Dana Weinberg has done another survey analysis, this time of author satisfaction.
She compared how happy authors were with royalties, editorial help, copies sold, and so on across three publishing platforms: traditional, self-published and hybrid (a combination of the two).
Are the horror stories about traditional publishers true? Her conclusion was a resounding "meh."
I have a few comments to make about this survey. The first is that people are more reluctant to give negative answers on surveys than positive ones. This means that every survey will be slanted towards positive responses.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the majority of books that are traditionally published don't make back their advances.
What this means is that publishers don't put a lot of time or energy promoting books by authors who aren't already celebrities. The reason they don't bother is that they would rather invest their resources in promoting cash cows. With hundreds of authors, and thousands of titles on their lists, this makes sense for large houses.
The other thing to keep in mind is that authors who are "cursed with ugly covers ... receive very little assistance or support in the way of marketing and promotion, or learned that their publishers had little investment in their careers as writers and/or no interest in their future books" is not a horror story - it is the reality of the publishing world, and thinking otherwise is delusional.
Just to give you some perspective, here are a couple of real horror stories:
You sign a contract with a major publisher, only to have is scrapped when the house goes through an organizational shake-up. You can't find another publisher. (That happened to a friend of mine.)
You submit your manuscript, and your editor wants you to take out any word longer than two syllables, shift the POV, change the title, and delete half the chapters. (That happened to me, as did having an editor insert the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence into one of my short stories.) Your baby is butchered.
While traditional publishing is not all it's cracked up to be (it really isn't), believing that self-publishing is the road to the Land of Milk and Honey is delusional as well.
Those who find themselves dissatisfied with self-publishing have to ask themselves some hard questions. Have I spent several hours a day marketing and promoting my work? Have I researched the market to find out how I can reach my audience, or have I assumed that simply "putting it out there" is enough? Did I expect instant fame and fortune?
Let's be realistic. No matter how you publish - whether you have taken the traditional route, or done it yourself - great expectations must be matched by a great amount of work. There is no substitute.
___________________________________
How Common Are Traditional Publishing Horror Stories?—Author Survey Results
By Dana Beth Weinberg, Digital Book World
I have heard numerous horror stories on the fiction front from authors who sold their books to publishers only to find they had lost control of content, were cursed with ugly covers that doomed any hope of sales, received very little assistance or support in the way of marketing and promotion, or learned that their publishers had little investment in their careers as writers and/or no interest in their future books. Such horror stories often seem pervasive, and they easily become rallying cries for self-publishing and the greater control it provides authors. Are these tales of dissatisfaction with traditional publishing notable exceptions, or are they the norm?
The traditional-publishing victims I’ve encountered typically report that they had been thrilled to receive their contracts and had accepted neglect or poor treatment or disadvantageous terms because they felt they had no choice. Indeed, before self-publishing became a viable option, few of them did. Worse, such experiences could harken the death spiral for an author’s career: no investment from the publisher could lead to sluggish sales which in turn could lead to poor chances of selling a subsequent title either to publishers or bookstores. Authors would be forced to abandon series or throw away their brands and try to reinvent themselves.
Cautionary tales capture our attention, and they tend to get repeated and even embellished. In other posts, I reported survey results showing a preference for traditional publishing among authors. I also found that authors had expectations for several advantages of traditional publishing relative to self-publishing. With so many authors positively disposed toward traditional publishing, perhaps these horror stories are very visible and heartbreaking exceptions, a disappointing conclusion to the struggle to break into the traditionally published ranks.
Read more HERE.
She compared how happy authors were with royalties, editorial help, copies sold, and so on across three publishing platforms: traditional, self-published and hybrid (a combination of the two).
Are the horror stories about traditional publishers true? Her conclusion was a resounding "meh."
I have a few comments to make about this survey. The first is that people are more reluctant to give negative answers on surveys than positive ones. This means that every survey will be slanted towards positive responses.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the majority of books that are traditionally published don't make back their advances.
What this means is that publishers don't put a lot of time or energy promoting books by authors who aren't already celebrities. The reason they don't bother is that they would rather invest their resources in promoting cash cows. With hundreds of authors, and thousands of titles on their lists, this makes sense for large houses.
The other thing to keep in mind is that authors who are "cursed with ugly covers ... receive very little assistance or support in the way of marketing and promotion, or learned that their publishers had little investment in their careers as writers and/or no interest in their future books" is not a horror story - it is the reality of the publishing world, and thinking otherwise is delusional.
Just to give you some perspective, here are a couple of real horror stories:
You sign a contract with a major publisher, only to have is scrapped when the house goes through an organizational shake-up. You can't find another publisher. (That happened to a friend of mine.)
You submit your manuscript, and your editor wants you to take out any word longer than two syllables, shift the POV, change the title, and delete half the chapters. (That happened to me, as did having an editor insert the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence into one of my short stories.) Your baby is butchered.
While traditional publishing is not all it's cracked up to be (it really isn't), believing that self-publishing is the road to the Land of Milk and Honey is delusional as well.
Those who find themselves dissatisfied with self-publishing have to ask themselves some hard questions. Have I spent several hours a day marketing and promoting my work? Have I researched the market to find out how I can reach my audience, or have I assumed that simply "putting it out there" is enough? Did I expect instant fame and fortune?
Let's be realistic. No matter how you publish - whether you have taken the traditional route, or done it yourself - great expectations must be matched by a great amount of work. There is no substitute.
___________________________________
How Common Are Traditional Publishing Horror Stories?—Author Survey Results
By Dana Beth Weinberg, Digital Book World
I have heard numerous horror stories on the fiction front from authors who sold their books to publishers only to find they had lost control of content, were cursed with ugly covers that doomed any hope of sales, received very little assistance or support in the way of marketing and promotion, or learned that their publishers had little investment in their careers as writers and/or no interest in their future books. Such horror stories often seem pervasive, and they easily become rallying cries for self-publishing and the greater control it provides authors. Are these tales of dissatisfaction with traditional publishing notable exceptions, or are they the norm?
The traditional-publishing victims I’ve encountered typically report that they had been thrilled to receive their contracts and had accepted neglect or poor treatment or disadvantageous terms because they felt they had no choice. Indeed, before self-publishing became a viable option, few of them did. Worse, such experiences could harken the death spiral for an author’s career: no investment from the publisher could lead to sluggish sales which in turn could lead to poor chances of selling a subsequent title either to publishers or bookstores. Authors would be forced to abandon series or throw away their brands and try to reinvent themselves.
Cautionary tales capture our attention, and they tend to get repeated and even embellished. In other posts, I reported survey results showing a preference for traditional publishing among authors. I also found that authors had expectations for several advantages of traditional publishing relative to self-publishing. With so many authors positively disposed toward traditional publishing, perhaps these horror stories are very visible and heartbreaking exceptions, a disappointing conclusion to the struggle to break into the traditionally published ranks.
Read more HERE.
RSS Feed