What is your advice on budgeting for self publishing?

[bardsandsages]

If you have a good command of the English language, and your grammar isn't atrocious, you don't need to shell out hundreds of dollars for editing. And proofreading you can either do by yourself by reading your work aloud, or have someone you know read it over for you.

Two Points:

One, this assumes that people are good judges of their own abilities. I've found this is not the case. I can assure you, as an editor that reads HUNDREDS of submissions a month, far too many authors do not have a good grasp of the basic mechanics. Having a command of the English language, so to speak, for purposes of speaking is not the same as having a good grasp of mechanics for purposes of writing.

Two, this assumes people aren't blind to their own work. I AM an editor, but I won't proof my own stuff. Because I know I will read what I MEANT and not what I actually WROTE. Now I can proof my own stuff if I sit on it for a couple of months and come back to it with fresh eyes, because that distance allows me to read my work as if I was reading someone else's stuff. But for the OMG I HAZ TO PUBLISH NOW crowd that wants to hit the publish button as soon as they are done? Not gonna work.

[bardsandsages]

On the subject of budgeting in general, I usually set up all my projects to recover my expenses in 90 days. That is my break even point. Now after 15 years of doing this, I have a fairly good idea of how many copies I will sell in that 90 day window. But a lot of new authors do NOT have realistic expectations of what they will sell. They tend to be fixated on the "success stories" and don't understand that the "success stories" are actually few and far between. If you look for information on the average number of sales for self-published books, you will generally find a range of anywhere from 250 to a thousand (that isn't per month sales, BTW, that is over the lifetime of the book). Now to be clear, trade books aren't doing that much better. The average trade book sells below 5000 copies in its lifetime.

Now people will argue that those figures aren't accurate because...reasons.  And without Amazon releasing a firm "we sold X total books in 2018 between Y number of authors" it is impossible to get a firm number. But after fifteen years self-publishing, everything I have ever seen from every report from every source doesn't put the average much beyond those numbers.

Of course, we are talking averages which means that some people sell nothing and others sell a million copies and everyone will say "you just have to believe and use this magic plan and blah blah blah."

I believe in being realistic. And it has kept me profitable all these years.

So when considering your budget, first consider your expected revenue. And be conservative. Planning for worst case scenario means that if the worst case happens, you are prepared. But if things go great, you are even more happy.

Let's say you expect to sell 500 copies this year, and you intend to price your novel at $2.99. And you intend to only sell at Amazon at 70%. So you have an expected revenue of $1,046 this year. But you want to make sure you recover your expenses in 90 days because you don't want to tie up your money for future projects. So you don't want to spend over $260 on production costs.

You can get a good pre-made cover for around $50.

If you are active in certain genre communities, you can find beta readers who will read the book for you and point out problem spots. Seek out the critics, not the cheerleaders. You don't need cheerleaders who won't want to "hurt your feelings." You need critics that are willing to be honest with you and say the things you don't want to hear. This is the biggest mistake authors make: they select beta readers from 'fans' who are too timid to be honest. Surround yourself with critics who are willing to be brutal. Then take everything all of the beta readers say and see if there is anything universal across all of them. Those are your problem spots.

Maybe you can't afford a professional editor or proofreader. But you probably have a college near where you live, filled with English majors who need money and would be happy to get a "publishing credit" and some cash in their pocket. This is how I got proofreaders when I first started. You are helping a college student get a "professional" credit for their future resume while putting some cash in their pocket.

[Lorri Moulton]

On the subject of budgeting in general, I usually set up all my projects to recover my expenses in 90 days. That is my break even point. Now after 15 years of doing this, I have a fairly good idea of how many copies I will sell in that 90 day window. But a lot of new authors do NOT have realistic expectations of what they will sell. They tend to be fixated on the "success stories" and don't understand that the "success stories" are actually few and far between. If you look for information on the average number of sales for self-published books, you will generally find a range of anywhere from 250 to a thousand (that isn't per month sales, BTW, that is over the lifetime of the book). Now to be clear, trade books aren't doing that much better. The average trade book sells below 5000 copies in its lifetime.

