I appreciate Mark and glad he's on the scene, but if he were good at predictions, Smashwords would be bigger than it is.
I suspect it was doomed from becoming a contender from the start. In 2008, who was starving for a good self-published book? Anyone? As it turned out, almost no one, which is why Smashwords didn't approach its wavering profitability until it began distributing to Apple, Amazon, and other retailers, ones which also sold traditionally published books.
Then his indie books began to sell, but not because they were self-published, or better or worse than traditionally published books. They began to sell because their books appeared alongside traditionally published and edited books and the general buying public didn't have a f*cking clue they were self-published. So when Coker mentions the "indie movement" I think he's full of pandering hot air, unless mimicking traditionally vetted and published books (recall Kboards mantra--"Cover! Title! Blurb!") is a movement.
His comments on author platforms are also misguided. Mark Dawson writes fine books, but I doubt he would have gotten anywhere in publishing if he hadn't been able to ad-spend his way up the rankings to sit alongside James Patterson, John le Carre, and Lee Child on the bestseller lists. The same goes for any of us. Six of my top ten AMS keywords are traditionally published authors. I
want my books to appear on their product pages. I want customers to think my book was vetted too and had earned the right to appear there. Today, Mark Dawson's success stands on his own, and he's the first one to tell you this is how he got where he is.
Unless already established with a healthy mailing list and ad budget, an indie's books are only found because the general public is looking for something else. I don't think there's any higher truth in self-publishing.
