Author's Income Survey

[Bill Hiatt]

For example, the development of CPC marketing allowed Amazon to create the pay to play system we were all predicting, which not only turned Indie marketing upside down, it hammered profitability.

Before AMS (when did it start, BTW?), didn't indies just use paid promotional newsletters? My ROI using AMS is vastly superior to paid newsletters (aside from Bookbub). So wasn't it pay-to-play before AMS, at least to some degree?

As for tech and lifestyles, I've remarked before if you walked into the typical house of the 1930s, it wouldn't look much different from today's homes, aside from the computer, flat-TV, microwave, Echo dot, and smartphone (let's not speak of the frivolous tech like smart fridges or having Alexa turn the lights on. I really don't mind looking into the fridge or flicking a light switch on my own. But as you say, we're all different).

The KDP version of AMS started about the same time that KU did. I remember because I was about to go wide, and having two new advantages to Select (since AMS was originally limited to Select) stopped me.

I have no stats to prove this, just anecdotal evidence, but there seem to be a lot of people who feel that visibility was easier in the old days. Amazon seemed to generate more free visibility than is now the case. I can't prove that. I can support the idea that newsletter promos used to be way, way more effective. I can sign up for every promo in Ram's promo stacker that a particular book is eligible for, pay a lot of money, and end up getting about the same number of sales as I got from ENT in the old days--for far less. Conditions were very different a few years back. There were people who built careers on the strategic use of free days. There were others who dug their way to visibility with low ad expenditures but frequent releases (by the standards of the time). I don't know any one who can say that about the first one and just a few who can say it about the second one.

So even if Amazon isn't twisting the algorithms to favor AMS books, other alternatives to AMS are becoming less effective. The rising number of books has something to do with this. Sales that used to be enough to keep a book visible are no longer enough. Hence, the greater need for AMS.

[Bill Hiatt]

I'm not representative of overall market demand.

It doesn't matter.

If the subject is the author's income being affected by the future of tech, we probably shouldn't worry. What do we care how consumers read our books, as long as they read them? Or listen to them on audio? We still cash in.

And the market for print isn't going anywhere, though it's size will vary. We can now reach readers via ebooks, print books, and audio, whether via direct sales or via subscription models (KU). As the tech morphs, and it will, it will probably improve our delivery options, not hinder them.

The biggest concern now and for the foreseeable future is the dominance of a single platform for marketing our books. I can't believe a true competitor hasn't stepped up. I tried to find the Apple ebook store using my PC. When I finally got to it (after landing on several sites trying to sell me Mac products) I got sort of a f*ck you welcome for having arrived on a non-Apple product. And why don't they have an iPad labeled "iPad Reader"? Seems nuts.  I'm ranting a bit. Sorry. They could have been a contender.

Nothing says Apple isn't that interested in selling books more than the inability to use the iTunes store with a PC. It's such a totally irrational decision that it reaches an almost Amazonian level. People will doubtless say that Apple is trying push its hardware, and I agree, but if that were all that was going, why not cut off PC users from the whole iTunes store? I can still get music. I can still even get audiobooks. I just can't get ebooks. Does that any sense at all?

[Bill Hiatt]

"All of those other people" is a pretty broad generalization. I don't want to belabor the points I made above, but everyone isn't moving in the same direction. And vinyl, as I said, is coming back, albeit on a small scale. It's increasingly popular for bands to produce limited edition vinyl for some of their releases. People are often nostalgic. This is the same phenomenon that leads to the proliferation of 1950s-style diners.

At its most general level, your point is sound--things will change. But the ways in which they will change may be different from what we think. There is tendency to assume that whatever the hot new technology is will become dominant, but that doesn't always happen.

The rise of the flip phone empire requires people to really, really love small screens. I don't see that happening. People do use phones and will use phones for convenience on the run. But given a choice between a decent-sized screen and a phone, who's going to watch a movie on a phone?

When laserdisk players were new, everyone thought they'd become dominant. Can you even get one now? Or remember back when OS2 was going to crush Windows?

All of those other people are the market at large. Sure, it's old people, but it's also the people who listen to Cardi B, think yoga pants are business casual and man-buns are, well…manly. I'm not really talking about hot new tech, just tech in general, and that it is going to be disruptive; we can only speculate as to how. But folding phones, for example, have tablet-sized displays, and the functionality of a pretty powerful laptop. That's a game changer for mobile entertainment.