Now people will argue that those figures aren't accurate because...reasons.  And without Amazon releasing a firm "we sold X total books in 2018 between Y number of authors" it is impossible to get a firm number. But after fifteen years self-publishing, everything I have ever seen from every report from every source doesn't put the average much beyond those numbers.

Of course, we are talking averages which means that some people sell nothing and others sell a million copies and everyone will say "you just have to believe and use this magic plan and blah blah blah."

I believe in being realistic. And it has kept me profitable all these years.

So when considering your budget, first consider your expected revenue. And be conservative. Planning for worst case scenario means that if the worst case happens, you are prepared. But if things go great, you are even more happy.

Let's say you expect to sell 500 copies this year, and you intend to price your novel at $2.99. And you intend to only sell at Amazon at 70%. So you have an expected revenue of $1,046 this year. But you want to make sure you recover your expenses in 90 days because you don't want to tie up your money for future projects. So you don't want to spend over $260 on production costs.

You can get a good pre-made cover for around $50.

If you are active in certain genre communities, you can find beta readers who will read the book for you and point out problem spots. Seek out the critics, not the cheerleaders. You don't need cheerleaders who won't want to "hurt your feelings." You need critics that are willing to be honest with you and say the things you don't want to hear. This is the biggest mistake authors make: they select beta readers from 'fans' who are too timid to be honest. Surround yourself with critics who are willing to be brutal. Then take everything all of the beta readers say and see if there is anything universal across all of them. Those are your problem spots.

Maybe you can't afford a professional editor or proofreader. But you probably have a college near where you live, filled with English majors who need money and would be happy to get a "publishing credit" and some cash in their pocket. This is how I got proofreaders when I first started. You are helping a college student get a "professional" credit for their future resume while putting some cash in their pocket.

Really wonderful advice.  As usual. 

[Lorri Moulton]

Everyone has to decide if they want to go into debt over their business or not.  Some do and are willing to take the risk of investing a lot of money into every facet of their book and promoting it.  But...be prepared to never recoup that money.  All businesses are risky and this one is no different.

If you choose not to go into debt, then start small and do what you can. Keep writing, go back and edit again, improve your covers, build your library.  I know some authors say not to go back and just keep moving on to the next book.  I can see why that's important because it's easy to get fixated on every little detail and NOT move on.  However, it's also worth reminding ourselves that this work is 'out there' and unless we take it down...it continues to be a part of our library and often tied to our name(s). 

Just my two cents and that's about all I have to put into this business right now. It's not my first one and I know it would move along a lot faster with a good blast of income, but I don't have it right now.  So, write, write some more and keep learning.  That's my plan. 

[guest1038]

If you have a good command of the English language, and your grammar isn't atrocious, you don't need to shell out hundreds of dollars for editing. And proofreading you can either do by yourself by reading your work aloud, or have someone you know read it over for you.

Two Points:

One, this assumes that people are good judges of their own abilities. I've found this is not the case. I can assure you, as an editor that reads HUNDREDS of submissions a month, far too many authors do not have a good grasp of the basic mechanics.

If someone judges themselves as having good command of English and decent grammar, who's to say they're right or wrong? Based on whose criteria? The market will tell you if something you're doing isn't working.

But, there is no data to support the notion that one's 'good grasp' or lack thereof results in greater/fewer book sales and/or a higher/lower overall ROI. The reason why is because most if not all of the above is unknownable and unquantifiable.

And if that's the case then how can anyone state with any certainty that authors must pay a professional editor for the sake of viability and/or validity within the publishing market place?

Sure, you could collectively point to all the millions of sales and high ROI enjoyed by those who have paid for editing, but as I've already stated, how many - if any - of those sales, and what percentage - if any - of that ROI can you quantifiably attribute to the said payment(s) for said editing?

What would the opposite figures be? How many more/fewer books would an author sell with/without paid editing? How much greater/lesser would an author's overall ROI be with/without paid editing? That's just it. It's impossible to predict.

