World, Writing, Wealth discussion

88 views
All Things Writing & Publishing > Those readers don't know what they are missing -:)

Comments Showing 1-50 of 63 (63 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments After presenting a more doubtful line, I think it would be only fair to emphasize the other side of the coin.
You conceive an idea, you develop it, carefully drafting scene after scene, placing literary hooks, mysteries, implanting vibrant dialogue, emotionally and/or eventually rich episodes - all are there. You go over it - fine-tuning and polishing the last bits, until you pretty much happy with the result. Spend money on editing and a pretty cover. You are confident - you offer something unique, exciting, extra-ordinary, that surely gonna capture the audience and never let go...
Then you publish ... and sometimes nothing happens.
May readers be so attached to brands and trends to overlook brilliant stuff offered by some indies? And do you believe something good is bound to surface?


message 2: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Persistence.


message 3: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin It is very true that many gems from indie or self-published authors never get the recognition they would deserve, while more tepid books rake in the money simply because the author is 'famous'. This problem also exists here on Goodreads.com. When groups do group reads or promote books and authors, how often do you see new, little-known or unknown indie or self-published authors or their books? How can new talent come out when groups and moderators keep talking nearly exclusively about 'bestselling' books and authors, or refer so much to Amazon titles? I am myself a self-published author and I get frustrated to see the kind of mediocre or poorly written novels that sometimes become 'bestsellers' only because they are part of a popular trend or because their author is 'famous' (Fifty Shades of Grey, Dan Brown as examples). I keep reading 'bestselling' books that leave me unimpressed or even disappointed.


message 4: by Segilola (new)

Segilola Salami (segilolasalami) | 405 comments Michel wrote: "It is very true that many gems from indie or self-published authors never get the recognition they would deserve, while more tepid books rake in the money simply because the author is 'famous'. Thi..."

maybe they're bestsellers for that reason? ;)


message 5: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Maybe that's what it really means to be an indie author or to enjoy reading indie authors - that the books are not popular or mainstream and you've discovered/created some secret no one else has discovered, something that feels like it's all yours.

Maybe as the author, we should then market as if to the hipster crowd. "You won't find this on the NYT Bestseller's list!" "This ain't (Harry Potter/ Fifty Shades/any overly popular title)!"

I almost think of indie authors like those local bands that play at the bars or local music festivals. They're every bit as entertaining as the famous acts that get big record deals, tour the country, and sell-out shows; and they may even build a strong following locally, but they remain unknown outside their home base, and hold down day jobs.

They're also like these indie film makers, making their movies on shoestring budgets and playing the films largely on the Indie film festival circuit. Many of them are professionally done and good films to watch, but it will be rare to find them in a movie theater near you. At most, they'll get released to DVD and get lost int he sea of other movies.


message 6: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments J.J. wrote: "Maybe as the author, we should then market as if to the hipster crowd. "You won't find this on the NYT Bestseller's list!" "This ain't (Harry Potter/ Fifty Shades/any overly popular title)!"..."

As it accurately distinguishes most indies from those lowly and boring bestsellers -:), this sounds like an idea. I present my stuff as not a fine art, but I might toy with one of your suggestions


message 7: by Nihar (new)

Nihar Suthar (niharsuthar) | 38 comments I agree, you just have to find the niche audience who would be interested in reading your book or books. For example, I just wrote a book that was a positive story about cricket. So, I found readers who are interested in inspirational stories and like sports as well. These readers are most willing to take a look at my book, and they usually enjoy reading it :)

-Nihar
www.niharsuthar.com


message 8: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments Nik wrote: "After presenting a more doubtful line, I think it would be only fair to emphasize the other side of the coin.
You conceive an idea, you develop it, carefully drafting scene after scene, placing lit..."


If you live long enough!


message 9: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments GR wrote: "If you live long enough! ..."

We may then need an immortality elixir! -:)


message 10: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Michel wrote: "This problem also exists here on Goodreads.com. When groups do group reads or promote books and authors, how often do you see new, little-known or unknown indie or self-published authors or their books? How can new talent come out when groups and moderators keep talking nearly exclusively about 'bestselling' books and authors, or refer so much to Amazon titles?"

To a certain extent I would agree with you Michel but only to a certain extent. There are opportunities here on Goodreads for indie authors to promote if you spend time looking for them. For instance, my book Stillness will be the BOTM in the Good Thriller group next month.

