I spent a good portion of my lunch hour reading about Amanda Hocking’s self-publishing success story. It’s an interesting story, although I doubt it represents the seismic shift in the publishing world that many of the commenters would like to think. I tend to agree with the commenter who argued that Hocking’s success comes down primarily to genre (the very popular and — arguably — less discriminating young adult paranormal romance), cover design (clean, simple, and likely cheaply produced without looking too cheap), and price point (extremely low). That she appears to sell considerably better in the Kindle store (where there’s an ostensibly limitless electronic print run and lower prices) is perhaps telling.
Hocking’s writing, from the little I’ve glanced at it, seems passable enough — unrefined and of the sort I think I’ve rejected often from Kaleidotrope, often confusing physical description with character development and so forth. But she doesn’t seem like a terrible writer, and in interviews does seem to suggest she understands the need for an editor.
If anything, what her story calls into question is the need for a publisher. It’s early days yet, but if you can reach this level of success outside the mainstream presses, why wouldn’t you? I cringe at the idea of more self-edited (or unedited) fiction clogging the market — and I think success stories like Hocking’s will grow rarer as that market gets more crowded — but more books that traditional publishers are perhaps scared to take a risk on? More variety in the marketplace? I think that can only be a good thing.
In the past, what a traditional publisher had to offer you was professional editing; professional production, layout, and bookbinding; and detailed, in-depth marketing. I think the first of those is always going to be a necessity — and not just because I’m an editor. If a book published through Amazon.com is indistinguishable in (physical) quality from its competition — and I’ve never bought one, so I don’t know if it is — then I think the second of those two is going to be moot. And finally, if, as Hocking seems to have demonstrated, you can reach a wide audience without traditional marketing behind your books, with just Amazon’s visibility behind you…well, traditional publishing probably should be wary.
I think the questions are: will self-publishing authors still pay for substantial editing, proofing, and revision? Will Amazon continue to pay such substantial royalties to authors as more of them follow Hocking’s route? Will as many readers continue to pay as the market gets more crowded, low price point or not? And are the products being produced by Amazon (hard copy and e-book) high-quality enough that they don’t just look vanity press cheapies?
Me, I have no idea. Frankly, I don’t think anybody has any idea exactly how e-books — much less what they mean for self-publishing and individual sales — will change the publishing market. Yet everybody has a theory.
It seems like e-books have been on the cusp of changing everything as we know it for quite a while now.
…and I think that’s where they’ll stay. The self-published jobbies are either abysmal or buried so deeply in teh internets that they’re hard to find. Though I only glanced through the article, it sounds like she’s done some aggressive marketing, and I think that’s surely been to her credit, and probably has a lot to do with her success.
But there’s always going to be a need for editing and a publisher’s discretionary advice about how to make a good book a book that sells.
There are a few independent publishing success stories, but access to market and promotion is still more than one individual can handle — at least in the mass market level.
Marketing has always been a big stumbling block for self-publishing. It just isn’t there, or it’s incredibly difficult to manage, or it’s considerably more expensive up-front than whatever percentage of future royalties the author might give to a traditional publisher. With highly visible, well-trafficked sites like Amazon and Lulu acting now as self-publishing platforms, I’m not sure that’s as much the case. Would a traditional publisher, even if they’d picked up her novels, have been able to get Hocking any better marketing than she’s got on her own? Would they have offered her much of anything beyond getting her book sold on Amazon?
I think clearly editors are still needed in the process — and preferably good, decently paid editors, too. Sturgeon’s Law about 99% of everything being crap isn’t false, so we should be endeavoring to publish less of what isn’t in that other 1%. But the question increasingly becomes: are the other elements of publishing — the gate-keeping, the production layout, and the marketing — as necessary? Or are e-books — and moreover Amazon — really changing things?
Or, as I think is more likely the case, is this more a blip? As more writers follow Hocking’s route, it will likely become increasingly difficult to have the same success. And then, if to have any real success at all, you’re going to need to pay for editing and marketing anyway, out of your own pocket, is what Amazon’s offering really such a great deal?
And that’s leaving aside the very real possibility that those (relatively) high 70% author royalties from Amazon aren’t guaranteed to stay that high indefinitely.