New Author Earnings rpt out

[lou]

And the panic begins...

[scdaffron]

Gee, Amazon imprint sales are up for no apparent reason. Shocker.

[lou]

And I think he and everyone else commenting is right about Bookbub and trad pub belatedly getting the correct price point. The last half of my year is down from my first half (there are reasons, but if it's part of a trend, it's something of a comfort.)

But you guys know me. I was predicting personal doom anyway because nothing--nothing--ever lasts. Nothing good and nothing bad. Certainly not in a competitive entertainment industry.

(And I'm trying to not kick self for not getting in in 2011. Can't change the past. But it's the first thing I'd do with a time machine, visit 2011.)

[ameliasmith]

I just skimmed it. One more reason not to be in Select. Remember, this is just Amazon they look at, and the word on the street is that Amazon ranks have not been reflecting sales according to the old models.

lou, I'm with you about things not lasting. I've come to the point where I'm coming to peace with the ephemeral nature of art/writing. You think it lasts because you've read the Iliad, but no, most things sink into oblivion within a generation on the outside, or never surface to begin with.

[Daniel]

I think it was inevitable that access to readers was going to become pay-to-play at some point. Every valuable resource gets exploited eventually. Greed will not be denied.

[Miss Terri Novelle]

Some points that occur to me about the report are:

1. I think there's a slight lack of distinction in the definition of a Single Author Publisher. Does that include authors who use a publisher name to house multiple pen names or are those falling under the small publisher umbrella? I know a lot of authors who use their own imprint names. I use Willow Hill Books everywhere except Amazon, which I know doesn't count with AuthorEarnings since only Amazon data is collected. But, indies falling into the cracks between the categories of single publisher and small press has to have some effect on the way the data looks this time. At least half a dozen authors I know have more than one personal imprint in order to cover diverse genres, so that complicates things even more deeply.

2. Discounting the data collection dates being at the same time as the Kindle First period probably skews the numbers more than was accounted for. The way those units don't count toward sales, but do affect rankings has to have more of an effect than was allowed for in the interpretation of the data.

So, I won't be panicking anytime soon.

[Rinelle Grey]

The reports of sales not being reflected in rankings are limited to free downloads at this point. (Though that's not saying it's not happening, just that it isn't being talked about.)

Like Laura, I'm not panicking. This could be caused by any number of reasons, and even if it is an ongoing trend, it isn't reflected in my own numbers, and that's all I'm bothered by.

[Miss Terri Novelle]

Right and since the dates they pulled the info fall during Kindle First, there are a whole lot of books in Amazon Imprints being counted and yet not counted. That can't be good for getting clean data.

[ameliasmith]

I was at this reunion/conference all day yesterday. It's heavily dominated by trad pub, with a lot of short story writers, but it's been good. I asked the only two sort-of self-pubbed people there what they thought, and neither of them really follows the Hugh Howey stuff. I'm starting to put it in the category of "more news I can't use."

Anyway, this guy had a super-successful debut in military SF and got scooped up by 47 North. He reckons that a lot of the downturn is due to Amazon's publishing imprints skimming off many of the most successful self-publishers.

(This guy's Amazon page, for reference. He's clearly doing quite well. www.amazon.com/Marko-Kloos/e/B00BUVDP8M/)