How often do consumers in the market place know how much, if at all, a given work has been professionally edited versus self-edited? How much or to what degree is this knowable?

And, if it's reasonably unknowable just as I assert, then how can anyone surmise in this context that it's rational to tell anyone that they "must" do "x" in order to achieve "y"?

Having a command of the English language, so to speak, for purposes of speaking is not the same as having a good grasp of mechanics for purposes of writing.

You may be objectively right (who's to say and based on what specific criteria?), but where is the data to suggest one's more frequent use of "speaking" type English (however that is defined) in their books results in fewer sales/lower overall ROI than those who more frequently use "writing" type English (however that is defined) in their books? This is another unquantifiable aspect and therefore, in my opinion, not an area where one could rationally or with any certainty tell someone else they ought to be spending money on professional editing.

Two, this assumes people aren't blind to their own work. I AM an editor, but I won't proof my own stuff. Because I know I will read what I MEANT and not what I actually WROTE. Now I can proof my own stuff if I sit on it for a couple of months and come back to it with fresh eyes, because that distance allows me to read my work as if I was reading someone else's stuff. But for the OMG I HAZ TO PUBLISH NOW crowd that wants to hit the publish button as soon as they are done? Not gonna work.

The market will let them know if it's working. If the market tells an author that something isn't working, and that author decides maybe a lack of professional editing is the issue, and that author came to me for advice, I would tell them by all means pay an editor if you think that's what's lacking or hurting your sales and your bottom line - but do not feel obligated, as though you "have to". You don't because I would say in this squishy context there is no "have to" because the objectivity needed to determine such a thing, in this area, does not exist. End of the day, it's your prerogative, your money, your career.

My judgment of their writing might be right, might be wrong, just as their own judgment could be either - just as a professional editors judgment could also be objectively right or wrong - but, that's the point. Who's to say when it comes to what works best for that author's budget, or what the end result would be in terms of sales and ROI?

This is why I bristle, especially, is at the notion that this paying an editor simply "must" be done by any/all/most. There's no objective calculation that can be performed to support this. We're talking about something amorphous and unknowable.

I think many authors enjoy healthy sales numbers and a high overall ROI without paying an editor, regardless of whatever the objective truth might be about their writing ability and/or their own ability to judge their own writing ability. The market's feedback is important here even if it isn't strictly definitive.

Of course, the opposite is also true. There are many authors who sell few books and/or have a low overall ROI strictly because they're not paying an editor and perhaps because their writing ability is a problem and/or their inability to judge their own abilities or lack thereof is hurting them. But, even if in a vacuum we could tell this was objectively the case, there's no way to definitively quantify that it is.

Yes, it is happening, but there's no way to determine to whom and to what degree that could lead anyone to concrete, actionable advice. The market's telling them this, sure, in as much as it can, but it's not doing so explicitly because of its unquantifiability - that is, the lack of direct correlation anyone can objectively elucidate between low sales/poor ROI and a lack of professional editing is a thing. That's what makes it all part of the author's amorphous trial and error of finding what works and what doesn't. It's a constant struggle everyone engages in to navigate this business's fog of war.

Which means that either of the scenarios above can be the reality or a given author's reality might be somewhere in the middle. But, again, it's that all/most of the above is unknowable or unmeasurable that leads me to why I do not think it correct to insist or automatically presume that any/all/most simply must pay for professional editing.

To me, it's too squishy and amorphous a thing to speak on with any level of certainty, and certainly not an area to which I would say one ought to automatically commit dollars.

I'm fairly conservative when it comes to money so, I'm leery about spending in areas where quantifiability is a problem. Geez, did I pick the wrong industry or what? 

But, it explains why I'm reticent to sign on to advice that says anyone else ought to commit money to something that I see as being part and parcel with the fog. To me, I'm not certain that's sound.

That said, if you have plenty of disposable income, and you think you need professional editing - go for it - your judgment is your judgment. If you think that it will eliminate one checkbox on your list of trial and error items, go with God. However, I don't think anyone ought to feel obligated to pay for editing from the outset, and I think many authors can succeed without the paid version of it, but in the end it's up to you and you alone regardless what anyone else says.

