Whats the deal with indie authors?

[Travis]

I will pitch in about the reviews part...My novella has now hit the 15,000 download mark, and I've received 26 reviews at Amazon, 2 at B&N, and zero everywhere else.

My Christmas short story has had just over 4,000 downloads now, and has 5 reviews.

I can't say there's any strong correlation or standard ratio that determines exactly what percentage of readers will leave a review...then again, I never seek out reviews because I don't believe they actually help or hinder.

I'm a firm believer that if you write a good book that readers want to read, it doesn't matter how many reviews (good or bad) your book gets.

[Marian]

Travis wrote: "I will pitch in about the reviews part...My novella has now hit the 15,000 download mark, and I've received 26 reviews at Amazon, 2 at B&N, and zero everywhere else.

My Christmas short story has ..."

I wish I could agree with you, that "...it doesn't matter how many reviews (good or bad) your book gets." Actually, if you want to buy advertising for your books on the most effective web sites, on most of them you need a minimum number of reviews, 4* or better. These sites pride themselves on having standards. Reviews count.

[Travis]

Marian wrote: "Travis wrote: "I will pitch in about the reviews part...My novella has now hit the 15,000 download mark, and I've received 26 reviews at Amazon, 2 at B&N, and zero everywhere else.

My Christmas s..."

I guess it boils down to your view of your profession. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' (other than 'don't be an author who behaves badly'). My view, which isn't a singular view, is that reviews and advertising do not matter. It is the 'good book that readers want to read' aspect that matters.

Other authors swear by Bookbub and other ways of advertising (blog tours, interviews, reviews, etc.). This works for them, and that's great.

For me, reviews are arbitrary. I can get 20 of my friends to give me a 5-star review and never alert anyone to the fact that they are my friends or have manipulated the system. Reviews are one person's opinion, and books really are nothing more than opinion generators.

I've read some awful books (some I couldn't even get through the sample) that were 4*+. This is why I believe reviews are arbitrary and meaningless.

I'm not saying don't use what works for you. I'm just relating my experience, which is that reviews have neither harmed nor helped me.

[Marian]

Travis wrote: "Marian wrote: "Travis wrote: "I will pitch in about the reviews part...My novella has now hit the 15,000 download mark, and I've received 26 reviews at Amazon, 2 at B&N, and zero everywhere else.
..."

I couldn't agree more: we all want to write good books. But with the flood of books that are out there, millions upon millions, we have to discover ways to help readers find our good books. Reviews open opportunities for promoting them. It seems that a certain number of positive reviews are required on different web sites before they'll accept a promotion. It's the system. I didn't make the rules, but if I want to participate, I have to follow them.

Yes, you could get twenty of your friends to give you 5* star reviews, but it's against the TOS, and if you were caught, they'd bounce you.

[Richard]

Using shills to "game up" the midway has been a long-respected tradition among the Carnie crowd, but anywhere else, it smacks of the sideshow. Lots of younger authors have never tried to knock over the bottles or shoot the balloon full of water, so they are not familiar with the technique. Maybe that's why they think they just conceived of it, yesterday. LOL!

[Marian]

Richard wrote: "Using shills to "game up" the midway has been a long-respected tradition among the Carnie crowd, but anywhere else, it smacks of the sideshow. Lots of younger authors have never tried to knock over..."

Richard, you made me smile!

[Sue]

FutureCycle wrote: "Please get the terms straight. "Indie" is not equivalent to "self-published." Many independent publishers (what used to be called small presses) are publishing houses; they are just smaller or do t..."

Actually many - including Smashwords - use the terms "indie" and "self-published" as synonyms.

[Stephen]

Sue wrote: "FutureCycle wrote: "Please get the terms straight. "Indie" is not equivalent to "self-published." Many independent publishers (what used to be called small presses) are publishing houses; they are ..."

Indie is short for Independent. Therefor Indie is applicable whether you are and Independent Author, Independent Publisher, or Independent whatever. No matter how you slice it by definition Self publishing would be for all intent purposes and independent act. So yes Self-publishers are in fact Indies.

[R.]

I'm amused that nobody caught on the original poster's nick is the villain from the Smiley series (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and so on). Who basically caused drama for lulz and because Russia.

[R.]

Richard wrote: "I spent an entire lifetime in the ad game and publicity, and it may come as a surprise to many that shills and sock puppets are nothing new in book reviews. In fact, only a very stupid publisher wo..."

While I agree in principle, this makes the market into a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma. No one else is going to leave the market alone to sort itself out, I need to at least set out defenses so when those trolls do come out for me, I have something to fall back on.

[Daniel]

Before printing presses came along everyone was self published and up to William Blake's day authors were also craftsmen.

I don't know of any artist that hasn't published a book or two and I learned a great deal working in a bookbinders about the craft of making papers and leather bindings.

Modern mass publishing does not have as long a history as self-publishing or small press publishing. The list of writers in the past two hundred years who have published themselves is extensive and filled with famous names.

For decades now large publishing houses have used writers as fodder for their share-holders. Even William Golding noted how much money Penguin made out of him compared to how much they actually paid him.

Writers who are as good as anyone being published are turned down because publishers do not want to invest money in a genre they already have covered. Writers are published because they are the ex lovers, present lovers, relations or school chums of editors. People are published who cannot even write just because they are famous and will sell a few copies.

The modern digital world has given many writers a chance and many readers a chance to read more good writers. The added bonus that successful writers can make more money going it alone without a publishing house has already enticed those with a following not to renew contracts.

And you think they are not edited well? That is only a money issue. I have yet to find a publishing house put out a book without errors, and I have seen hundreds of books with utterly indifferent design.

If you read a self published book that is good but for the editing - edit it. Work with the writer and teach them to be better.

[M.]

Daniel wrote: "If you read a self published book that is good but for the editing - edit it. Work with the writer and teach them to be better. "

*applause* Well said!! I couldn't agree more with your entire post.

[Sue]

Daniel wrote: "Before printing presses came along everyone was self published and up to William Blake's day authors were also craftsmen.

I don't know of any artist that hasn't published a book or two and I learn..."

applause from me, too.

[Martyn]

Daniel wrote: "Modern mass publishing does not have as long a history as self-publishing or small press publishing. The list of writers in the past two hundred years who have published themselves is extensive and filled with famous names."

Excellent post.

Publishers need to justify their existence by shelling out the idea that their way is the only way, but self-publishing has been around longer and the motive to self-publish isn't solely geared towards commercial mass appeal.