Fugly Covers

I talked awhile back about how friends don't let friends use ugly book covers, because at least then, oftentimes, the author has some control over what the cover will look like. I even showed an example here of where I commissioned a cover which was hideous and promptly made the decision never to show anyone (which I eventually broke because I wanted to prove that I do as I say). But what about when you're just a contributor to an anthology or journal? Obviously you have no say whatsoever on what the cover will be. We get in that position, at one time or another, where we have a story accepted and we get really excited and we wait months and months for the anthology or journal to be released, and then the cover is announced and it is ... not-so-great. No, not-so-great doesn't even begin to describe what's wrong with the cover. Simply put, it's fugly (a term I haven't heard used in awhile and which I want to bring back into the mainstream). And what, then, are you the author supposed to do? Well there really isn't much you can do unless you want to piss the editor off and try to withdraw the story (and if the anthology or journal is already published, then you're SOL). This is why I think it would be great if editors posted the cover art way in advance, so writers know what they're getting into when they submit. Otherwise they go in blindly and could end up with a fugly cover (sure, sometimes the covers can be great, too). Except, you know, that will never happen. But still, wouldn't it be nice and save many of us a lot of time and effort? (Where is this post coming from? I recently saw a very fugly cover to an anthology I had actually submitted to. I was rejected, thankfully, because had I been accepted it would have pained me to announce the anthology's release here on this site. I mean, seriously, I feel like a dodged a bullet on that one, folks.)

On a completely unrelated note, anyone else think this movie is a complete rip-off of Kick Ass?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcURFb7XE4

Let Them Eat Cake

Every so often I'll get an e-mail from a writer asking how they too can get their book featured on NPR or reviewed by The New Yorker or The Los Angeles Times or some other equivalent. And every time I respond the same way: have your book traditionally published. It won't guarentee that it'll be featured on NPR or reviewed by The New Yorker, but the book has a much better shot than if it's being self-published. This answer is always met with disappointment, because all the writers who e-mail me asking these questions are self-publishing their books.

I've talked before about the pros and cons of self-publishing vs. traditional publishing, and having your work featured on the radio or reviewed by major magazines is one of the pros of going with a traditional publisher (and here I guess we could have a debate on what constitutes a traditional publisher, because it doesn't just mean the Major Six, but right now let's not worry about that, okay?). They have PR departments whose job is to get your book in the right hands at the right places. That's not so much the case when you do it on your own. Sure, there's always the chance NPR might feature a self-published book or a self-published book might be reviewed in a major magazine, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

It isn't some wild conspiracy either; this is just the way it is. It seems many writers think that major publishers are doing everything they can to destroy them. These writers are constantly playing the blame game. Because no major publisher wanted their book and so they self-published it but it's not selling and so someone has to be at fault, right?

The truth is that even if their book was published by a major publisher, there's no guarantee that it would sell either. I've always found that reasoning faulty, just like with authors whose books did not sell well with traditional publishers and they managed to get their rights back and are doing very well self-publishing the books themselves. They think: I should have done it this way in the first place!

Again, faulty reasoning.

Publishing is such a fickle business. Nobody really knows what sells and why it sells and how long it will sell. That's why when there's a huge success with a particular book (let's use Twilight as an example) the rest of the publishers rush to try to find books similiar so they can ride the wave for as long as they can. But then eventually that wave will die down and it will be another craze and those authors who worked on books similar to Twilight will be screwed.

Recently the New York Times began including e-books on their bestseller list. Some self-published writers have complained that the list isn't accurate, because so-and-so is selling extremely well on Amazon and blah blah blah. Again, this isn't a conspiracy of any kind, but to seriously think that the Times is going to consider a self-published book that's doing well on Amazon is pretty naive.

This all comes down to these authors having their proverbial cake and wanting to eat it too (hence the title of this post). You can't have both. It's that simple. If you want to go and do it yourself for a really high royalty, then you forfeit many important things such as professional editing and cover design and the distribution into bookstores and publicists who will get your book to the right people. If you want to go with a traditional publisher, you'll get most of that, but there are no guarantees you'll end up on NPR or reviewed by The New Yorker, and your book might not sell that well and of the few copies that do sell you'll get a very small royalty ...