[LilyBLily]

The basic problem with ignoring what isn't quantifiable is that there are quantifiable consequences. If you don't get experienced editorial eyes on your writing at all, the market won't tell you what's wrong. Several years ago, readers would post reviews excoriating grammar and formatting. They seldom bother now. And those are the people who bought or borrowed your book. You hear nothing from the ones who passed it by. So your book fails, and you don't know why.

If you want to make a good impression on strangers, you commit to basic hygiene and clean clothes and so on. You should do the same with your writing. Do your due diligence, and that includes having someone else with an editorial eye weigh in. The purpose is to eliminate areas where your story isn't up to par. Claiming that there is no par anymore, that this is the wild west and no one cares about silly things like spelling, grammar, or even consistent POV or characterization, well, maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But it's not quantifiable, so why not make sure that isn't your problem? I'm betting that most indie authors are not selling as many books as they want to. How does it hurt them to get pointed feedback about what they've written? Statistics aren't the answer to every question.

[sandree]

I have been reading more indie books lately and I have been surprised by the typos, misspellings, incorrect usage of words and general poor writing in several of the books I picked up. I hope that readers are not believing that this is good writing though perhaps they don’t know or care. The reviews on these books were not bad. It seems to me that if you want to be a writer, you should really care about your craft and do whatever you need to do to get the best product out there that you can. It is disappointing.

I would compare it to the craft world. There are fine crafts and crafts that sell at the fire company. But whether you sell knitted scarves made of acrylic that sell for a few dollars or fine knitted scarves with expensive wools that sell at high end fairs - you can’t sell something with dropped stitches and holes in it.

[guest1038]

The basic problem with ignoring what isn't quantifiable is that there are quantifiable consequences. If you don't get experienced editorial eyes on your writing at all, the market won't tell you what's wrong. Several years ago, readers would post reviews excoriating grammar and formatting. They seldom bother now. And those are the people who bought or borrowed your book. You hear nothing from the ones who passed it by. So your book fails, and you don't know why.

If you want to make a good impression on strangers, you commit to basic hygiene and clean clothes and so on. You should do the same with your writing. Do your due diligence, and that includes having someone else with an editorial eye weigh in. The purpose is to eliminate areas where your story isn't up to par. Claiming that there is no par anymore, that this is the wild west and no one cares about silly things like spelling, grammar, or even consistent POV or characterization, well, maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But it's not quantifiable, so why not make sure that isn't your problem? I'm betting that most indie authors are not selling as many books as they want to. How does it hurt them to get pointed feedback about what they've written? Statistics aren't the answer to every question.

There's no way to tell if you're selling/not selling because you have paid an editor just as there's no way to tell you are selling/not selling because you did not.

Who's to say one cannot perform any requisite "due diligence" themselves?

And since we agree a lot of the above is not quantifiable, then how can anyone "make sure" it isn't a problem?

The only way you can make sure something is up to par is if you can quantify par. In order to do that you have to be able to measure it, and if you can't then how "sure" can you be that you're reaching it?

If everyone agreed that, in objective terms, to be healthy you needed to drink 80oz of water per day, and someone came to you holding a blank bottle and asked you how many of those worth of water they'd need to drink each day to get their 80 ounces, what's the first question you'd likely ask?

How many ounces does that bottle hold, right?

Because if you don't know how many ounces of water go into that bottle, then how can you advise that person how many of those bottles worth of water they'd have to drink per day to be healthy?

Same thing with paid editing. If you don't know how much or how little paid editing will help your writing/sales/ROI - OR - how much or how little it would harm your writing/sales/ROI...then how can you advise anyone that they ought to be committing dollars to it?

Point is, it's a guess, and I'm not comfortable committing money to a guess nor signing on to advice that says anyone else ought to either...

...to the greatest extent that I can prevent doing that in this rather amorphous business, that is.

