Self-Publishing: Commodity vs. Art

Ebook sales surpassed 20% of the US book market in 2012. Also for the first time, a self-published novel hit number one on the DBW best-seller list. In light of these breakthroughs, the advice from some quarters to skip traditional publishers altogether and make a career strictly from electronic and on-demand publishing is gaining credibility.

For Wool author Hugh Howey, self-publishing is a great writer's best option and a mediocre writer's only option for career success. He posits an invisible army of self-published mid-listers supplementing or replacing their regular incomes with ebook proceeds. Howey's evidence is entirely anecdotal, but the sheer volume of anecdotes isn't to be taken lightly.

Has the long-predicted demise of the New York publishing model come at last? In a word: no. No less a DIY publishing advocate than Dean Wesley Smith believes that the industry has reached a state of equilibrium between electronic, on-demand, and traditional publishing. He shows that the basic business model used by traditional publishers for decades is indispensable, even for authors who become their own publishers. Another telling fact is that almost every high profile self-published author to top the digital best seller lists has signed a print deal with a traditional publisher (including Howey himself).

Jane Friedman points out some of the self-publishing career path's quirks, including the dominance of genre fiction and the perceived need to sacrifice quality for high product volume. In her experience self-publishing openly views books as commodities. Traditional publishers do as well (they are running businesses after all), but they tend to emphasize the artistic aspect of literature.

It's hard to argue with the raw numbers. Self-published authors receive 70% of every ebook sale and retain all the rights to their work. Traditionally published writers get 25% of ebook sales. They also get 12-15% of each print copy's cover price, but only after the advance earns out. Gaining this compensation requires giving away almost all rights to their work. Also, ebooks can theoretically remain available forever, while most print books have a shelf life of six months.

Despite the mathematical proofs, I remain unmoved by the arguments for skipping traditional publishers in favor of self-publishing. Financial gain isn't my primary motive for seeking publication. A fundamental fact of the literary industry is that it's the wrong business to get into if you're in it for the money. I write, edit, and redraft; send query letters and endure rejections because, like Howey said, traditional publishers only accept the top one percent of submissions. Material success does not necessarily denote skill; neither does popularity for that matter.

I am a traditionalist by temperament and conviction. Yes, many aspects of the old publishing model are outdated and simply unjust, but it can be fixed without sacrificing standards (e.g. Norman Spinrad's call for 50% ebook royalties). I don't presume to dictate which approach is right or wrong. Self-publishing works for lots of writers, and I wish them continued success. At this stage though, having Random House buy your manuscript for peanuts still seems like more of an achievement than servicing your boat loan on the profits of a misspelling-riddled teen mystery series.

Those are my current sentiments on self-publishing. I welcome your praise, rebukes, and insights.

Story Two Has Been Mostly Published

My second short story "Reign of Terror" is now available. You can get it in print here, in ebook format here, or in pdf here.

Thanks to Title Goes Here: for accepting my work and to the members of this blog for your support.

Practical E-Book Justice

Norman Spinrad has a compelling article over at SFWA that addresses a number of pertinent subjects, including the obligatory dire warning over the demise of brick and mortar book stores and the perennial "pusblishers used to care about art" rebuke. However, what intrigued me most about Spinrad's post was the scenario he presented about how the ongoing e-book revolution could radically shift relations between publishers, best-selling authors, and mid-list authors.

It breaks down like this: most traditional literary contracts offer writers 25% royalties on e-book sales. By contrast, Amazon and Barnes & Noble offer 70% (albeit without advances). The only thing keeping major best-selling authors loyal to traditional print publishers is the fact that print books still outsell digital copies. However, it's not too hard to imagine a very near future in which book sales are split 50/50 between print and electronic markets. When that happens, Spinrad argues, major best-selling authors will have it in their best interests to self-publish the digital versions of their books at 70% royalties because they simply don't need advances to finance their work. They can also turn around and sell the print rights separately to a traditional publishing house for a lessened but still substantial advance. This new dynamic could cause a mass exodus of top talent from traditional publishers, who will be made reliant upon their remaining mid-list authors to survive.

Spinrad defines a mid-list author as a writer who can consistently sell ten to twenty thousand copies a year--not enough to make the best-seller lists, but sufficient to keep a beleaguered publishing company on life support. That is, unless, the mid-listers also decide to go into the online publishing business for themselves.

What can save the traditional publishers at this point? Spinrad suggests a reassessment of the industry standard 25% e-book royalty rate. Most publishers can't afford to match Amazon's 70% figure, but compromising on 50% should be enough to keep the midl-listers around while still eking out a profit.

And if traditional publishers reject the path of enlightened self-interest? Well, nothing's keeping companies like Google and Apple from throwing their hats into the epublishing ring, and if they do, they'll be poised to offer what Amazon and B&N currently don't: advances matching or exceeding those of print publishers.