Self-publishing is 42% of the fiction book market

"According to data gathering website Author Earnings, self-published novels now make up 42 per cent of the fiction book market, offered via distributors like Kindle, Kobo, and niche websites like Smashwords."

CBC News (Canada): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/self-publishing-gains-respect-sal...

Oh, they're using a bad source for their data...

Self-publishing or Indie Publishing is getting its fair share of the book market. Hugh Howey was a great example of a successful Indie author. As long as authors tell a good story and take the time to invest in the polishing of their book through editing and covers, the readers don't care if it came from a publisher. Readers want to read. They want to be entertained. Indie authors are giving readers what they want and without the delays that come from Traditional Publishing. Books land in waiting hands faster and that keeps them reading.

I'm not against Self Publishing. (Indie Publishing is a whole different ball game, as that is really the small publishers) Hugh Howey was a glitch, not the norm.

And a majority of self published I've experienced haven't polished, they've rushed. The time that traditional publishers take is to polish the book. And that time has shrunk due to the digital age. Email and digital files means books that used to take 3 years to come out now take a year and a half. The delays are in the hands that have to pass through it.

BUT - All that said, Author Earnings, at last check, was run by either a scam artist trying to get money from new authors, or by a disgruntled author. (Unless it's changed hands recently.) And yes, Hugh Howey is a disgruntled author. If you've ever talked to him...

I respectfully disagree with gilroy. The reality is that these newer print on demand books are really doing well; however, they may not be 42% and that is the part of the argument that leans gilroy's way. I spoke with a buyer at B and N and she showed me all of the books that are or were Print on Demand and/or self-published. There were 20 books about 10 feet from where we stood Just At the Moment we discussed it. She said it is come alive and going crazy. Is it 42%? I doubt it. Is it a rapidly swelling success-boom? I'd say it is. According a European publishing expert, and I can't find the article right now--at any one time 100 authors are selling 1000 books a month in Print-On-Demand (which is small-time self-publishing of course). He also said that at any one time, 200 have sold 50,000 copies that way. 50,000 copies!!! Polished or rushed; whatever. Sales are sales. Success is success. Some well-known authors are moving over to Print on Demand because YOU Set Your Own Profit Margin. In the same article, one publisher offered a Print on Demand author ten grand to sign with them and she said--"Oh yeah? Well, I made that yesterday."

So...I don't agree. Self-publishing is coming alive--all the way.

I respectfully disagree with gilroy. The reality is that these newer print on demand books are really doing well; however, they may not be 42% and that is the part of the argument that leans gilroy's way. I spoke with a buyer at B and N and she showed me all of the books that are or were Print on Demand and/or self-published. There were 20 books about 10 feet from where we stood Just At the Moment we discussed it. She said it is come alive and going crazy. Is it 42%? I doubt it. Is it a rapidly swelling success-boom? I'd say it is. According a European publishing expert, and I can't find the article right now--at any one time 100 authors are selling 1000 books a month in Print-On-Demand (which is small-time self-publishing of course). He also said that at any one time, 200 have sold 50,000 copies that way. 50,000 copies!!! Polished or rushed; whatever. Sales are sales. Success is success. Some well-known authors are moving over to Print on Demand because YOU Set Your Own Profit Margin. In the same article, one publisher offered a Print on Demand author ten grand to sign with them and she said--"Oh yeah? Well, I made that yesterday."

So...I don't agree. Self-publishing is coming alive--all the way.

All of and I mean ALL of the new big hit poets started this way. That's according to a B and N buyer I met. Three or four of those were New York Times Bestsellers.

Oh and there are lots of disgruntled writers/publishers/thinkers. Nietzsche was one too. That doesn't invalidate the credibility of their thoughts.

>5 ricardoreyes: You mention talking to a B&N buyer. Did you get a name and contact information we can follow up with? All of us?

And how many of those 100 authors selling 1000 books or 200 authors selling 50000 books are actually FREE giveaways to try to gain an audience? Also, please tell me you aren't relying on data from a 7 year old article.

Sorry, but if the book isn't polished, you're not going to do much beyond that first book.

>5 ricardoreyes:

"Print on demand" and "self-published" are two different things.

You are right. I am using them interchangeably because most Print on Demands are Self-publishings, in a manner of speaking. If you had a traditional publisher backing a writer, then that writer would probably not use Print on Demand. Hence, 90% equal terminology or more. But you are right.

That buyer didn't give me permission; and I am not dumb enough to give out a name without that. Here are several non Print on Demand but still self-publishing stories. I doubt they were what many would call: "Polished." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-h-balson/bestseller-success-storie_b_406457...

Free Giveaways, well I doubt very many. Who would give away 1000 copies a month? Did you read what you just said? What writer would give away 50000 copies? Again...?

Rupi Kaur, Faudet, RM Drake. All Self-published; all Print on Demands in the beginning. Many more followed. They ended up getting polished when they sold the books for the major publishing deals they Got AFTER Self-publishing with Print on Demand; I'm sure because publishing houses do that. But Kaur had sold 15000 copies by then on Print on Demand (you can look that up). I am an English teacher with 20 years of experience, they hire people like me to do polishing. So what? Polishing smolishing. Some are better than others. Some probably don't need it. Rupi Kaur didn't. Drake didn't. Faudet self-printed for two years, languishing in the desert then got his printed by, I believe, Simon and Schuster. I doubt Simon and Schuster said, "Oh hey, wait a minute, yours isn't polished. We're no longer interested." Give me a break. Yes editing is important. So what.

>12 ricardoreyes: And you'd be wrong. Quite a few authors will give away books for a month or two to make a name. And many people see the word free and snap it up. Some cozy mystery writers now give away the first book of a series to hook someone then sell the rest of the series.

The question is do YOU pay attention to the market? Or are you just spouting data others give you?

Editing is very important. How many books do people put down because of the multitude of grammar and spelling errors within the first five pages? Small publishers suffer when their editors fail. Self publishers even more so. But Print on Demand is NOT the same as Self Publishing. Because you can self publish without anything printed. POD is also used by some of these small publishing houses, as well as scam artists.

Your "success" stories are flashes in the dark. 1 in 1000000 that manage to hit at the right time with the right idea. Harry Potter was a flash in the dark. There is no magic formula that says this is the right way for everyone.

Also realize, these names you list. The book that got published by the big houses? It wasn't the book they'd already burned their first publishing rights on. What would be the point? The house could only put it out as a back list title. No, it would be their second book, or third, or whatever number it took to show enough audience that the publishing house would make back its money. Yes, they edit. But the other books would need that editing BEFORE they ever got the sales you are suggesting.

Please, just stop. You sound like a Hugh Howey disciple who doesn't know the market at all.

I read this thread with dwindling interest as it went along. The ray of hope is in the premise that if a book is deemed to be good, and polished enough, and an author keeps at it with subsequent writings, they just might be picked up by a traditional publisher one day. Then, that author needs to retain a stellar writing reputation and a darn good editor.
Once my anthology is published in Fall, I plan to return to the quiet life of random selection to anthologies others are producing. It has been quite a lesson for the learning since December, but one that was felt necessary by me.
david.russell