e-books, upcoming and present

Given that no one (big publishers, little publishers, individuals, stray elephants) has really mastered the internet equivalent of paying for a big fat book dump at the checkout counter, or paying for end displays, or massive print and distribution strategies to put the book in front of buyers in ever bookstore, etc or any of the other way that publishing cheated and gamed the system (to readers, authors and indeed publishing's eventual loss) we're still in a situation where e- book buyers are looking 'other readers also bought' and where a pre-existing name/series and of course sheer volume of offerings count, I have decided that I have to stretch a little and get some more work out there.



At the moment we have THE GOTH SEX KITTEN, CRAWLSPACE AND OTHER STORIES and forthcoming from Naked Reader, WITHOUT A TRACE.



THE FORLORN is also OOP and out of contracted grant of rights - I've asked for my rights back, and will give it its original ending back - and a new cover. At the moment it is available - for free - from Baen Free Library. It will be fascinating to see how many people buy it.



A MANKIND WITCH also appears to be OOP and I've asked for those rights to revert too. At last I will get that book a cover it deserves. It's a part of a series, but as i am sole author, it's sucked hind teat and been allowed to go OOP.



And finally, I've had SAVE THE DRAGONS sitting at Baen for (mumble) many months now. Patience is not my strongest suite, so that will very shortly be going up too.

It's going to be interesting to see what (if any) impact 6 books(rather than 2 collections of shorts) have on visibility. Personally I am of the opinion these need to approach 20, and include some new novels, in series to be effective. I am thinking of a Rats Bats and Vats book, which will go directly to Kindle.

Interesting times. What do you guys think? How many books do you need out there? Are books (new) more effective than old material? And what do you want to see?

The best and worst of times.

The best of times, the worst of times...

There have been some fairly gloomy posts lately which may lead some of you to conclude we're a sour, miserable bunch of old bastiches.

Heh.

There are times when that is true for everyone, and real life intrudes onto the lives of authors too, believe it or not.

There is no getting away from it... we're in turbulent times. There is also no getting away from the fact that it's been steadily getting tougher and less likely that a book will win through just by being a great book that appeals to a lot of readers. The intermediates have gradually done away with pure reader selection, they've gobbled up the margins meaning book buyers pay more, and writers actually get even less. It's been getting harder and harder to get in and then harder to make a living as the bestseller budget gobbled most of the cash (which was very nice if you happened to chosen to be a ‘bestseller' and be pushed but sucked if you were the rest of us... And it didn't do the market any good either.)

On the other hand, this may be the best of times to arrive on the scene. Turbulence is a sign and time of changes. The last 10 years were the worst of times to get into writing... but that's pushed the equation toward where change simply has to happen (it will be argued by the various Uncle Tom's of the status quo, that more more books are being sold now, than hitherto. This gentlefolk is what is meant by lies, damned lies and statistics... 1) it has become easier to do very small press. You can even do it yourself. If you discount titles selling under 1000 copies you will I think discover that the drop in the number of titles is steady. If you discount titles selling under 40K - as the one time noob fiction genre paperback starting point... you will find that actually the drop has been precipitous. 2)It is convenient to these folk not to separate fiction out. Wonder why? 3)The only accurate way of assessing the health of the fiction industry would be proportionate. If in 1930 50% of the English speaking population could read and 50% possibly afford a book and the uptake was 25%... and 2010 90% of the now very very much larger English speaking population could read, 90% possibly afford a book and the uptake was 10%... Your final number of book sales might be larger.... but you have lost a vast amount of ground. And we have.)

So things are at a point where they have to start breaking. Yep, publishing as we know it will still be around maybe even for another ten years. Some companies much longer... but the world of books will be a very different place (for the better, we hope).

