|
|
Post by vrabinec on Aug 21, 2015 14:05:29 GMT -5
Yeah, contemporary romance is a tough gig. 4,025 releases in the last 30 days. I get 10 pages in, and it's still some good writing going on. Shit, I get 10 pages in on space operas, and you get openings like:
Planet Truia drifted in its orbit around the vibrant yellow dwarf, a jewel in the nothingness of space. It was a planet of copious resources and a growing culture that was some 2,000 years old. Upon its surface, the city of millions that has grown in such a short time since its founding played host to personalities as diverse as they were imaginative.
If someone tried to write like that over in romance, they'd be on page 500.
|
|
|
|
Post by ameliasmith on Aug 22, 2015 7:58:13 GMT -5
This encapsulates the fight I had over at the WC recently. People were making these broad claims about "the Method," and how you just have to apply yourself, and then, boom, you're in the money. No. It doesn't work like that, and very few people are in the making-a-living range. The numbers just don't allow for more than a few hundred to a thousand indies. Maybe there's even 2,000. I don't know. But the sales-to-rank numbers coupled with discounting, multiple books by the same authors and the churn at the top just don't add up to many people making it big. Personally, I don't find this all that disturbing because the ability to self-publish is an enormous trump card that didn't exist before. Oh, but you forget, "it's not a zero sum game." I actually think that both things are true. The pool of potential readers is bigger than the traditional publishing market (especially when taking international markets into account) but the potential for visibility on the big platforms still looks pretty limited to me. Right, you're only competing with GRRM and the likes. Piece of cake. Actually, it could be worse. I could be writing romance. Here's a quick-and-dirty analysis of how different the competition is by genre. My trilogy is categorized under Fantasy as Swords & Sorcery. My Ternion Order series is under Fantasy as Paranormal. I'll compare my stats to what I'd be facing if I were writing Contemporary or Historical romance. For reference, Fantasy has 148,507 total titles in all subcats, and Romance has 306,318 (more than double). | Category | Titles | #1 Store Rank | #100 Store Rank | | Swords & Sorcery | 13,660 | 253 | 4,582 | | Paranormal Fantasy | 41,140 | 93 | 2,086 | | Contemporary Romance | 111,597 | 2 | 455 | | Historical | 34,809 | 67 | 2,715 |
So, to be the #1 bestseller in Swords & Sorcery, I have to rank at #253 in the Kindle store overall. I only have to rank at #4582 to crack the top 100. Paranormal is a much tougher challenge. I have to be #2086 in the overall store to get into the top 100. This information is just for illustration. You don't have to be in the top 100 to sell books, but you do need to rank less than about 50K to sell more than one a day. That number (or thereabouts) seems to be the visibility threshold. Once your rank is greater than 50K, you no longer get much love from the recommendation lists. Nonetheless, the above stats show just how hard it is to hold onto a slot in a Romance subcategory versus a Fantasy subcategory. Yes, GRRM is in the Swords & Sorcery category, but having a few heavy hitters at the top isn't what causes a problem. What hurts is when you have to rank between #2 and #455 in the overall store, just to get into the top 100 of your category. I think this makes me glad that I'm not into contemporary romance, but I'm not sure. My two main writing genres are fantasy (epic/S&S/still haven't found a good small niche category for it) and historical romance, which actually work out about the same in terms of those numbers (not exactly, but pretty close as these things go). The other thing is that romance readers tend to be the book-a-day type, so there's a lot of churn and a lot more downward pressure on prices. |
|
|
|
Post by carlos on Aug 22, 2015 12:32:33 GMT -5
Hmmm. I would really like to have heard Amelia's podcast--but since I installed windows 10 last night I don't seem to have any sound, notwithstanding that the computer tells me the system is fine. I'm guessing the words are in there somewhere. I'm just clicking around, looking for enlightenment--same as always.  |
|
|
|
Post by ameliasmith on Aug 22, 2015 12:54:27 GMT -5
Hmmm. I would really like to have heard Amelia's podcast--but since I installed windows 10 last night I don't seem to have any sound, notwithstanding that the computer tells me the system is fine. I'm guessing the words are in there somewhere. I'm just clicking around, looking for enlightenment--same as always. Sympathies on the computer problems. My new computer crashed again and I've moved back to the old one. I have it mostly running, but no signal from the trackpad still, even though the computer knows it's there. |
|
|
|
Post by carlos on Aug 22, 2015 13:38:05 GMT -5
It's like dealing with HAL--the computer says, "My sound system is fine, Carlos." The implication is that something happened to my hearing. However, so far it has not had the audacity to ask, "Have you checked your ears?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Aug 22, 2015 13:55:07 GMT -5
“The majority of authors will never make a living at this, but chances increase both with number of books written and with years in the game. They get as good as 50/50.”
