merchandising system. Amazon only helps you sell more books when you are already selling books. Daniel, this is my assessment, too. This is where I've always been a bit dubious about the DWS method. It relies on people actively seeking out the backlist, but that will only happen because of the things you mention above or what WH mentioned -- a brand new title prompting people to look up old ones. Either way, it all depends on quality -- the stuff you're producing has to be good enough to provoke word of mouth; to generate blogger interest; to prompt people to seek out your backlist, even when you're writing unconnected shorts instead of a series. So whatever "quality" means -- that indefinable thing that makes people really, really like your writing, like it in a way that motivates them -- you gotta have it, because everything depends on it. Amazon is not going to be helping you. And there's the contradiction: I know there are people who can produce great material very fast, but I think they're relatively rare. So the DWS method depends on two things -- outstanding ability to motivate readers and extreme speed of production -- that are only occasionally found in the same writer. I almost said something about quality, but I try to avoid that subject. I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying their books don't sell because the books are crap. I believe books sell well for one reason: they appeal to readers. But books don't sell for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they appeal to readers. That said, I agree with you. No matter what else you might do, your books won't sell well if they don't appeal to readers. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 8, 2014 18:14:08 GMT -5
Daniel, this is my assessment, too. This is where I've always been a bit dubious about the DWS method. It relies on people actively seeking out the backlist, but that will only happen because of the things you mention above or what WH mentioned -- a brand new title prompting people to look up old ones. Either way, it all depends on quality -- the stuff you're producing has to be good enough to provoke word of mouth; to generate blogger interest; to prompt people to seek out your backlist, even when you're writing unconnected shorts instead of a series. So whatever "quality" means -- that indefinable thing that makes people really, really like your writing, like it in a way that motivates them -- you gotta have it, because everything depends on it. Amazon is not going to be helping you. And there's the contradiction: I know there are people who can produce great material very fast, but I think they're relatively rare. So the DWS method depends on two things -- outstanding ability to motivate readers and extreme speed of production -- that are only occasionally found in the same writer. I almost said something about quality, but I try to avoid that subject. I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying their books don't sell because the books are crap. I believe books sell well for one reason: they appeal to readers. But books don't sell for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they appeal to readers. That said, I agree with you. No matter what else you might do, your books won't sell well if they don't appeal to readers. Yep. And whatever it is that makes a book very appealing, that thing seems to count for a lot in the DWS program. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I can't produce that thing at nearly the rate I'd need to in order for his method to work for me. I'm sure some writers can, but I bet a lot fewer can than hope they can. If that makes sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 22:28:22 GMT -5
I suppose he's encouraging us to write a little every day and over time it will add up. The problem I have with DWS's way of presenting how long it takes to produce X amt of words is he completely leaves out editing. I can probably hit his 800-1000 words/hr if I force myself to plow through scenes but those scenes usually require additional work. When I account for edits and rewrites and polish it comes out to more like 300-500 words per hr. I'm sure there are some who can produce 800-1000 words of publishable words per hr but I think most don't write that fast. DWS was my introduction to self-publishing and while I benefited quite a bit from his posts when I just started writing "seriously" my expectations were way overblown of what I could realistically accomplish.
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 9, 2014 10:05:05 GMT -5
I suppose he's encouraging us to write a little every day and over time it will add up. The problem I have with DWS's way of presenting how long it takes to produce X amt of words is he completely leaves out editing. I can probably hit his 800-1000 words/hr if I force myself to plow through scenes but those scenes usually require additional work. When I account for edits and rewrites and polish it comes out to more like 300-500 words per hr. I'm sure there are some who can produce 800-1000 words of publishable words per hr but I think most don't write that fast. DWS was my introduction to self-publishing and while I benefited quite a bit from his posts when I just started writing "seriously" my expectations were way overblown of what I could realistically accomplish. But your “failure” to reach his magical daily/monthly numbers isn’t your failure at all. That’s one of the tricks in these schemes. They’re designed to assure that you are always the one at fault when the scheme invariably doesn’t work out: “You slipped up, didn’t you?” “You didn’t keep up your word count, did you?” “You can’t expect success if you slack off. Real writers manage a simple 1,000 words a day!” Sure, you can do that 1,000 edited words/day for a while, but you’re not going to manage that forever. Even a hermit living on a stipend from a benefactor is not going to live up to DWS’s deceptively simple numbers for years on end. Life doesn’t work that way. You’ll be interrupted. You’ll get writer’s block. Your computer will crash. You’ll get the flu, or you’ll get sick of writing for a while—that’s reality. |
|
|
|
Post by newsy1 on Dec 9, 2014 19:14:08 GMT -5
I agree with whdean. There is just no one-size-fits-all writing method or speed. "Real writers" manage whatever they feel comfortable with in the "real" world. I can and do learn things from other writers, to be sure, but I often do it by re-reading the classics or favorite authors etc. I pretty much take with a grain of salt any info that places parameters on writing. I can come up with enough of my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlhearing on Dec 9, 2014 20:58:17 GMT -5
"Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true." Please, tell this to Mr. Obama.