And then we added the internet and e-books (the two go hand-in-hand). Which wasn't just the last straw... it was enough to be a paradyme change on its own. As Kate wrote, the internet was alone enough to start the death of intermediates - with Amazon (and others) helping to speed/cause the collapse of the over 500 distributors (I think we're down to 4 ) which exacerbated the problems above and made life very hard for smaller publishers, and indies and sheltered big publishers and big box bookstores so they didn't have to start adapting. The other big effect is to reduce the value of ‘retail access' which, from a very long list that publishers in 1920 offered authors was one of the few things not eroded by technology and outsourcing. And then to this you added the e-book.

Now, in the realm of hard to pin-down figures... this one is very elusive. Charlie Stross on a list I belong to said that figure is supposed to be under 2% - although doubling every year. Another spot talked about 10%. And Sony reckons it'll be 50% in five years. Believe who ever you choose - the undenyable fact is the change is coming rapidly, and will have some substantial effect on....

Not the hardbacks they're trying to price them as...

But paperbacks.

Despite the price differential, hardbacks were really a bit of vanity once. Because cheap paperbacks outsold them a myriad times. Paperbacks and poplarity go together.

So where does this leave us? Remember I said this was the best and worst of times. It leaves us with a fighting chance to adapt and get with the new paradyme pretty quickly and cleverly. Which, may not seem such a bargain - no certainty, no safety. But hell, the way the status quo was going, it was getting harder and harder for new talent to emerge, and harder and harder for anyone but the chosen few to survive. The historical meritocracy of writing still existed but it was definitely getting tougher for the few to make their way up. It happened, though rarely without intervention. That was bad for everyone... except the people running the status quo and the chosen few. Now, for a while anyway, there is a chance in the shake-out to get a foothold. Carpe diem ( A carp a day, nothing like it).

There will be a bunch of new start-ups. There are going to a bunch of failures. Some of the major stakeholders now are like that chappie from penny-go-in are going to desperately fight the tide. Others, like Baen and Amazon will try and run in front of it and shape it and work with it. Some publishers will survive and thrive. Lots won't. The model is changing and we need to make sure it changes in a good way readers and writers and so that middlemen go back to serving both as as the best way to to well (instead of screwing both for their short term benefit).

This is a good time to be here. Some time back Charlie Stross was once again holding forth about what you needed to do to promote your books on the subject of blogging -- and someone asked the question - if bOing bOing started up today, in the sea of blogs... would it have succeeded? Maybe. But it would have been a lot harder work.

So: What do you see coming? And how do we best ride out the turbulence?

I see all sort of exciting new things. Changes in length is a biggy for me. How long will e-books be? And would you advance buy a series? (Not advance pay, but book a copy)

Sunday Wrap-up

What a strange couple of weeks it has been in publishing, whether you're a reader, a writer or work in the industry. The Kindle-Macmillan (now Kindle-Big 6) kerfluffle has dominated the news and rightly so. It has also become the third topic you don't talk about at the dinner table, especially if you have two or more writers, a reader and -- gasp -- a publisher present. Unfortunately, what folks from all sides seem to be overlooking is the fact that the Big 6's issue with Amazon selling e-books for $9.99 isn't really the central issue, imo. It's part of it, but not the real issue.

The real issue is control and the fall-out has been bad will toward the Big 6, Amazon and a bunch of writers who have been very vocal in their stand supporting their publisher -- understandable -- and badmouthing the reading public that they saw as feeling entitled and ungrateful - very bad. Even if you feel that way, you don't tell the folks who buy your books. It just makes them mad and buyers, when made mad, quit buying.

Let's look at the facts. To begin with, Amazon doesn't sell all e-books at $9.99. Never has and never will. Those books in question are the ones hitting the New York Times best seller's list. The same books that in their hardcover version are sold for $9.99, not only at Amazon but at Walmart, Target and a lot of other stores. Now, does anyone here not see a problem with the statement, paraphrased, that the $9.99 price for e-books devalues the hardcover book? Excuse me? How can it devalue the price when they are the same? Yet that's not something you see the supporters of the Big 6 and their new agency model addressing.