I'm always a bit nervy about speaking out too loudly about this, as most here know I'm doing well and it can provoke a sense of "well, he's just saying his way's the highway and everyone else is wrong". I actually agree that there is no one method and that the vast majority of authors won't make much money at this, but as with so many things in life there's no one proximal cause for success in publishing. Success comes from a broad spectrum of talents and efforts, not to mention a very healthy dose of luck.
The AE reports highlight the emergence of a second path in publishing over which the traditional houses have no control, not so much one to riches but an alternative that is not without merit or potential profit. AE provide data to support it and reveal trends that I suspect the traditional houses would rather not see exposed. That said, the Big Five are making more money now than they've ever done, so it's likely they don't give a shit one way or the other - everyone wins. Nobody who self-publishes a novel and sees it sink without trace has lost anything, and negative data in independent terms can only be measured against that of the traditional houses, where a tiny proportion of novels earn out their advances, no matter how meagre. The models in both publishing methods are much the same, except that for Indies they hold all the rights, forever.
As somebody with a good few years' of publishing experience under my belt now I always advise authors to take all such data, valuable as it is, with a pinch of salt; to keep their heads down, keep working and ignore just about everything except emerging changes in the industry that will effect their sales or their business plan. Time spent analysing the market or picking the bones out of different methods or thrashing out arguments on writing forums is more often than not time wasted - focus on that crap when you're pulling in five figures a month and knowing the tiny details can make a thousand dollars' difference to your income. All that matters for most of us is that we're doing something that we love and that we might be able to make good money at it, if not now then perhaps in the future. As Amelia's quoted line at the top of my post says, it's possible and the odds are a damned sight better than with a major publishing house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Petersen on Aug 22, 2015 18:13:29 GMT -5
“The majority of authors will never make a living at this, but chances increase both with number of books written and with years in the game. They get as good as 50/50.”
I'm always a bit nervy about speaking out too loudly about this, as most here know I'm doing well and it can provoke a sense of "well, he's just saying his way's the highway and everyone else is wrong". I actually agree that there is no one method and that the vast majority of authors won't make much money at this, but as with so many things in life there's no one proximal cause for success in publishing. Success comes from a broad spectrum of talents and efforts, not to mention a very healthy dose of luck.
The AE reports highlight the emergence of a second path in publishing over which the traditional houses have no control, not so much one to riches but an alternative that is not without merit or potential profit. AE provide data to support it and reveal trends that I suspect the traditional houses would rather not see exposed. That said, the Big Five are making more money now than they've ever done, so it's likely they don't give a shit one way or the other - everyone wins. Nobody who self-publishes a novel and sees it sink without trace has lost anything, and negative data in independent terms can only be measured against that of the traditional houses, where a tiny proportion of novels earn out their advances, no matter how meagre. The models in both publishing methods are much the same, except that for Indies they hold all the rights, forever.
As somebody with a good few years' of publishing experience under my belt now I always advise authors to take all such data, valuable as it is, with a pinch of salt; to keep their heads down, keep working and ignore just about everything except emerging changes in the industry that will effect their sales or their business plan. Time spent analysing the market or picking the bones out of different methods or thrashing out arguments on writing forums is more often than not time wasted - focus on that crap when you're pulling in five figures a month and knowing the tiny details can make a thousand dollars' difference to your income. All that matters for most of us is that we're doing something that we love and that we might be able to make good money at it, if not now then perhaps in the future. As Amelia's quoted line at the top of my post says, it's possible and the odds are a damned sight better than with a major publishing house.
I will be listening to the podcast tonight, so just a caveat that I'm writing this without haven't watched/listened to the podcast, but Dean, what you wrote here really strikes a chord with me. I tune out most of that stuff since mastering an understanding the data from a site like AE won't really impact me one way or another. I know what I need to do in order to improve the odds of "making it" and that's publishing more books that people want to read. If I'm not doing that nothing else really matters. It's amazing how to different people with different data can come to very different conclusions (just look at politics).  |
|
|
|
Post by Miss Terri Novelle on Aug 25, 2015 11:20:55 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to listen and you did a great job Amelia!
Dean makes some good points about understanding that data is valuable but may not reflect your own situation. This is probably how we end up getting all those posts on various forums by people whose results are anomalous--the my way is the highway ones that he mentions.
My result don't ring at all true to Amelia's conclusions from interpreting the reports. But that does not mean that I think her conclusions are wrong nor does it mean that I will be making any posts touting my own personal highway as the road to making steady income. There are factors that can't be measured by statistics.