And yes, a lot of the time groups cater to well known books and authors but look at it from their perspective. Groups need to attract interest just like the rest of us do and it's just a fact that more people want to read the popular books then want to read indies. To survive the groups can't feature indie books every month.

If we wish to change this it begins with each of us taking personal responsibility for our own work and making sure that it meets the same quality standards trad published works meet. Until the perception of "indie as lesser quality" is removed it will continue to be difficult for us all to gain readers for our work.


message 11: by Alex (last edited Oct 17, 2016 02:04PM) (new)

Alex (asato) And yet, indie authors make up a sizeable proportion of authors making $50K+ on amazon alone. The authorearnings.com May 2016 report counts:
“over 2,500 authors who are currently earning at a living-wage run rate — $50,000/year or more — from just their Amazon sales.”
Furthermore, in that same report:
"More than 1,080 indie authors, most of them brand new debuts from the last five years, are currently earning at a $50K/year or higher run rate from just their Amazon sales.

Note: “[The] $50,000/year “tax bracket”, which tallies up authors earning what would be a living wage in most parts of the US.”



message 12: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Valid point Alex and nice to know so many indies are achieving such success!

Does that report happen to note the total number of indies published on Amazon? I ask because there are at least a million authors on Amazon and if only a quarter of them are indie (I suspect more but...) then 2,500 is hardly the definition of a sizable number.

Is Amazon attempting to oversell their importance here I wonder?


message 13: by Alex (last edited Oct 17, 2016 02:12PM) (new)

Alex (asato) Eldon wrote: "Valid point Alex and nice to know so many indies are achieving such success!

Does that report happen to note the total number of indies published on Amazon? I ask because there are at least a mill..."


sorry. i forgot the link (it's there now). it's not an amazon report. it's an independent report established by Hugh Howey. no, it doesn't explicitly give the number of indie authors; however, you can download the raw data and run it thru a spreadsheet. (at some point, i will do that. maybe during the holidays.)

i was saying that 1,080 is a significant proportion out of about 2,500 who make $50k+ (not out of all published authors).


message 14: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Sorry Alex; misread the stat. You're right 1,080 out of 2,500 is definitely significant!!


message 15: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10731 comments A good book is not bound to surface - you have to make it. The problem is, how? You start a new book on Amazon, and it is listed a way down at the bottom of the browsing pile, so you have to make it known that it is there. It is easy to find reasons why this is hard, but more difficult to work out how to do it.


message 16: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Ian wrote: "A good book is not bound to surface - you have to make it. The problem is, how? You start a new book on Amazon, and it is listed a way down at the bottom of the browsing pile, so you have to make i..."

Very well said Ian :)


message 17: by Alex (last edited Oct 17, 2016 05:45PM) (new)

Alex (asato) Ian wrote: "It is easy to find reasons why this is hard, but more difficult to work out how to do it."

i suspect that the solutions are genre-specific. if you look at that authorearnings.com Romance Writers of America presentation, they even break the numbers down by sub-genre. They even analyze how many titles on the average a writer has when s/he "breaks out" and how often that mythical "averagely successful writer" publishes and is able to maintain sales momentum.

since the raw data is provided, you can perform the same analysis for your own genre/sub-genre. you would at least find out how big your sub-genre is.


message 18: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10731 comments Alex is correct. It pays to write in a clearly defined genre, where there are a lot of readers, and stick to what they want. Having said that, I am probably guilty of not doing that. Mine seem to sort of sit between genres.


message 19: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) Ian wrote: "Alex is correct. It pays to write in a clearly defined genre, where there are a lot of readers, and stick to what they want. Having said that, I am probably guilty of not doing that. Mine seem to s..."

i think you can still do two b/c amazon allows you to categorize your book into two major genres/sub-genres.


message 20: by Alex (last edited Oct 17, 2016 09:02PM) (new)

Alex (asato) From the comments in the aforementioned link:
Data Guy
July 17, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Hi, Jeff,

Total US print SF&F books (hardcover & paperback) sold each year, according to the most reliable source of industry data on print sales, add up to roughly 47 million units:
– 34 million of that is categorized as Children’s Science Fiction/Fantasy/Magic;
– 13 million of it is categorized as Adult Science Fiction or Adult Fantasy.
Add the 15% or so non-Bookscan sales, and you get to 54 million SF&F print sales, mostly children’s titles.