You've mentioned watching movies on phones before. Personally, I don't see how anyone can watch a movie on anything less than a 65 inch HD display with, at minimum, a semi-audiophile sound system to go with it - but, not only is that just me, I'm way way way in the minority. Many people, much to my horror, listen to their television's factory speakers. Factory speakers! And they're perfectly okay with it!!! Talk about gauche. And a sound bar isn't all that much better in my book. I could go on and on about crap audio and the fall of western society, but I think you get my point.

While I'm clearly representative of a certain niche, I'm not representative of overall market demand.

As for the down-through-the-ages-power-per-dollar-per-headache-you've-got-to-be-sh*tting-me-what-do-you-mean-I-don't-have-enough-RAM-I-just bought-this-f*cking-thing computer discussion, I can't even.

 

Part of my problem is that cell phones are one of the few tech innovations I haven't embraced very fast. I wasn't even aware of phones with tablet-sized screens.

How people use tech varies a lot, at least based on the people I know. Lifestyles and how tech fits into those lifestyles isn't a monolithic thing. It will be interesting to see how that works out in the future.

[Bill Hiatt]

how do the majority of us become hybrids?

I know Rosalind James was solicited by Amazon's Montlake imprint (or whatever it's called), and she now goes both ways (unless she's changed her ways). Whether that presents a true hybrid situation I'm not sure (does Montlake distribute beyond Amazon?).

I doubt the hybrid path is one for most indies, suspecting a vetting process involves a hard look at the existing sales and staying power of the author's shelf. I don't hear a lot about traditional publishers hooking up with indies, but we know it sure happens (wasn't this the case with Andy Weir?). So, my guess is there are only two ways to becoming a hybrid author--you solicit a publisher, or the publisher solicits you.

I'm happy to continue self-publishing, but would not be adverse to being solicited to write a manuscript for a trad publisher, partly for security reasons, but also due to vanity.

I missed this response earlier.

I would say a hybrid author is one who published both through a trad publisher and as an indie. Amazon imprints are trad publishers, so yes, Rosalind James would be a hybrid.

And yes, that happened with Andy Weir, and there are other examples. They just aren't very frequent relative to overall population of indies. Neither are invites from Amazon imprints. There is a pathway for indies to become hybrids, but not a statistically likely one.

[Lynn]

If the subject is the author's income being affected by the future of tech, we probably shouldn't worry. What do we care how consumers read our books, as long as they read them? Or listen to them on audio? We still cash in.

There is an aspect of income vs or via new tech that probably should interest us all and that's how we tailor our writing for that tech.  Eg, b/c I know many people read ebooks on smartphones, I try to write shorter paragraphs and shorter dialog.  That can result in more paras and more conversation.  But (I think) it eases the reader's reading task.  Do you all find the need to do things like  that?

Well, I don't write for the phone, and I guess that's because I've already been reading on my phone for years (since the days of my little Palm Centro! and talk about a small screen...) and I haven't ever found it difficult to read longer paragraphs just because it's phone vs. paperback or computer.

In fact, I was a hold out on ebooks until phones and the like came around. I do not read fiction willingly on the computer. :D

Give me a phone any day. I love reading on my phone. Perfect size for my small hands, doesn't weigh as much as a tablet, and is far far less bulky than paperbacks or hardcovers.

[Jeff Tanyard]

There is an aspect of income vs or via new tech that probably should interest us all and that's how we tailor our writing for that tech.  Eg, b/c I know many people read ebooks on smartphones, I try to write shorter paragraphs and shorter dialog.  That can result in more paras and more conversation.  But (I think) it eases the reader's reading task.  Do you all find the need to do things like  that?

I don't alter my writing style in that way, but I do try to keep my file formatting as simple as possible.  I want the file to display correctly across as many devices as is practicable.

[twicebitten]

So, my guess is there are only two ways to becoming a hybrid author--you solicit a publisher, or the publisher solicits you.

I'm happy to continue self-publishing, but would not be adverse to being solicited to write a manuscript for a trad publisher, partly for security reasons, but also due to vanity.

