One of my biggest beefs with all the alarmism and loud voices shouting about this and that and the other thing relating to the changes in the publishing industry is the lack of available, actual data.
In one corner you’ve got Joe Konrath and his henchman spreading the specious claim that you too can make a six-figure income in digital self-publishing. (In three easy steps, I’m sure. Step 1: Write. Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit.) Their cheerleading efforts for the new world order of disintermediated publishing always bothers me because the big names on this side of the fence are largely pro writers who previously were published in the traditional model, benefited from the marketing efforts of traditional publishers, developed a platform and capitalized on that publicity, and now are making more by eschewing those publishers and going it alone. Well yeah you’re doing fine self-pubbing. You have a built-in audience. Congratulations.
I mean, sure, it’s an astute business decision to dump publishers when the numbers are more favorable if you self-publish. When you’ve got a branded author name, that’s a strategic decision you can afford to make. But for an unpublished and undiscovered author, this a whole different ballgame.
And then along comes Amanda Hocking. And now we’ve got living proof, tangible evidence that an unknown really can make it big. Only wait, now that Hocking is doing fine with the digital self-pub regime, she switches sides and takes a traditional deal. And then John Locke, he of the first digital self-pubbed author to cross the million-sales on Kindle threshold. Last I heard he was sticking with his Kindle platform. No traditional deal for him, no thank you.
But these are what we call statistical outliers. We get those in the traditional publishing industry, too. J.K. Rowling? Stephanie Meyer? Outliers happen. There should be a big fat “Your Mileage May Vary” label on this bill-of-sale. Because it will vary. A lot.
And then you’ve got the other corner, filled mostly with traditionally published authors and their teams who are quite happy with their current deals. They’re usually those that are making a living. They recognize the value that traditional publishers bring to the table, and how that value has filtered to their own bottom lines. A lot of them don’t like the new paradigm of digital self-pubbing. It threatens their comfortable status quo, and challenges the long-standing industry prejudice against self-published work. It’s not a stance wholly without merit, but it does seem to ignore the reality of the changes that are occurring in the industry – whether they like those changes or not.
Neither side has often been terribly keen in referring to actual, objective, and verifiable data. But you do have a few gems: a few good souls who, like me, believe in good data.
So, all that said I’ve been keenly interested when those good souls share their data so the rest of us can see, and judge for ourselves. In that vein, I thought I’d share some data recently made available by a digitally self-pubbed speculative fiction (sci fi, specifically) author by name of Ken McConnell on a year’s worth of his digital sales. Link here. (And a small update here.)
You can compare and contrast that with data like the sort provided by Tobias S. Buckell (here and here) and Jim C. Hines (here and here).
The upshot? While Ken’s figures aren’t magically phenomenal or anything, they help provide a clear view that cuts through the clutter of marketing hype.
Another Digital Self-published author posts her speculative-fiction sales numbers: http://overactive.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/one-year-of-indie-publishing/