When it comes to ebooks, trad SF&F sales on Amazon.com are running at around 23M units for Kindle. Add in iBooks, Kobo, Nook, etc. and we’re talking about 33M or so total SF&F ebooks for trad.

So that’s 87M US trad SF&F sales annually for adult+children’s print+ebook combined.

OTOH, indie SF&F ebook sales on Amazon.com are at 32M units for Kindle, which, when you add in iBooks, Kobo, Nook, etc. will total out somewhere between 38M and 40M. Almost all of that is adult SF&F, not children’s (although Teen/YA makes the distinction murky).

Which means that more than half of all SF&F ebooks sold in the US — and nearly a third of all SF&F books of any format sold in the US, including children’s books — are indie.

Here are the sales breakdowns by publisher type for Amazon.com Kindle Science Fiction & Fantasy (which makes up roughly three quarters of the SF&F ebooks sold in the US):

Daily Unit Sales:
— 47% Indie (Self-Published)
— 14% Small/Medium Publisher
— 10% Amazon Imprint (Thomas & Mercer, mostly)
— 20% Big Five
— 9% Uncategorized

Daily Author $ Earnings:
— 54% Indie (Self-Published)
— 13% Small/Medium Publisher
— 8% Amazon Imprint
— 18% Big Five
— 7% Uncategorized

Daily Gross Consumer $ Sales:
— 29% Indie (Self-Published)
— 18% Small/Medium Publisher
— 8% Amazon Imprint
— 34% Big Five
— 11% Uncategorized

What’s really remarkable here is that if even half of the “Uncategorized” are actually indies (and we believe most of them are), then that means US readers are already spending more of their bookbuying dollars on indie SF&F ebooks than on those published by the Big Five.

Best,
DG



message 21: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments Ian wrote: "it is listed a way down at the bottom of the browsing pile..."

Not sure a big fraction of buyers purchase a book through browsing...Probably there are polls, research whatever, but I guess a lot come from recommendation, maybe 'also-bought' lists and stuff...


message 22: by Denise (new)

Denise Baer | 593 comments Michel wrote: This problem also exists here on Goodreads.com. When groups do group reads or promote books and authors, how often do you see new, little-known or unknown indie or self-published authors or their books?"

An idea sprouted. It wouldn't be a bad idea to start an Indie/Self-published group where all that's read are these types of books. Set it up to entice readers too. Just a thought.


message 23: by M.L. (last edited Oct 18, 2016 09:47AM) (new)

M.L. Do you know the actual numbers (not per cent) if Indie vs everyone else, totals all genre together?


message 24: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Denise wrote: "Michel wrote: This problem also exists here on Goodreads.com. When groups do group reads or promote books and authors, how often do you see new, little-known or unknown indie or self-published auth..."

That Denise...is a WONDERFUL idea!!


message 25: by Melonie (new)

Melonie Purcell | 14 comments Holy Moses! Well done and Whoohooo!!

Alex G wrote: "From the comments in the aforementioned link:Data Guy
July 17, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Hi, Jeff,

Total US print SF&F books (hardcover & paperback) sold each year, according to the most reliable source of ..."



message 26: by Melonie (new)

Melonie Purcell | 14 comments I think Indie writers are part of the problem. Why do we go see movies by well known producers staring well known actors? Because our $13 bucks are relatively safe. We can expect a certain quality and even if we don't love the movie, we aren't likely to be made at it.

I have read a disturbing number of indie books that didn't even get a proofread. I mean, missing the comma or having a their there intead of a they're is one thing. But I have read way too many books with repeated sentences, even repeated starts to paragraphs that a cursory re-read would catch, and when I do, I'm mad. If an author can't bother to, at the VERY least, read over their work before serving it, then why should I bother reading it? Shoddy product presentation is giving us a bad name.


message 27: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10731 comments Melonie wrote: "I think Indie writers are part of the problem. Why do we go see movies by well known producers staring well known actors? Because our $13 bucks are relatively safe. We can expect a certain quality ..."

If you see that, mention it in a review and give it 1 star. I must confess that I review a lot of Indie books, and I have never seen it that bad. I am reasonably tolerable of minor defects, but that would send me off too.


message 28: by Melonie (new)

Melonie Purcell | 14 comments Ian wrote: "If you see that, mention it in a review and give it 1 star. I must confess that I review a lot of Indie books, and I have never seen it that bad. I am reasonably tolerable of minor defects, but that would send me off too."

