I often check Joe Konrath's blog because he is a very smart and well-informed, albeit opinionated, blogger. About a month ago he provided a list of the many authors who are successfully self-publishing making his recurring case in favor of this option. Of course with me he was preaching to the choir, but I played devil's advocate and I asked him: don't you think the available data indicates that the majority of self-published writers will not be able to quit their day jobs and live of their writing alone? This was his reply.
"That's the wrong question to ask. The question is: how many writers prior to ebooks could quit their day jobs and live off their writing alone? Answer: not many. Out of the hundreds of writers I know, less than ten percent can make it without supplementary income. If I discount bestsellers, the number is much smaller--I just happen to know a lot of bestsellers. I'd wager that more writers can make more money self-pubbing than legacy-pubbing."
Although I will not take Joe up on this wager anytime soon, I don't think this question will be resolved effectively due to the multiple variables involved in the comparison. Nevertheless, I do believe there is a fundamental asymmetry in self-publishing compared to legacy publishing that tilts the scales in favor of the self-published writer. In legacy publishing you compete with other aspiring writers for acceptance by a publisher, and if they take you, then you compete against other published writers for readers: in other words, a double hurdle. However when you self-publish the first hurdle is gone, and you are left just with the task of reaching your readers.
What do you think?
"That's the wrong question to ask. The question is: how many writers prior to ebooks could quit their day jobs and live off their writing alone? Answer: not many. Out of the hundreds of writers I know, less than ten percent can make it without supplementary income. If I discount bestsellers, the number is much smaller--I just happen to know a lot of bestsellers. I'd wager that more writers can make more money self-pubbing than legacy-pubbing."
Although I will not take Joe up on this wager anytime soon, I don't think this question will be resolved effectively due to the multiple variables involved in the comparison. Nevertheless, I do believe there is a fundamental asymmetry in self-publishing compared to legacy publishing that tilts the scales in favor of the self-published writer. In legacy publishing you compete with other aspiring writers for acceptance by a publisher, and if they take you, then you compete against other published writers for readers: in other words, a double hurdle. However when you self-publish the first hurdle is gone, and you are left just with the task of reaching your readers.
What do you think?
RSS Feed