[TimothyEllis]

Two, this assumes people aren't blind to their own work. I AM an editor, but I won't proof my own stuff. Because I know I will read what I MEANT and not what I actually WROTE. Now I can proof my own stuff if I sit on it for a couple of months and come back to it with fresh eyes, because that distance allows me to read my work as if I was reading someone else's stuff. But for the OMG I HAZ TO PUBLISH NOW crowd that wants to hit the publish button as soon as they are done? Not gonna work.

For you. And most first time authors.

For me, when I read the word document, I miss things. When I put it on my kindle app, all sorts of things stand out like dog's balls. And when it is on my kindle app, I read it as if it's someone else's book. And I can do that disconnect immediately. (Wasn't always the case, but now is automatic, and it has a lot to do with editing as I go.)

Editing is a skill which can be learned. And how you do your editing can make a big difference to how much of what is wrong is found.

I have to publish now. Its part of how I write. Get it done, get it edited, get it out there, and start the next one. Not getting it out now is why some people are still doing their first book 5 years after starting, and on their 5th or 10th rewrite. I dont rewrite. I tweak, keep throwing it to my kindle until I find almost nothing during a read, then get it out there. Sever connection and move on. My books get cleaner with each new one, and I dont get many goof reports anymore.

Yes, new authors must get editing done by a professional. No argument.

But it is a skill you can learn, especially if you make an effort to learn what mistakes you always make, and do a edit pass to correct all of these before doing anything else.

[Rose Andrews]

I have paid heavily for editing and STILL find mistakes in my work even after the manuscript has been put through several pairs of eyes and programs before the actual editing. One of my titles has "the typos are distracting" reviews and it was edited TWICE and then some. It's freaking impossible to catch every typo, every mistake, every missed word. I've given up on trying to be perfect and just do the best I can. If something stands out to me after the book has been published then of course I go back and fix it. Just saying that editors and proofreaders are humans, too. No book is perfect.

[PJ Post]

Yes, new authors must get editing done by a professional. No argument.

But it is a skill you can learn, especially if you make an effort to learn what mistakes you always make, and do a edit pass to correct all of these before doing anything else.

Yep. Grammarly catches more mistakes than actually exist, even the free version. So I run everything through that, considering each suggestion, if not for meaning than for clarity. It's easy to set up 'find' processes in Word: for homophones, crutch words (make a list) and echoes, as well as punctuation errors.

My final editing/pre-proofing stage is to run the text through a rather long series of these 'find' searches. I try not to use a thesaurus to resolve echoes and crutch words, and rewrite the passage altogether as to avoid the offending word completely. I just need to be careful not to introduce new errors in doing so. Once one knows what to look for, it's not that hard to set these searches up (seriously, keep a list). And only after this is done, rather exhaustively, do I get my betas to review it. It doesn't catch everything, but it still results in pretty clean copy.

[dgcasey]

I have paid heavily for editing and STILL find mistakes in my work even after the manuscript has been put through several pairs of eyes and programs before the actual editing. One of my titles has "the typos are distracting" reviews and it was edited TWICE and then some. It's freaking impossible to catch every typo, every mistake, every missed word. I've given up on trying to be perfect and just do the best I can. If something stands out to me after the book has been published then of course I go back and fix it. Just saying that editors and proofreaders are humans, too. No book is perfect.

I agree with you completely. I'm in the Chris Fox camp, where he says to give the text a couple of reads, checking for errors and then send it out. If you try to find every single error before it goes out, it will never go out.

[PJ Post]

I agree with you completely. I'm in the Chris Fox camp, where he says to give the text a couple of reads, checking for errors and then send it out. If you try to find every single error before it goes out, it will never go out.

I couldn't disagree more. This is a recipe for disaster for new writers. The average book published with this approach will almost certainly...be of substandard quality. And just because some readers will settle for substandard work doesn't mean we should make it a goal. Sure, some people can publish amazing books this way, but most can't - Jesus, most people couldn't publish a decent book even if you gave them a whole f*cking team of editors.

I think we should publish the best work we can, which includes what we can afford. Say what you want about traditional publishing, but prior to the current disruption, their books were pretty tight. We should aspire to nothing less.