I couldn't give somebody a 1star review. I can give product reviews with 1 star, but not someone's book. I would feel horrible. Maybe I should let the author know, though. I do write, "this book could be improved with professional editing" in the review. But that's all.


message 29: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments Melonie wrote: " Because our $13 bucks are relatively safe. ..."

Not so sure about that, for there are movies even from the producers I usually enjoy that I haven't liked... -:)
Agree that indie titles are 'riskier', especially in the field of organization and grammar -:(


message 30: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Melonie wrote: "I have read a disturbing number of indie books that didn't even get a proofread. I mean, missing the comma or having a their there intead of a they're is one thing. But I have read way too many books with repeated sentences, even repeated starts to paragraphs that a cursory re-read would catch, and when I do, I'm mad. If an author can't bother to, at the VERY least, read over their work before serving it, then why should I bother reading it? Shoddy product presentation is giving us a bad name. ..."
I honestly love when the mistake creates a new meaning. I read one where the author kept using "slave" instead of "salve." The hero was constantly putting a "slave on the wound." What made it truly funny was the one time the author got it right happened to be the one time the injury didn't heal after the attention.


message 31: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Melonie wrote: "I couldn't give somebody a 1star review. I can give product reviews with 1 star, but not someone's book. I would feel horrible. Maybe I should let the author know, though. I do write, "this book could be improved with professional editing" in the review. But that's all. ..."

How many writers do you find upset because someone 1-starred their book because a reader either didn't like or misunderstood the author's word choice/style/etc.? How many times have you seen author's down because some grammar nazi 1-starred their book over an issue the author was actually correct on and the review was wrong about? Or a 1-star simply because of one, single error out of the entire manuscript?

You see the argument that mistakes crop up in traditionally published books, but reviewers are harsher on indies. It might be true or it might be shifting the blame, but as authors we should be more understanding. Suppose your formatting ended up all out of whack when you upload your book, and people manage to buy it before you can fix it. Do you want your book 1-starred to death before you even figure out what's going wrong - when you're trying to fix the problem, but it's too late to stop the sales?

Also think of what 1-starring as a reader means for you the author. I've seen complaints of retaliation. You can say those retaliatory reviews are transparent to consumers for what they are, but if that author comes back and trashes your book, the damage is done nonetheless. Also where I've seen complaints of how some authors go around trashing other books and other authors to try and knock out competition, you run the risk of being thrown into that basket if you're out 1-starring books.

If you come across a book that you truly think deserves a 1-star, the best thing to do IMO is try and contact the author and let them know why in private. Let other readers dish out the 1-stars and keep yourself clean of it all.


message 32: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Melonie wrote: "I think Indie writers are part of the problem. Why do we go see movies by well known producers staring well known actors? Because our $13 bucks are relatively safe. We can expect a certain quality ..."

I whole heartedly agree with your point Melonie. There are far too many indie authors who for whatever reason forego cursory editing and grammar checks. Professional authors who do this for a living don't skip these valuable steps so why as amateurs do so many of us view them as unimportant?

And the real problem is that every time someone reads one of these unpolished works we all suffer for it. As any one in marketing will tell you the average person, if they like something, will tell 3-4 people but if they don't like it they will tell 10 or more people.

If the product they don't happen to like is an indie novel well then...in a lot of people's eyes all indie novels are painted with that particular brush :(


message 33: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) Denise wrote: "An idea sprouted. It wouldn't be a bad idea to start an Indie/Self-published group where all that's read are these types of books. Set it up to entice readers too"

there's already a number of GR groups that do this (like https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...). in what ways would this proposed group be different?


message 34: by Marie Silk (last edited Oct 19, 2016 11:37AM) (new)

Marie Silk | 1022 comments Agree with everything J.J. said.

It's been a financial juggle choosing where to invest my money book-wise vs. what I can do myself. I decided to forego professional editing in order to afford ISBNs, covers and professional formatting. Some authors do all of the covers and formatting themselves of course, which is amazing to me.

It's a bummer to get 1-starred for editing, but once you are selling books, you will get 1-starred no matter how perfect your editing is.