The ability to stay agile in marketing, to think like a publisher as well as an artist, to be aware enough of changing trends to stay in front of them all helps. Taking time to accurately track the results from marketing and being willing to experiment a little never hurts and then there's no accounting for luck.
Amelia, you put a lot of time into your analysis and there was information in there that I found very helpful in understanding my own business trajectory. Thank you, it was much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlos on Aug 25, 2015 12:38:17 GMT -5
Speaking as somebody who has 'been there and done that' Deano is correct in saying that anyone who has self published a novel and seen it sink without trace has lost nothing.
I didn't think so at the time, of course--but in retrospect it's perfectly clear--and also clear that I wouldn't fully understand unless I had tried it.
Another possible lesson (something I am currently exploring) is that self-publishing allows the author-editor-book designer-publisher some leeway for correcting one's past mistakes--or at least, for recycling some of the same material to make other mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ameliasmith on Aug 25, 2015 13:40:08 GMT -5
“The majority of authors will never make a living at this, but chances increase both with number of books written and with years in the game. They get as good as 50/50.”
I'm always a bit nervy about speaking out too loudly about this, as most here know I'm doing well and it can provoke a sense of "well, he's just saying his way's the highway and everyone else is wrong". I actually agree that there is no one method and that the vast majority of authors won't make much money at this, but as with so many things in life there's no one proximal cause for success in publishing. Success comes from a broad spectrum of talents and efforts, not to mention a very healthy dose of luck.
The AE reports highlight the emergence of a second path in publishing over which the traditional houses have no control, not so much one to riches but an alternative that is not without merit or potential profit. AE provide data to support it and reveal trends that I suspect the traditional houses would rather not see exposed. That said, the Big Five are making more money now than they've ever done, so it's likely they don't give a shit one way or the other - everyone wins. Nobody who self-publishes a novel and sees it sink without trace has lost anything, and negative data in independent terms can only be measured against that of the traditional houses, where a tiny proportion of novels earn out their advances, no matter how meagre. The models in both publishing methods are much the same, except that for Indies they hold all the rights, forever.
As somebody with a good few years' of publishing experience under my belt now I always advise authors to take all such data, valuable as it is, with a pinch of salt; to keep their heads down, keep working and ignore just about everything except emerging changes in the industry that will effect their sales or their business plan. Time spent analysing the market or picking the bones out of different methods or thrashing out arguments on writing forums is more often than not time wasted - focus on that crap when you're pulling in five figures a month and knowing the tiny details can make a thousand dollars' difference to your income. All that matters for most of us is that we're doing something that we love and that we might be able to make good money at it, if not now then perhaps in the future. As Amelia's quoted line at the top of my post says, it's possible and the odds are a damned sight better than with a major publishing house.
I agree with most of this, including that thinking too much about all of this is a waste of time, but I just can't help myself! I find it fascinating. I wandered over to Kboards again some in the last couple of days and saw several people there who have well-branded books in a series and appear to be selling next to nothing in the US Kindle store. I don't know if they're promoting, or if their writing is any good, but they had decent reviews, for the most part. As Carlos said: To my mind this is one of the biggest advantages of self-publishing. If a big house flubs a launch, there's no recourse to speak of for the author. As a self-publisher, you always have the option to re-jigger things. I like that. But for now, off to do some editing and maybe figure out how to write faster! |
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Aug 25, 2015 15:19:02 GMT -5
I could have put my comments a bit better Amelia - I don't think that your analysis was a waste of time, as I know it must have taken some doing. I meant only that the broader methods such as digital marketing, writing more books and communicating with readers probably have more value for the average author than data analysis.
All aspects of getting our books "out there" have some value, I suppose those values are just measured by where we perceive ourselves to be on the scale of success.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miss Terri Novelle on Aug 25, 2015 16:32:52 GMT -5
Speaking as somebody who has 'been there and done that' Deano is correct in saying that anyone who has self published a novel and seen it sink without trace has lost nothing. I didn't think so at the time, of course--but in retrospect it's perfectly clear--and also clear that I wouldn't fully understand unless I had tried it. Another possible lesson (something I am currently exploring) is that self-publishing allows the author-editor-book designer-publisher some leeway for correcting one's past mistakes--or at least, for recycling some of the same material to make other mistakes. Oh, I've got a couple of those under pen names. One ranked around 997,000 something and one at 1,407,000 ish. Both non fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Miss Terri Novelle on Aug 25, 2015 16:35:16 GMT -5
To my mind this is one of the biggest advantages of self-publishing. If a big house flubs a launch, there's no recourse to speak of for the author. As a self-publisher, you always have the option to re-jigger things. I like that. This!! |
|