So the question becomes why. If Amazon is taking a hit on selling e-books for $9.99, you know it is on hardcovers sold for that very same price. And yet Macmillan says it pushed for this new agency model even though it would make less money so Amazon can make more. Excuse me??? Somehow that just doesn't ring true.

Okay, before you guys start jumping all over me and telling me I'm missing the point here, I know I'm simplifying things. But Macmillan isn't acting out of the goodness of its heart. Nor is it acting in the best interest of its authors. If it was, it wouldn't have lowered their royalty payments a few months ago. And again, I know they say they are going to change this...but you notice the open letter didn't say how or when -- or by how much. IF, and this is a very big IF, the price increase really did go to to the author -- without whom we wouldn't have the book in the first place -- I might pay more for an e-book than I tend to now. However, not more than the paperback price and especially not the same, or more, than the hardcover.

Things to ask yourself about this issue and then I'm leaving it until there is new information:

• how often do you buy a hardcover book these days;
• when you do buy a hardcover, do you pay full-price for it, or do you purchase it at a discount or as a used book;
• if you are looking to buy a hardcover book, do you comparison shop;
• would you pay the same for a softcover book as you would for a hardcover of the same book;
• would you pay the same for an electronic version of the book than you do for the softcover? More? How about hardcover prices?
• if hardcover prices return to suggested retail prices and not discounted prices for best sellers, will you buy as many books?
• now, for the big question, has your purchase history of e-books had an impact on the number of hardcover books you've bought and will an increase in the price of e-books make you buy more hardcover books?

For me, I'll keep singing the praises of Baen Books and others who realize they can sell e-books, released on or BEFORE the hardcover/paperback version of the book for a discounted rate and not savage the dead tree version of the book. In fact, many times the sale of an e-book leads not only to the sale of a dead tree version of that same book but also sales of dead tree copies of other books by that same author.

On a non-Amazon v. The Big 6 topic, agent Janet Reid has a great breakdown on what you need before you query. She has it broken down between fiction, non-fic and memoir. Go take a look and tell me what you think. The only issues I take with her list -- which is geared toward her own agency -- are where she says you don't have to have a marketing strategy for a fiction query nor do you need to be able to compare/contrast your book to others. Unfortunately, too many agents -- and publishers -- are now asking for your marketing strategy right off the bat. It's the same with the question of what books is yours like and what makes it different. In fact, there are agency that require you to answer those two questions on their online submission forms right now. So, what's the answer? Research. Find out exactly what the agency you're querying wants and the best way to answer it.

Okay, guys, the floor is now yours. What do you think about all this?

There's a Storm Brewing

I'm a geek. That's one of the reasons why I was asked to join MGC. My morning routine -- after that first cup of coffee -- consists of checking email, saying a quick but heartfelt prayer to the gods of editors and agents that today will be the day of acceptance, and surfing writing-related blogs. These blogs are written by authors, agents, editors and -- gasp -- readers.

Over the few weeks, there's been a great deal of discussion about the RWA and its views on e-publishing. Okay, discussion might be too mild a term because emotions are running high and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, a little background and some links.

Sign number one that RWA, like so many in the publishing industry, looks upon e-publishing like the bastard step-child is the fact that there are no panels on the topic at the upcoming national convention. One of RWA's main goals is to educate its members and yet there is nothing on this rapidly expanding sector of publishing. As Kassia Krozer says in her May 29th post over at Romancing the Blog:

Where are the sessions on distribution, on royalties, on what digital publishing means? What are the differences between going digital only with a big house versus small? How do the deep discounts demanded by Amazon – especially in light of the fact that Kindle sales equal 35% of all sales for books available in both Kindle and print format – impact author compensation? What does the alphabet soup of formats mean to readers. DRM? Can it be less evil?