I read 4 or 5 books by an author who I assume is indie. There were a lot of typos and issues with punctuation. I can't see that as a reason to 1-star any of her books. They were dang good.


message 35: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments What do you, guys, think:
May readers be so attached to brands and trends to overlook brilliant stuff offered by some indies? And do you believe something good is bound to surface?


message 36: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10731 comments My guess is it is not bound to surface. Some will, some won't. I still think it is a matter of luck, although some effort at marketing is also required.


message 37: by Tim (new)

Tim Rees | 732 comments When I set out on the indie route and flew in the face of all the advice from my agent I convinced myself the metaphor "the cream always rises to the surface" is true. Experience has taught me otherwise. Indie publishing is more like a swamp land than a cup of coffee in a transparent glass. On a positive note, swamp land is known for creating a super-rich soil known as peat. But we have to dig down to find the peat and what's on the surface is an indistinguishable growth of grasses where now and then we see a flower that stands out. But the reason that one plant stands out and has its day in the sun is due to the fact it's rooted in peat. Does every plant in that swamp have its day in the sun? Unfortunately not. Most get overgrown whilst others are trampled down to become at one with the peat.

I'm currently looking to other mediums that tell stories and those mediums are just as saturated, but the drainage is much quicker and the strong plants have a much better chance to prosper because the people who view the plants are looking for a strong, broad stem and vibrant, crisp leaves that will offer the plant a chance to bloom successfully in the sun... Hopefully... :D


message 38: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Tim wrote: "When I set out on the indie route and flew in the face of all the advice from my agent I convinced myself the metaphor "the cream always rises to the surface" is true. Experience has taught me othe..."

Excellent metaphor Tim!! Well said 😆


message 39: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin The best weapon of indie authors, apart from good writing skills and imagination: patience!


message 40: by Nat (new)

Nat Kennedy | 29 comments I've always wanted some sort of review service I could trust for indie books. Bad grammar is a no go for me and throws me from a story. Or bad plot, bad science, etc... I want a professional product. There is the Immerse Or Die website where people submit their books and the guy there reviews them (usually harshly), but it flushes out the rough stuff from the more polished. So, sites like that, for me, would be a way for me to find more self-published authors I wouldn't be afraid to try.


message 41: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments But what is bad grammar? It seems an easy enough question to answer until you peel back the onion a bit. As Tim has pointed out previously, tastes are always changing and grammatical elements seem to come in and out of vogue. If Shakespeare wrote today would his prose be considered “bad grammar”?

For myself, rather than another review service to help readers choose their next book, I long for the time when readers could choose for themselves what to read without being told beforehand whether or not it’s “good”. Good of course being a highly subjective concept.

All that said of course, you can only push grammar rules so far and we’ve all seen terribly written books, no argument there. Course given that most indie books go for next to nothing, you really shouldn’t be afraid to try them :)


message 42: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments I'll stick to economics on the question of Kindle books in dollars as that is how KDP is set up.

30% of 99c is the income at that range (before tax on income- you all do declare your royalty incomes don't you). Above $2.99 its 70%. Professional editors cost $500-$1,000 per edit. So just to cover editing I need to sell 1,667 kindle 99c books for low end edit or 239 at $2.99. That ignores any other costs or re-edits, covers, marketing, etc.

The buying public (I'm one of them too) cannot expect a product at that price range but that is where the vast majority are being sold. Actually given away for free with no royalty on many occasions.

Compare the book to a trip to the movies. The value is fantastic. As writers we set the prices unless you are lucky enough to have a publishing contract. We have driven this market down chasing sales and thus denying income. Where professional editing is employed there is still no guarantee of recouping costs. True for professional publishing too.

Goodreads forums are full of threads on grammar, editing etc and many have covered the economics.

On Audible and Babel contributors can share royalties on returns from the product. I have yet to see an editor offer a deal for income from royalties - interested to talk to one if one is out there; therefore, like marketing and adverts all the financial risk is with the author. Traditional publishing removes that risk although I understand much of the marketing still rests with the author and royalty cuts are less.

I no longer expect to make a living (as I once hoped) from writing. I now write for myself and my few readers because I still want to. My grammar and editing suffer. My stories I hope rise above that, but I understand others who won't go near. Your choice, in my reading I'm more flexible. I like stories and good plots, I'll put up with the odd typo and grammar mistake if I even notice; although characters accidentally changing name or having inconsistent plots drives me nuts. I have stopped writing brief reviews, I just rate now, because of time and not wanting to criticise others.