I've been solicited, and in the case of audio, said yes (I knew I'd never get around to self-publishing audio) and have never regretted it. Some months, it doubles my income. But I've been solicited by publishers, crunched the numbers, and it would have been beyond stupid of me to say yes. I've turned down two legit agencies as well. If you run the numbers, it isn't to your advantage in most cases. Amazon imprints might be, as they advertise their authors and keep them visible. (which is why the playing field is no longer level and part of why visibility is such a challenge for us.)  But anyway, my point is, vanity/ego shouldn't override a cold, hard, accountant-y look at the numbers. For the most part, trade publishing loses a FT writer money, and they only make the offers to people making decent FT income in the first place.

Basically a solicitation from a publisher or agent is saying, "Hey, we see you're making good money. We'd like most of it." The only sane response to that is "Eff yew." Politely, of course. Or you can do what they do to writers and just not answer the emails.

[alhawke]

I always love these figures:
"Bowker reports more than 1,000,000 books were published in the U.S. in 2017 (up from 300,000 in 2009)"

We're like little amoebas swimming around the ocean with signs that say "read me". Or rats getting shocked for small pieces of cheese. Or gamblers sitting before an AMS slot machine sticking in quarters. Like here's one: "I just got a book promotion and sold twenty books! On my way to Amazon bestseller list!" Any of you done that before? I have.

But as a self publisher I can bring out anything I want without some bigwig from the Big 5 saying "I just don't think your material is good enough." There's freedom there, and that's cool.

I write because I love it. Maybe I have a screw loose or something, I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for the post. 

[Bill Hiatt]

I always love these figures:
"Bowker reports more than 1,000,000 books were published in the U.S. in 2017 (up from 300,000 in 2009)"

We're like little amoebas swimming around the ocean with signs that say "read me". Or rats getting shocked for small pieces of cheese. Or gamblers sitting before an AMS slot machine sticking in quarters. Like here's one: "I just got a book promotion and sold twenty books! On my way to Amazon bestseller list!" Any of you done that before? I have.

But as a self publisher I can bring out anything I want without some bigwig from the Big 5 saying "I just don't think your material is good enough." There's freedom there, and that's cool.

I write because I love it. Maybe I have a screw loose or something, I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for the post. 

I have the same screw loose.

As someone said upthread, most writers have never made huge amounts of money, and in all but a few cases, writing hasn't been their only source of income. For a little while, self-publishing gave the illusion that it could be otherwise.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't try to make a living at it. But, as I used to tell my students, "Follow your dream--but always have a plan b."

[Simon Haynes]

I don't expect any of my novels to sell up a storm, but they don't have to. After all, a lot of small trickles add up to Niagara Falls.

[Bill Hiatt]

I don't expect any of my novels to sell up a storm, but they don't have to. After all, a lot of small trickles add up to Niagara Falls.

Actually, that seems to be a common formula for those indies that are successful: robust backlist rather than singular blockbuster. It can take a long time to have enough viable titles to get to that point, and not everyone has the patience for it, but a number of the people who've said they were making a living seem to follow that general pattern.

[Simon Haynes]

I don't expect any of my novels to sell up a storm, but they don't have to. After all, a lot of small trickles add up to Niagara Falls.

Actually, that seems to be a common formula for those indies that are successful: robust backlist rather than singular blockbuster. It can take a long time to have enough viable titles to get to that point, and not everyone has the patience for it, but a number of the people who've said they were making a living seem to follow that general pattern.

It's the same for trad-pubbed midlist authors too, I suspect.

[Bill Hiatt]

I don't expect any of my novels to sell up a storm, but they don't have to. After all, a lot of small trickles add up to Niagara Falls.

Actually, that seems to be a common formula for those indies that are successful: robust backlist rather than singular blockbuster. It can take a long time to have enough viable titles to get to that point, and not everyone has the patience for it, but a number of the people who've said they were making a living seem to follow that general pattern.

It's the same for trad-pubbed midlist authors too, I suspect.

That would make sense, though in general they can't be a rapid release pattern, so building up a backlist takes more time. It's also probably trickier because they're somewhat dependent on the publisher for promotion. I've known people whose backlist was mostly gathering dust on the digital shelves. They got their rights back, self published, and immediately starting making more sales than they had before. So a hybrid midlister could probably do better than a trad pubbed one.