We all know that larger publishers spend tens of thousands of dollars launching a single title. Successful self-publishers spend far, far less.
Is this an indication that big publishers are doing something wrong? In general, no.
Will the successful self-publishers do better if they copy the big houses? Also generally not.
The apparent contradiction is actually easily resolved.
If your manuscript will never sell more than a moderately low number of copies, no matter what you do to it, that number will cap what you can invest in the book, and dictate that you distribute the book in the highest margin channels you can find.
If, on the other hand, the manuscript has “legs,” then investing more heavily in it, and distributing it in even low-margin channels, can make for a higher total profit, even at a lower profit per copy.
Let’s do an example, and you’ll see what I mean.
Suppose that you have a manuscript that could sell 5,000 copies as an ebook with a $500 cover image, a $300 copyedit, and a $4.99 price point, and a negligible number of copies POD. (You do the POD edition because it makes the ebook sell better, rather than to make money from its sales.)
Your revenue per sale is $3.50, for a total revenue of $17,500. You pay yourself as the author 25% of that as a royalty, $4,375, and your publishing work earns a contribution to profit and overhead of $12,325. Or, if you self-publish, you get to keep the $16,700.
Okay-ish, if you do enough of them, for a self-publishing author. Not good for a company with real overhead for rent, salaries, etc.
Now, suppose that if you can invest $30,000 in publishing the book with an offset run, investment in design, B2B marketing, etc, and you can sell 10,000 copies of the ebook at $7.99 per, and 10,000 copies in trade paperback, at $15.95 per copy.
Your revenues on the ebook will run $5.60 per, or $56,000. Your revenues on the print edition will run $7.66 per, or $76,600, for a total revenue of $132,600. After you pay the author his or her $14,000 for the ebook and $12,760 for the print edition (total royalties of $26,760), and recoup your $30,000 investment, your contribution to profit and overhead is $75,840.
It only works this way if you have the money to invest, if you can afford to lose all of it every so often (even the best publishers bet wrong with some regularity), and if the manuscript has the potential to appeal to that many readers. But if it does, and if your company and/or your author knows how to find those readers, then everyone benefits from the investment.
The author is getting almost $27k instead of almost $17k, has four times as many readers when it comes time to release the next book, and is probably doing a little less work. The publisher’s staff have (meager) paychecks for another few months, and the house chugs along just above the break-even point. Life is good.
Not every manuscript can be treated like this. In fact, most cannot. But that’s what acquisitions editors do — they decide which ones they can make work, and which they cannot.
Vampire Myths: The Ones We Simply Can’t Kill
Sunday, January 15th, 2012Do you have an authors’ or writers’ myth you’d love to kill? Ones that just keep going in defiance of all logic and reality? I have more than a few, and I’m collecting yours today, too!
Myth #1: The way to get published is to send your manuscript, in full, to a publisher or agent.
Why would they want your full manuscript before they ask for it? They have the instructions all over their sites, and all say to send queries or proposals. Many say that unsolicited manuscripts will be returned unopened. Believe them!
Myth #2: Editors will change your work until it sounds like them, not you.
Not if they’re any good, they won’t. The purpose of an editor is to help you figure out how your book can work better for the reader, while remaining true to your vision of it. That’s why one editor can have many very different, but excellent, authors on his or her list.
Myth #3: Editing is about fixing spelling and grammar.
That’s copyediting or maybe proofreading. Editing is about fixing the structure of the book, and the macro issues. Some of the small stuff may be caught along the way, but that’s not the point.
Myth #4: Big publishing is terrified of the self-publishing’s new modes, especially the e-book revolution.
Wish fulfillment, anyone? 99% of all manuscripts that float around are not worth publishing. They’re either so bad that it’s not worth trying to fix them, or they are good, but have a very limited market. So now, those manuscripts are going straight to ebook or being “POD published” (which is NOT the same as self-publishing with a POD printer). This is simply dumping the slush pile on an unsuspecting public, most of whom are showing the sterling good sense to buy elsewhere, or to do a pan review if they do accidentally purchase one.
Good stuff will sell, and be on the front pages of the on-line searches, and on bookstore shelves. And publishers still offer all the advantages that they always have. (Should this be another blog topic for later? Are you interested in this?)
I could keep going for a good long time, but I’ll give the rest of you a chance. What are your favorite myths? Skewer away!
Posted in Common Errors, For Authors, General Comments, Publishing Answers | 7 Comments »