Yup! Eisler understand the system exactly.
Eisler understands the system.
At the end of the day, I think it is a gamble. Can you sell enough books going the self-pub route that, even with higher commissions, you can surpass what a legacy publisher might pay you?
I think you also have to consider how much control over the entire process you want - or are capable of handling.
I guess my point is this - in addition to Konrath having a name before self-publishing, I'd suggest that Konrath and Eisler both have something that helps them tremendously - something not all of us share - a very real entrepreneurial spirit.
In self-publishing, if you want to make money, you truly are going into business for yourself.
You are exactly right, you are going into self-publishing you are going into business for yourself. But, being a writer you are doing the same thing too. What's different is the mind set most writers have (erroneous IMO) that writers don't have to worry about the business aspect of their careers. That they can relinquish that control to agents and editors and publishers and those people will look out for the author, have his/her best interest in mind. They don't. They have their own best interest in mind.
And while you are also right, Eisler and Konrath had names before, Amanda Hocking and John Locke did not, and they are doing quite well, as are many, many other "no-name" indie writers.
Self-publishing gives the control over all aspects of the work back to the author. I for one like that. Thanks for linking the great article. Good stuff.
Fatal Destiny - a Grace deHaviland Novel
Sorry about the missing "s".
Yes, I also like the control. I've been miserable all the years I've been writing for the major houses. They do not treat their authors well, and sometimes you don't get even get any respect or common courtesy. I'm too old to be reprimanded by a snip of a young editor for giving the cover artist suggestions. The disrespect, of course, comes from the fact that edotors compare their authors to the big money makers and are resentful for being saddled with a lesser earner. It also comes from the fact that the average author makes nothing beyond the puny advance. The terms are loaded in favor of the publisher.
All this changed when electronic publishing took off. E-rights were suddenly valuable, and authors looked at their old contracts and muttered curses. That's when they decided to keep those rights and discovered that it was easy to publish and that money was to be made. The activity also turned out a good deal more enjoyable because they had control and could set their prices and have the covers they wanted.
Whether it's better to be traditionally published or do it yourself depends on the offered advance. It had better be very large to cover those permanent e-rights.
One other item in favor of self-pub. The cover and the book trailer (if you use one) are the other two expressions of what the story is about. If you make your own, you control that as well.
This article,In the year of the ebook - 5 lessons from and for news organizations - is not about self publishing per se, it is more about newspapers using ebooks as a delivery mechanism.
However, I think it contains some good information. Thought it might be of interest to someone.
That was interesting, Clay. Thanks!
I think one of the key take aways for me was the statement: "Among the 18 e-books I reviewed, nine had a list price of $3 or less. These tended to be shorter books, or “singles,” and often were based on previously published content."
Epublishing gives your short stories greater life - they can be published individually or as a nice e-compilation.
I also think about novellas, which can be quite difficult to place anywhere, have a great opportunity in e-publishing.
Saw that, too, Clay. Encouraging, since I have a series of short stories based upon my time as a limo driver that are good stand-alone episodes, but would be hard to revise (or unnatural) for the novel form.