You've heard of Amanda Hocking, right? Of course you have. She's one of those indie writers doing extremely well with her e-books. In fact, she's making more money in one month with her e-books than most of us will make our entire lives. Personally, I have no interest in her work, but that's because I'm just not a fan of paranormal romance. I have nothing against her at all and wish her the best of success. I did, however, read a blog post of hers she did at the beginning of the month where she talks about her recent success and how she's really no one special but just someone who worked her butt off and got lucky. The tone and message was the complete opposite of some other hyperbole you see on various blogs, the ones that are prophesying the end of publishing. It really made me respect the girl and what she's doing, because here she is making a shit load of money but is still levelheaded about the business and warning writers that self-publishing is not always the best option.

And I guess that's my main point here: sometimes self-publishing isn't the best option, just as sometimes traditional publishing isn't the best option. It all really depends on your book and what it is you want. But you have to always remember that when you make a decision, you're most likely giving up certain things. That's just the way it is. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Besides, it's probably not even gluten free.

P.S. Anyone still interested in seeing an early copy of The Calling to read and review, shoot me an e-mail at robert (at) robertswartwood (dot) com. Also, I'm pretty well filled up on the mini blog tour but have a few open dates, so if you'd like to host me, shoot me an e-mail as well.

Priorities

Last week I sat down to write a blog post titled "The Day In The Life Of A Self-Published E-Book Writer." The entire thing was going to be made up of time stamps and how through the day the writer checks his sales, posts links on Twitter and Facebook, participates in twenty different message boards, and so on and so forth until the day ends. A lot of promotion gets done, yes, but what's missing? Any actual writing. In the end I deleted it. Why? Not really sure. Maybe because I felt my time was better spent trolling message boards (kidding!). In a perfect world, a writer would, well, write. But this isn't a perfect world, and most writers oftentimes find themselves becoming door-to-door salesmen. We learn that no matter what we write and how good it is, ultimately we need readers. And how do we find those readers? Why, by going to them, of course!

There's a quid pro quo happening with e-books that I find very disturbing. Basically, Writer A has a new e-book. Writer B says oh cool, I'll buy your e-book ... with the understanding that you'll buy my e-book too. And hey, most self-published e-books are inexpensive, so what's the harm? So Writer B purchases Writer A's e-book, and vice versa. But then Writer C comes along and says hey, I have a new e-book too. Writers A and B say oh cool, we'll buy your e-book ...

Well, you get the idea.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Not if you acknowledge upfront that these aren't "true" sales -- "true" sales being from actual readers who have never heard of you before and are interested solely in reading a good book and not trying to get you to buy their book too. But the reality is that most writers write for other writers. Sure, there are some actual readers thrown into the mix, but unless you're hitting the New York Times bestseller list, your book is usually the one readers trip over to get to the new Nora Roberts.

What does this mean for today's modern writer? Even if you publish your book with a major publisher, there are expectations that you will help in the promotion of the book. Sure, your book will be sent to major review outlets, the publisher might put a few ads out online if you're lucky, but the day of the 6-city book tours are over for most of us. The mini Hint Fiction tour last November? Norton set those up for me, but the travel and other expenses came out of my pocket.

In the end, what should a writer's priority be? Again, in a perfect world it would be writing, but this isn't a perfect world, and if nobody is reading your stuff -- readers and writers alike -- then what is the point of writing in the first place? Yes, you can give me the usual BS about how you must write, how you need to write, how even if nobody ever read a word of your work again you would continue to write until the day you die, and that's all fine and good, but you have to be honest with yourself: being read by others is what we want. Yes, we write for ourselves (write what we like) but we also want others to like our work too. Does this mean we need to spend hours on message boards every day? Does this mean we need to constantly link to our latest e-book on Twitter and Facebook even though our friends and followers never change? Does this mean we should commit some violent crime and wear a tee-shirt with the cover of our e-book on it so when the police take us away and the press snaps our photo, people will see our tee-shirt with the cover of our e-book and think: Hmm, maybe I need to check out that e-book?