Reading this with much interest. Still, I think there may be more facets to this thing than we can see at a quick glance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 9, 2014 23:29:49 GMT -5
"Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true." Please, tell this to Mr. Obama. Reading this with much interest. Still, I think there may be more facets to this thing than we can see at a quick glance. What do you think they are, Michael? The facets, I mean? |
|
|
|
Post by mlhearing on Dec 10, 2014 8:43:24 GMT -5
"Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true." Please, tell this to Mr. Obama. Reading this with much interest. Still, I think there may be more facets to this thing than we can see at a quick glance. What do you think they are, Michael? The facets, I mean? Well, there's genre and intended audience and venue and some other things that I can feel better than I can articulate. For example . . . I subscribe to a magazine called Fur-Fish-Game. About a year ago, the editors brought back Maurice Decker's Lew and Charlie outdoor-adventure serials from the 50s. They're cliffhangers,they're pretty predictable, they're not very well written--and you just know that Decker was pumping them out as furiously fast as his feverish fingers could type. But . . . I love 'em--it's usually the first thing I read in each new issue. Also, letters to the editor show that other subscribers like these simple stories even more, and I've heard that reviving these stories has helped subscription rates. Also, my wife reads (electronically) and loves a couple of romancy/mystery writers who crank at least a short book a month. My wife simply loves these writers. Every week or so (as I did yesterday) I get a phone call that goes like this: "Michael, how much do you love me?" Me: "Why? What do you want?" Wife: "Writer X has a new book out. Can I order it? It's only $3.99." Me: "Well, I love you only about $3.89's worth." Wife: "Please, please, please." Me (with a sigh): "I guess . . " Wife: "Thank you!" Click. And I eat leftovers that night. But I've read a few of them. They're not bad--just solid entertainment--but obviously rapidly written. So, there seems to be a profitable place for DWS's pulp-speed method. 'Course, you need to bear in mind that I give more weight to anecdote than WH does, and I'm not as balanced as Daniel. So you might be better off listening to them. |
|
|
|
Post by scdaffron on Dec 10, 2014 9:29:27 GMT -5
Well, I guess his point is he is a fast writer and he evidently makes more money by being fast and we should keep track of how fast we write and blah, blah, blah. That is my take... I always wonder if I'm the only one who finds DWS' posts utterly dreary. I find myself thinking, "Dude, do you ever go outside? Or do ANYTHING else?" Maybe this is why I'll never be really successful as an author. I want to have a life. |
|
|
|
Post by mlhearing on Dec 10, 2014 9:34:17 GMT -5
Well, I guess his point is he is a fast writer and he evidently makes more money by being fast and we should keep track of how fast we write and blah, blah, blah. That is my take... I always wonder if I'm the only one who finds DWS' posts utterly dreary. I find myself thinking, "Dude, do you ever go outside? Or do ANYTHING else?" Maybe this is why I'll never be really successful as an author. I want to have a life. And did you read about that highly successful writer woman on Blake's blog who puts in 100+-hour weeks? That would leave absolutely no time for fishing and drinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 10, 2014 10:19:31 GMT -5
I always wonder if I'm the only one who finds DWS' posts utterly dreary. I find myself thinking, "Dude, do you ever go outside? Or do ANYTHING else? Maybe this is why I'll never be really successful as an author. I want to have a life. That's ridiculous, Susan. How dare you??  |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 10, 2014 10:20:28 GMT -5
I always wonder if I'm the only one who finds DWS' posts utterly dreary. I find myself thinking, "Dude, do you ever go outside? Or do ANYTHING else?" Maybe this is why I'll never be really successful as an author. I want to have a life. And did you read about that highly successful writer woman on Blake's blog who puts in 100+-hour weeks? That would leave absolutely no time for fishing and drinking. Thank goodness I believe it is possible to be moderately successful without putting in 100 hour weeks. Otherwise, I'd have to give this up right now. |
|