Then word came down that RWA had rejected a proposal from Angela James, Executive Editor for Samhain Publishing for just such a workshop. My understanding is that this workshop was turned down simply because it was proposed by Ms. James and Samhain. In the words of RWA president Diane Pershing:

Out of 400 workshop proposals this year, only two focused on digital publishing; one was deemed by the Workshop Committee to not be of the caliber needed, the other was by Deidre’s publisher, Samhain, which is not on the list of RWA Eligible Publishers (From RWA’s Policy and Procedure Manual, section 1.17. “Eligible Publisher” means a romance publisher that has verified to RWA in a form acceptable to RWA, that it: …..(3) provides advances of at least $1,000 for all books; and (4) pays all authors participating in an anthology an advance of at least $500). RWA policy prohibits a non-Eligible publisher from offering a workshop.

No discussion of whether or not the proposed workshop was "of the caliber needed". In fact, the implication is that it met, and probably exceeded, that particular requirement. No, it all comes down to the amount of the advance. If a publisher doesn't meet that magical number of $1,000 or more per author, they don't qualify and, therefore, can't present at RWA. Of course, RWA is more than happy for them to attend and give RWA their money. But, sorry Charlie, you can't push your wares because you don't treat everyone fairly.

This is where I put on my snarky hat, so bear with me. If your job is to protect your members and make sure they are all treated equally, then doesn't that mean you should require dead tree publishers to quit paying out those huge advances to their best sellers? Wouldn't it be more fair to take some of those five and six figure advances -- and more -- and give the new authors more advance money? Hey, you could even put some of it into promotion, right? And yes, I'm being snarky here but the point is made. Don't say you are doing it to make sure all your members are being treated fairly because it doesn't fly in the face of the industry today.

But this issue goes beyond letting Samhain present a panel on e-publishing. Somewhere (and I can't find the site right now and will look for it) it was noted that of the books presented for first publication RITA awards this year, something like 70% of them did not qualify because they were either PODs or ebooks. That alone should warn RWA that there is something flawed about their current perception of the industry.

Now, to give Ms. Pershing her due, she does seem to believe she is protecting RWA members: All digital publishers are not created equal. As recently as 2007, one start-up digital publisher filed for bankruptcy after acquiring the works of an estimated 154 RWA members, and in 2006, two individuals completely unknown to RWA set up a table near registration and started pitching their publishing company to RWA conference attendees. However, this again smacks of a lack of vision. After all, how many dead tree presses have gone out of business in that same period of time? How many imprints have ceased production, stranding who knows how many authors? No, if you are going to apply this standard to one sector of the industry, it should be applied to all.

Maybe I've been spoiled by my exposure to Baen and its view on e-books. But I think this position taken by RWA hurts not only the organization and its members but readers as well. And not just readers of Romance. RWA is the most visible, possibly even the most influential, of writers associations out there. As long as it takes this stance, it will be just one more cog in the old publishing model that prevents the industry from moving forward.

I highly recommend everyone go read Deidre Knight's post at ESPAN (Electronic and Small Press Authors' Network) on the issue. She writes more eloquently and with much more knowledge on the issue than do I. Especially telling, to me, is this:

RWA’s current stance on e-books is that a publisher must offer at least a $1,000 advance in order to qualify for legitimacy. Never mind that many digital authors far exceed that amount in royalties, or sell more than 5,000 copies of print editions of their e-published titles. The problem with RWA’s simplistic criteria is that it ignores one crucial fact. Our industry is changing radically, with traditional publishers seeking innovative models for overhauling their distribution and content.

The industry is changing. Technology is changing. Cell phones, iPhones, e-book readers, netbooks and so many others offer other ways of reading a book besides picking up a dead tree copy. I'm not advocating allowing anyone with a scanner and computer to become a "publisher". Nor am I knocking RWA for wanting to protect its members. What I am suggesting is that perhaps it is time to revisit the business model of publishing and adapt to the changing times.

What do you think?