In the end, you need to do what works best for you. For some it's nagging at readers until they're worn down and buy whatever book comes out because they don't want to deal with it anymore. For others it might simply be a small announcement on Twitter or Facebook and nothing more. Maybe sales are great. Maybe they suck. Maybe they're so-so. This isn't a perfect world, no, but we should always be reminded of our priorities and that, as writers, our number one priority should always be to write. Nothing more, nothing less.

On Frustration

Okay, I'll admit it: I'm frustrated.

This shouldn't be surprising -- a lot of writers are sharing my frustration recently -- but this is my blog so I figure I should tell you how I'm feeling. I'm cynical by nature and always expect the worse but there's still a small part of me that is always hoping for the best. The part of me that kept writing novel after novel, that eventually signed with an agent, that eventually left that agent and then eventually signed with a new one. That part of me that didn't let the continuous rejections get me down, knowing that each novel was good but just wasn't right for the publishers for various reasons. Always so close until the day the whole Hint Fiction thing happened and I sort of found a secret backdoor into the publishing world. Hell, I wasn't going to say no, so I stepped inside, thinking that this was it, that the next book was definitely going to sell this time.

And, who knows, maybe it will. My agent is currently reading the revision on a new thriller, and he tells me he's liking it. Which means that in the next few weeks, if all goes well, he will be taking it out to publishers. And my feelings toward this? I'm not totally sure. Every day that passes I feel less and less comfortable with the idea of signing all the rights to a novel away. Because before, what was the main thing publishers offered? A way to get into bookstores, to reach readers. But bookstores -- at least the major chains -- are fading away (publishers are even looking elsewhere to try to sell books). And even if they weren't, the average shelf-life of a book is, what, two months? After that the only way readers can find your work is by ordering it from, say, Amazon. And of course they can always buy the e-book version (like from, say, Amazon), which would earn me, by industry standards, only 25% royalties ... and that's not after everyone (like the agent) takes their share.

I've never been opposed to self-publishing; I just didn't see it as a viable option. After all, the main thing -- distribution -- just wasn't there. But now it is.

I've been with two agents who have shopped two novels each -- novels that, in one way or another, received very kind words from editors. One editor at Doubleday said she loved the book ... but just didn't feel it was right for the line. And so on and so forth.

Such is life.

The response from each agent after the novels had made their rounds was always the same: We can always revisit them later once you get a book deal.

But at this point, I figure, why wait? I know the books are good enough. And right now they're doing nothing more than collecting dust on my hard drive, so ... again, why wait?

What's so frustrating is I feel like I've finally made it to the threshold of publishing, right to the place I've always wanted to be ... but it's starting to slip away. The entire business model is shifting right before my eyes. It's a good time and a bad time to be a writer, depending on your point of view. Does this mean I have forsaken traditional publishing? Well, there's a funny story to that.

Last fall I applied to three MFA programs. I only applied to three because the two I really wanted to attend didn't require GREs and I had just assumed -- yes, yes, I know the saying -- that all creative writing MFAs didn't require GREs. Boy how I was wrong. But anyway, I applied and have just been waiting and waiting until today when I received a phone call from one of the schools telling me I have been accepted into the program and that they would like to consider me for a TA position. Next week I interview for the position, and hopefully all will go well. Long story short, if I do continue with a program and eventually graduate with a MFA in creative writing and I want to teach writing at a university, it's in my best interest to be published by a major publisher. Sure, I have the Hint Fiction anthology under my belt, but an actual novel is more ideal. Thing is, though, it's making more and more sense not to publish with a major publisher.

See my frustration?

Am I against possibly selling my work to major publishers? Not completely. I'll let my agent go out with this new book and we'll see what's what. Maybe there will be an incredible jaw-dropping offer. Maybe there will be a small insulting offer. Maybe there will be no offer at all. So for now I'm keeping my cynical fingers crossed and hoping for the best. But I'm also taking charge in a few different ways, like releasing those novels that I've been sitting on for years with the idea of "revisiting them later." I've already released four e-books -- the most recent Spooky Nook in case you didn't know (plus *cough cough* there's a contest) -- and the next one, a full-fledged novel, is soon on its way. In fact, here's the finalized cover.

