For awhile, it seemed, the key words for selling over a million dollars’ worth of eBooks appeared to be “an author with” (insert name of publishing house here), such as “James Patterson, an author with the Hachette Book Group apparently sold over $2 million worth of eBooks in the last 11 months.”
Until, that is, a few authors like Amanda Hocking and J. A. Konrath demonstrated to the traditional-publishing realm that exceptions to the rule are not only growing in number, but are also astoundingly resilient to the ‘bad” economy. The line between self-published writers and The Others has blurred in the eyes of consumers that seem to buy traditionally-published books and indie books indiscriminately on sites such as the Kindle Store and Mobipocket. This particular phenomena is even more apparent on sites like FictionPress.com, where tens of thousands of free-fiction enthusiasts literally spend hours each day reading through hundreds of thousands of free titles… many of which would likely fall into editors’ waste-bins at most publishing houses. And yet, most of the stories posted on FP are perused, read and enjoyed… even given glowing reviews. These are the eBook readers of today, as well as the next generation of consumers.
Since 2006 I’ve haunted writers’ boards and publishing forums/groups—domestic and internationally based–picking the brains of writers, editors and publicists in the book/eBook industry. Only recently have the attitudes towards self-published writers begun to thaw a little, though this slightly-better-than-aloof attitude was probably provoked by panic at waning hardcover sales figures, and then again when eBook sales overtook those of paperbacks, the darling of the book industry. Sadly, instead of re-working their business practices to fit the market, many professionals in the once mammoth book industry seem to derive comfort from blaming indie writers for undermining their way of life, or holding meaningless online conferences/gripe sessions vaguely alluding to “change” and “transition”.
The relationship between indie writers and book professional doesn’t have to be so strained, however. A few editors I’ve come across on business websites like LinkedIN have begun to see the logic in moving away from the traditional mentality of book publishing, and offer freelance editing services at greatly-reduced prices that draw in the average indie/self-pub writer. Publicists have been even more willing to adapt, some accepting a mere percentage of the sale or a landing page ad in exchange for the once-expected initial fee. Some of these professionals post enthusiastically on group walls urging their fellows to do the same, citing that if their industry doesn’t wake up and “get with the program” then the gulf between professionally-produced eBooks and reasonably-priced (aka selling) eBooks may grow so wide that it cannot be bridged. With each press release from the Association of American Publishers these calls for change grow all the more justified.
Via Meredith Greene’s Greene Ink
Does this contributor REALLY think that copyeditors have a cushy nook in traditional publishing? That they must cut their prices to compete in the brave new e-world?
The big publishing houses have already fired most of their in-house copyeditors and proofreaders; the work is now done by freelancers or even outsourced overseas. Many of the big publishers and packagers are well-known for paying little and paying late.
Now anon contributor wants freelancers living paycheck to paycheck to lower their rates even further to cater to self-publishers? Does he/she/it think that authors can get first-class work for MacDonalds’ wages?
“The big publishing houses have already fired most of their in-house copyeditors and proofreaders”
That would lead me to think that there is a pool of unemployed in-house copy editors and proofreaders – which would lead me to believe that if they are unable to find work they would then be offering their services at a lower price. Am I missing something ?
Yes, you are missing something.
Demise of the in-house copyeditor has been ongoing for decades. This is not a problem caused by ebooks. It has more to do with the consolidation of the industry and corporate beancounters looking for ways to cut labor costs.
Freelancers should charge MORE than in-house employees, because they get no benefits (pension, sick pay, health benefits, temporary disability coverage) and because their workload is unpredictable and erratic. If they can’t make enough to cover their living expenses, they have to look for another job.
I don’t believe that there is a “pool” of desperate, unemployed editors and freelancers, willing to work for peanuts. What I see are: 1) the people who gave up and left; 2) the people who have found steady clients or a safe niche, such as developmental editing for ESL academics; 3) people who can’t find any other job in this recession, trying to break into the field, and discovering that they can’t live on what the big publishers, and many self-publishers, are willing to pay. Until these aspirants give up, they are willing to work for minimal wages.
This is not a state of things to be celebrated.
Freelancers ‘costing ‘ more only applies to the services they supply to a publisher being full time or freelance. Their cost to self publishers all depends on the level of demand vs supply of such editors. It will be interesting to see how it pans out as self publishing surges.
I don’t see any ‘celebration’ of people losing their jobs. But writers who are seeking freelance editors are entitled to welcome a drop in costs, if that happens.
Yes, it’s exciting to watch the drive for the bottom in the publishing industry, as quality in all facets (writing, editing, proofing) gets pushed out the door in the drive to offer content for the low, low price of US$0.99 for something the length of a novel.
Leaving popular fiction aside (since it’s not meant to last anyway), if anyone thinks that current developments in publishing offer anything positive for the continued generation of quality writing/literature–books that will still be read in 10 or 100 years–I’d seriously question their analytical abilities.
@Howard: You’re completely missing Zora’s point, I think. If your ‘freelance editors’ can’t make enough money on editing to survive – let alone live ‘comfortably’, for their chosen value of ‘comfortably’ – then there’s an excellent chance that they’ll leave the field entirely and get a job somewhere else.
People smart enough to be good editors are also smart enough to get jobs elsewhere.
What happens to your pool of exploitable cheap editing labor now?
Travis – I got Zora’s point, though moreso when he clarified his comment. My comment prior to his correction, stands. Your theory about people abandoning their career is arguable no doubt, though I wouldn’t be that smug about it ..
What smug? I’m speaking as someone who was in a very similar situation, as a freelance technical specialist in a niche development platform, who had to apply for many jobs outside my specialty before I got lucky and landed a job in my field (and who had to temporarily move 600 miles to get it). I think I speak from very relevant experience when I argue that if you aren’t getting offered payment enough to survive in your career, you WILL leave and work outside it if possible, rather than take sweatshop wages.
If anything, I think the shoe is on the other foot; I find the assumption that supply/demand will force people to work for a pittance to be smug, the underlying implication (deliberate or not) that they were being overpaid before to be offensively smug, and the apparent willingness to exploit people in economic distress to be despicable.
(Hopefully this won’t be a double-post, my previous posting attempt appears to have been eaten.)
What smug is that? I’m speaking as someone from a very similar experience; a technical specialist in a niche development platform, who indeed had to apply for many jobs outside my field until I got lucky and found work in my specialty. (And had to move 600 miles to take the contract.) I think I’m speaking from valid experience when I argue that if someone isn’t being offered enough to live on in their career, they’ll move outside it if at all possible, rather than take sweatshop wages.
If anything, I think the shoe’s on the other foot. I find the assumption that supply/demand will force people to work for a pittance to be smug, the underlying implication (deliberate or not) that said people were being overpaid before to be offensively smug, and the apparent willingness to exploit people in economic distress to be despicable.