It varies widely. Suffice it to say that a bestseller in trade publishing would probably need to sell closer to 10,000 (or even 100,000, in some cases) copies a month for the first few months, rather than 1,000.
Also, if you're putting King and Patterson and Rowling at the high end, which they certainly are, you should also consider that these indie eBook authors are still outliers. The vast majority of self-published books sell fewer than 50 copies.
It's depressingly difficult to be a successful author regardless of the path you choose. The difficulty of finding a publisher has simply been supplanted by the difficulty of finding an audience.
This doesn't even make sense. Are you calling her an "exception?" If so, you should be saying "exceptions prove rules," the rule being "you can't succeed without a label."
Otherwise, I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
That's a lovely nostalgia fallacy. There are plenty of modern games with depth, and there are plenty of horrible, shitty games made in the Days of Yore. There are also plenty of recent well-received space-sim games.
Oh please. This is bullshit. Luck plays a gigantic factor in both cases. It is not easy to be successful writing, it's just not. There are no guarantees no matter which path you choose.
Re: Which is why I headed my post 'Soundbyte Failure'
Great video. I think a lot of people underestimate how much work goes into producing something like this. Even if you're not making a "physical artifact," preparing a manuscript for electronic publication -- and doing so professionally -- is not insignificant.
"That being said, for how long will we need editors? Google's new editing software in google docs will consider context, e.g., "Can we meat for dinner?" will throw an error."
Are you serious? When we get to the point that computers can understand natural language, we'll have a lot more relevant issues than whether publishers should still exist.
(and a good counterexample, Google Docs considers "all right" to be an error).
"writers won't submit their book to a publisher in the hopes that they pick it to publish, instead, writers will hire one or more people to fill the roles they need filled, and, well, press "Publish"."
And that might be a salient point, but it's not the one the article made. In that scenario, the writer has just become the publisher. It doesn't make the publisher's job any less necessary.
He acknowledged it incorrectly by claiming a publisher is something which it is not. Writers go to publishers for marketing, editing, etc. That's what a publisher is. To claim anything else is simply redefining terms.
And everything a publisher offers is still highly relevant. Marketing. Editing. Art. A writer can do that himself, and that's fine, but that just means the writer has become the publisher. And a lot of writers have no interest in being publishers.
But Mike's the one playing in semantics here. "Publishers aren't required anymore, if we define publishing to mean everything other than marketing, editing, art commission, etc. You know, all the things a publisher actually does."
He's redefined "publisher" to mean something it doesn't mean, and then claimed that non-existent entity isn't necessary anymore.
I agree with everything except "stand some chance of being seen." I've seen no evidence that self-publishers now are any more successful than they were in the print days -- most self-published books still sell less than 50 copies. I agree it's less of an investment now, so it's not like you lose a whole lot when you fail. But again, pretending like just creating makes you successful is provably false.
On the post: The Indie Ebook Scene Is Growing: Here's Over 170 Authors Who've Sold More Than 50,000 Copies
Re: Math
Also, if you're putting King and Patterson and Rowling at the high end, which they certainly are, you should also consider that these indie eBook authors are still outliers. The vast majority of self-published books sell fewer than 50 copies.
It's depressingly difficult to be a successful author regardless of the path you choose. The difficulty of finding a publisher has simply been supplanted by the difficulty of finding an audience.
On the post: Regina Spektor: I'm Lucky That People Can Get All My Music For Free
Re:
She's actually more mainstream than Amanda Palmer or Jonathan Coulton, who are discussed all the time here.
On the post: The Ridiculous Hoops Mad Men Had To Jump Through To Use Part Of A Beatles Song
Re: Re: Two Questions
On the post: How A Free Movie Made $1 Million In 14 Days
Re: But It's Still Pirate Money
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re:
This doesn't even make sense. Are you calling her an "exception?" If so, you should be saying "exceptions prove rules," the rule being "you can't succeed without a label."
Otherwise, I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
On the post: Hulu Puts Gun To Own Head: May Require Users To Show Proof Of Pay TV Subscription
Re: Re: As a Cable Cutter...
On the post: Video Game Developers Continue To Ignorantly Attack Used Game Sales
Re:
Citation needed. Every actual study I've seen of this proves the exact opposite.
On the post: Video Game Developers Continue To Ignorantly Attack Used Game Sales
Re:
On the post: Video Game Developers Continue To Ignorantly Attack Used Game Sales
Re: Re: Re: Simple solution
On the post: Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.
On the post: Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism
Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.
Oh Jesus, you make it sound so tempting.
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Which is why I headed my post 'Soundbyte Failure'
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: Re: This article is extraordinarily silly
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: This article is extraordinarily silly
Are you serious? When we get to the point that computers can understand natural language, we'll have a lot more relevant issues than whether publishers should still exist.
(and a good counterexample, Google Docs considers "all right" to be an error).
"writers won't submit their book to a publisher in the hopes that they pick it to publish, instead, writers will hire one or more people to fill the roles they need filled, and, well, press "Publish"."
And that might be a salient point, but it's not the one the article made. In that scenario, the writer has just become the publisher. It doesn't make the publisher's job any less necessary.
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: Re:
And everything a publisher offers is still highly relevant. Marketing. Editing. Art. A writer can do that himself, and that's fine, but that just means the writer has become the publisher. And a lot of writers have no interest in being publishers.
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: This article is extraordinarily silly
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's redefined "publisher" to mean something it doesn't mean, and then claimed that non-existent entity isn't necessary anymore.
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Real entry barriers have been destroyed.