Live data from Hacker News

Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

genreality.net

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#21
post #18
post #8

I'm not too sympathetic, on account of the following: - Her figure of $24K is per book, and then she says (paraphrased) "well, if I were to write one book like this a year." Most authors producing mass-market paperbacks write somewhat more than one per year. The author in question appears to write several per year (looking at the Amazon listings) which probably gross a fairly similar amount. So, what's the meaning of…

You're not accounting for the fact that this is a book on the NYT bestseller list. She could write dozen of books over her lifetime and have only one make that list. So I'd quibble with "which probably gross a fairly similar amount." Criticizing the quality of the book doesn't seem entirely valid, because quality literature may sell far fewer copies. How many copies of his books did Pynchon (for example) sell?

It looks to me like she has written a number of books in this same "Darkyn" series over the past few years, several of which have peaked on the NYT bestseller list. Check her Amazon or B&N page.

Anyway, I agree that quality literature may, in reality, sell far fewer copies (although I'm sure that Pynchon has sold hundreds of thousands or millions) -- the reason I mentioned that was because one reasonable argument is this idea of fairness, where you could say, "it's not fair that someone producing something of this quality should be paid so little, so the system should be different." I would agree with that if Joyce Carol Oates was making $50,000 a year, but I think that in this case the market's valuation of this work matches or exceeds my personal sense of fairness.

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#22
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not accounting for the fact that this is a book on the NYT bestseller list. She could write dozen of books over her lifetime and have only one make that list. So I'd quibble with "which probably gross a fairly similar amount." Criticizing the quality of the book doesn't seem entirely valid, because quality literature may sell far fewer copies. How many copies of his books did Pynchon (for example) sell?

It looks to me like she has written a number of books in this same "Darkyn" series over the past few years, several of which have peaked on the NYT bestseller list. Check her Amazon or B&N page. Anyway, I agree that quality literature may, in reality, sell far fewer copies (although I'm sure that Pynchon has sold hundreds of thousands or millions) -- the reason I mentioned that was because one reasonable argument is…

I think it's better to take into account a book's longevity. If it is a classic in print 50 years and sells steadily, it could outsell a book in the NYT bestseller list, which might only sell that big for a year or even less.

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#23
post #19
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind, the issue is more to do with other people getting rich off the back of this authors work while the author gets hardly any thing. So the question is not the value of the book to society, but the percentage of the value the author should get versus everyone else in the stack.

well, I hope the ebooks will change this. With the costing of printing going away, you don't need a publisher anymore. The only thing you really still need to do is marketing.

Publishers with a good reputation will likely continue to act as a combination of editor and gatekeeper. Anyone can put something out now, but saying that it has been edited, approved, and possibly marketed by a major publisher will likely to carry some weight.

In fact, there is a possibility some publishers or indpendent editors functioning as publishers will begin to take that on as a primary role and become very selective in what they attach their name to.

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#24

I am not sure how this is true. Look at past serial writers and they all seem to be making a better living then $25,000 a year. Stephen King, John Grisham, Dean Koontz, Harry Potter lady, they all have done very well for themselves. Even making only $25000 on one book a year, if you have written 5-10 books the past 5 to 10 years, you have to be making money off those books as well... Especially if her advance is $50,…

"I am not sure how this is true. Look at past serial writers and they all seem to be making a better living then $25,000 a year."

Serial writing is practically dead. Short story rates have stayed constant in nominal terms for decades, soinflation has eaten them.

"Stephen King, John Grisham, Dean Koontz, Harry Potter lady, they all have done very well for themselves."

Those authors combined are less than 0.0001% of the professionally published novel writing population but I would be surprised if they took less than 5% of all US author royalty dollars. Very, very skewed distribution.

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#25
From the comments:

Thanks for sharing this. As a writer, I still don’t understand why we receive such a small pay check when the publisher reaps big profits. Yes, they take the chance, put up the money, and promote the book, but they would have nothing to sell if we didn’t write the book. Because of that, I’m self publishing my next book. I figure that I only need to sell 10% of what I would through a publisher to make more money than I would receive from them. With the internet and a modest fan base I think this is possible.