Just my humble opinion and I welcome all reviews, messages, rants because it means someone had read my story.


message 43: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10731 comments I rather suspect Philip's low end edit will not be very good, unless it is a really short book, so he (or everyone else) can do as well themselves if they put their minds to it. Yes, you will gt the odd typo, but the heavily edited books from the big five have them too. I just read a very brief article from a major professional editor, and he was waxing on about the Oxford "coma". We hope he wakes up.

The big problem for the Indie is he is generally not going to sell 240 ebooks unless he/she is very lucky. Maybe a good romance writer is more likely to succeed.

But I hope Philip, and others, will support others by writing reviews if they read the books. We need the reviews.


message 44: by Leonie (new)

Leonie (leonierogers) | 1579 comments I do think there's an enormous difference between the odd typo, and constant spelling errors/grammar errors. I also think that indie authors can be their own worst enemies. If a book is full of tense issues, misplaced homonyms and plot and structural issues, I really struggle with it, no matter how good the story could be.

And I do mean 'could be.' Stories can be completely concealed by poor editing/spelling/grammar. Sometimes I've read great blurbs, only to discover almost unreadable prose inside the covers.

Any craftsman or tradesperson has to get the basics right in order to provide a quality product. Why is writing any different? Why should we expect people to pay for less than our best?

I have a couple of favourite indie authors, but both of them pay enormous attention to detail and product. (Here's the web page for one of them: http://pattyjansen.com ).

As far as reviews go - I do write them, but sometimes I shy away from reviewing other authors I know via Goodreads groups or Facebook groups. It's partly because of the 'revenge' review that some writers indulge in. I'm fine with people 1 starring my stories if they really hated them, but I've seen the odd person who 1 stars other authors because they've been reviewed critically by them.

I also don't like hurting the feelings of people I 'know' from this kind of group. For myself, I'm OK hearing honest comments about my work. I hope to learn and improve as a writer. (And because I'm trad published by small press I've had to learn to cope with an editor's comments anyway. Now I rather look forward to them.)


message 45: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Here is what bestselling author Hugh Howey had to say in a blog recently about editing. I thought it was apt.

"... if I had to pick between a great storyteller who lacked precision of language and a perfect writer with no story to tell, I’d take the former every single time. We teach too much prose to writers and not enough plot. Plot is king. Prose is pawn."


message 46: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14949 comments Excellent, sober and allegoric input here!
While a very occasional typo is tolerable, an attempt at perfection is probably necessary to attain a 'professional' or near professional level of presentation. Plot over delivery? I think a harmony is the best.
As of economic side, my 'production expenses' are somewhere around 3K USD. Don't expect to make them back anytime soon, but it's not the end of the world and if viewing it as spending on hobby - not the most expensive one either..


message 47: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Nik wrote: "Excellent, sober and allegoric input here!
While a very occasional typo is tolerable, an attempt at perfection is probably necessary to attain a 'professional' or near professional level of present..."


That is how I now treat all book production - a not cheap hobby but just as I don't need the best golf clubs in the world I'll limit expenditure accordingly.


message 48: by Eldon (new)

Eldon Farrell | 687 comments Nik wrote: "Excellent, sober and allegoric input here!
While a very occasional typo is tolerable, an attempt at perfection is probably necessary to attain a 'professional' or near professional level of present..."


Totally agree Nik! I consider this a hobby, but one I want to do right. My guess is for my next release it will cost roughly $2k CAD just to get it released. Marketing costs will of course be extra. This is why I continually shake my head at authors who line up to give their books away for free.

Hobby or otherwise, the numbers just don't add up :) #endoffree


message 49: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10731 comments I started my self-publishing career with scientific ebooks that were there predominantly to archive some of the theoretical work that would otherwise be unpublished because it was too complicated for a scientific paper, so obviously I did not expect to make much from that. As for my novels, I never expected to get rich [one expectation that is likely to be fulfilled :-( ] but I would also like to sell some. I am with Eldon - I cannot understand why they want to line up and give their books away for free. I think this started with Amazon, who counted free as at least part of a sale for their ranking algorithm, and that made some sense - it is hard to sell if your book is on page 114 of the browsing category.

At the end of this, I have no idea how get big sales, but the small sales do give me net pocket money, so I am happy.


message 50: by Marie Silk (new)

Marie Silk | 1022 comments I love free promotions :) I've found it the best way to get word out about my books.


« previous 1
back to top