Bad Publicity, O'Nan, Price Point

By now I'm sure you saw or heard about the article published by The Stanford Daily about how a study proved that bad publicity may boost book sales. Here are some bits from the article:

The overall study consisted of three mini-studies. The first study involved the examination of a 2001-2003 dataset of weekly national sales for 244 fiction titles reviewed by The New York Times. By measuring the size of sale spikes in the week following the release of each book review, the study showed two main points: positive publicity benefited all titles and the bad publicity only helped lesser-known and obscure authors.

So that first study examined books that came out nearly a decade ago. This was all before the "e-book revolution," but does that really mean anything? Probably not.

The second study looked at the effects bad publicity had in well-known and obscure books over time. Some subjects looked at glowing and negative reviews for a well-known book by John Grisham and reviews for an obscure, made-up title.

Subjects who read negative reviews of well-known books were less likely to buy the book. Negative reviews of unknown books, however, did not affect whether or not the subject was likely to purchase it.

In the end, what does this mean for you and me and our next door neighbor? Probably nothing at all, but it's still pretty interesting.

*  *  *

Stewart O'Nan has a new novel coming out next month called Emily, Alone, which is a sequel to his 2003 novel Wish You Were Here. Publishers Weekly gave it a starred review. I'm very much looking forward to it, and you should be too, but in the meantime, check out this recent interview with the author via Writers At Cornell:

Stewart O'Nan

*  *  *

For the two or three of you who haven't heard yet about Joe Konrath's latest e-book experiment, he took one of his books that was priced at $2.99 and lowered the price to 99 cents. And, as you can imagine, there was an increase:

At $2.99, I was earning $2.03 per download. And I was selling an average of 43 ebooks a day.

At 99 cents, I only earn 35 cents per download. I'm now averaging 205 sales a day.

At $2.99, I made $87 a day.

At 99 cents, I'm making $71 a day.

But in the last few days, The List has been selling stronger, averaging about 250 sales a day. If it can hold that number, or do even better, that's $87 a day--matching what it made at $2.99.

This is curious. At first glance, it seems like price and profit have found an equilibrium.

But there are obvious certain benefits to the 99 cent price point. Because it is now higher on the bestseller lists, it is seen more often. And 99 cents is more of an impulse purchase.

I like this book, and so do readers, and it's logical that the more people I get to read it, the more potential fans I'll make, and those fans will probably so and buy my other, more expensive ebooks.

What I've done here is the equivalent of putting turkey on sale for 19 cents a pound at the grocery store. The sale brings people in, then they buy other items that aren't on sale.

He isn't the only one finding that the 99 cent price point has helped boost sales. Jeremy Brooks recently lowered the e-book price of his novel Amity to 99 cents, and he saw his sales improve drastically (at least, that's how I read into his most recent tweets). Z. Constance Frost told me her sales weren't doing so hot at $2.99, and has since lowered No Shelter to 99 cents, but this, she said, was literally just yesterday, so it's impossible yet to see whether this will help.

And then of course you have writers who aren't selling hardly anything, even when their e-books are priced at 99 cents. Why? It's impossible to say. But I will admit the 99 cent price point is a great impulse buy, just like Konrath says. Bantam's been doing some smart promotion for Lisa Gardner's new book Love You More -- they priced her novel Alone at just 99 cents and included a sneak preview of her upcoming book. Alone quickly shot up Amazon's e-book Top 100. Since then the price has gone up to $2.99, but even still it's currently ranked at #1. I will admit, I was one of the ones who bought the book when it was 99 cents. Will I read it? Maybe. But at that price, it was a no-brainer.

(SHAMELESS PROMOTION ALERT)

Speaking of 99 cent e-books, have you checked out the Spooky Nook Giveaway Contest yet?