This is the correct mindset. Currently publishers take 90%+ of the revenue. They also take all the risk & also fund the unsuccessful publications. Authors are trading risk for stability at (what seem like) a high exchange rate. I don't believe that today & into the near future publishers really have such a monopoly over the distribution & promotion of books that no one else stands a chance of succeeding.

If the commenter is wrong & can't sell 5%-10% the number of books on his own, then the publishers are adding the value that they are getting paid for.

They could try to do what the publishers do. They could promote & sell direct to public online (I imagine >10% of all book sales are online, so if you can keep the number of online sales consistent while writing off brick & mortar entirely, you beat your goal). 1K true fans (or maybe 10k true fans) may be a viable approach. Maybe the author can do the direct to public thing & sell books at a fraction of normal retail price. I'd order a lot of books if they cost $3.

The problem with all this is obviously that the author then needs to be good at both writing & "publishing." For this to be scalable, there needs to be a wider structure that works for writers that are only good at writing. Then again, maybe that kind of structure exists and costs 90%+ of revenue.

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#26
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks to me like she has written a number of books in this same "Darkyn" series over the past few years, several of which have peaked on the NYT bestseller list. Check her Amazon or B&N page. Anyway, I agree that quality literature may, in reality, sell far fewer copies (although I'm sure that Pynchon has sold hundreds of thousands or millions) -- the reason I mentioned that was because one reasonable argument is…

I think it's better to take into account a book's longevity. If it is a classic in print 50 years and sells steadily, it could outsell a book in the NYT bestseller list, which might only sell that big for a year or even less.

Longevity, yes:

'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' a popular children's book has sold 29 million copies, and according to Newsweek, does $50 million in licensing deals a year. (yes, year)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189230

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#27
We have it ridiculously fortunate selling software/services relative to folks whose IP requires a physical embodiment. If you think the publisher is a waste of money from the perspective of the author, why not consider what retailers get out of the transaction? Like most retail products, books need to be keystoned to make money, which means 50%+ of the price you pay for the book gets absorbed by the point of sale.

This has truly perverse effects such as an affiliate for Amazon who generates one marginal sale of Bad Vampires And The Librarians Who Love Them getting just about as much as the author does out of the marginal sale. (I mock but I spent $50 this month on "urban fantasy" on my Kindle, so it is good natured mocking.)

My little brother is trying to break into writing. For authors below the tip-top, it requires endless participation in book signings, tours, and whatnot to build a fan base and, essentially, move books at retail scales. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, insane. Authors need to get savvier about marketing their books on the Internet, and disintermediating as many players as metahumanly possible.

(I've got high hopes for the Kindle bringing book readers kicking and screaming into the mainstream. Granted, at the moment it makes you about as dependent on Amazon and your publisher as you've always been. However, if it goes iPod and moves the core book buyers from buying paper to buying bits, then you could have alternate business models like "Thanks for buying Vampire Loves Sarcastic Female Mechanic last week. It is the first book in a planned series of seven. For only $49.99 you can buy a membership in the VLSFM fan club, which in addition to our exclusive newsletter gets you the next 6 books of the series -- each delivered a month before street date directly to your registered device. Be the envy of your friends!")

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#29
post #8

I'm not too sympathetic, on account of the following: - Her figure of $24K is per book, and then she says (paraphrased) "well, if I were to write one book like this a year." Most authors producing mass-market paperbacks write somewhat more than one per year. The author in question appears to write several per year (looking at the Amazon listings) which probably gross a fairly similar amount. So, what's the meaning of…

FTA:

> Speaking of comparisons, the publisher’s portion of sales on this book has grossed them around $453,839.68. I don’t have any hard figures on the publisher’s net, so I can’t give you the bottom line there. If I had to make a guess, I’d say they probably netted around $250K on this one.

Re: Revenue reality of a book on the New York Times best-seller list

#30
post #25

From the comments: Thanks for sharing this. As a writer, I still don’t understand why we receive such a small pay check when the publisher reaps big profits. Yes, they take the chance, put up the money, and promote the book, but they would have nothing to sell if we didn’t write the book. Because of that, I’m self publishing my next book. I figure that I only need to sell 10% of what I would through a publisher to ma…

Publishers are not just marketing machines, they also have editors. One of the dangers of self-publishing is not getting robust feedback from a good editor.
Post reply on HN