Published doesn't mean paid | Hacker News Reader

Published doesn't mean paid

kristie-de-garis.ghost.io

54 pointsAnon8468 comments

The same dynamics play out in everything from YouTube to onlyfans. A very small group make tons of money and are very visible and the other 99% make no money but nobody notices them. And that’s slanted perception pulls in more people driving up supply

But yeah books seem particularly brutal. The vast majority of my books were acquired at just over a dollar. Amazon daily sales and lots of patience. Even the big names have discounts that deep. I’m glad to have them but that is pretty brutal economics

If I did a book for money (bad idea yes!) I'd try at least to self publish and make it a premium thing with upsells. Like the Total Typescript course.

Selling 100 for $50 (no mean feat but still modest) copies would probably beat any publisher earnings!

You could also get away with less perfect grammar etc. BYO editor or just edit yourself. The goal is to teach after all.

This is way some countries like Germany have fixed book prices. They set a minimum price that the book needs to be sold at.

This helps authors and also prevents smaller book shops from being out competed by price.

It is a pretty great system. Sure German books tend to be significantly more expensive than the English counter part but its not like I don't have already enough books in my pile of shame. And for those tight on money there is always libraries.

I don’t think that logic works well with digital goods. Because there is zero marginal cost, you always want more purchases even if the price is incredibly low.

And digital goods can be infinitely large. Conceivably the combined works of JK Rowling or Tolkien could be sold as a single unit. Therefore able to cut beneath a minimum price.

The zero marginal cost makes fixed prices even more important.

You production cost per unit is basically the cost of creating the book. The more units you sell, the lower the production cost per unit. So bestsellers make bank and are profitable even when sold at extremely low prices.

In comparison a book with a limited niche will need to sell at a way higher price to be profitable.

People will only buy a fixed amount of books. The idea is to give books of niche audiences a fighting chance.

> Conceivably the combined works of JK Rowling or Tolkien could be sold as a single unit.

Yes there is always pitfalls and loopholes to watch out for when defining such laws. I don't really see how this adds much to the discussion, as something like that would clearly violate the spirit and intention of the law. If it is legally possible it is because the law is implemented badly. Which could be but is another discussion.

> In comparison a book with a limited niche will need to sell at a way higher price to be profitable.

The internet brings a huge amount of people to even the smallest niches.

In porn, niche fetish content is pretty much the same price as vanilla stuff on onlyfans, clips4sale etc. There are a couple of exceptions, but when I think about it, they generally correlate to production cost rather than niche size.

I’m not sure what the author expected? I imagine the royalties and advance were agreed upon in advance, surely they could do the calculus then?

I think the fundamental issue is thinking that you can make a living writing a book for 2.5 years that only sells 500-2000 copies. At the upper end, if she got the full £10 per book for 2000 copies, that’s still not a livable wage…

Is the author just upset about the way the world works?

> Is the author just upset about the way the world works?

Yes. The author has chosen to work on something she loves, without regard to whether anyone will pay her to do it, and is complaining that no one will pay her to do it.

I did not read it as being upset. Drawing the public's attention to the economics of publishing and showing how to support an author you like is OK, no?

It is not that they didn't know the calculus. You seem to suggest that writing altogether is economically unviable, so the author should not have chosen to do that at all.

The issue is that certain talents are not recognized at all, and if you like reading, then buy the books outright, pre-order it, ask your library to get it. Basically, an effort to reward those who show up and contribute to a profession as noble as writing.

I’m not suggesting at all that the author should not have chosen to do it. No such judgement.

I’m simply interpreting the authors tone: it sounds to me frustrated and as if she feels she’s been wronged by “the system.” Maybe I simply misinterpreted the tone!

I didn't get that impression. I think she just wants the readers to not have a misconception of how much she's getting paid for the book they're (hopefully) enjoying.

I hear a lot of similar sentiments from musicians whose fans think they're making any money by touring or streaming. And they get the same advice I'm seeing in this thread: you can't just be a musician anymore, you have to also be a social media expert, marketer, bookkeeper, recording engineer…in other words all the stuff the music label / publisher used to do so you could focus on the actual artwork.

>... whose fans think they're making any money...

I am curious about this.

I might be alone, but very rarely do I think about what the authors I enjoy, or musicians I enjoy earn.

I am constantly, however, being exposed to what tailor swift earns. But I absolutely don't make myself belive that German niche Orchestras make comparable amounts.

Being a musician, author etc. Does not pay well. And nobody has ever told them elsewise, or is telling them elsewise.

It has really always been the case.

So it rings hollow when authors and musicians try to put awareness on their earnings.

> if you like reading, then buy the books outright, pre-order it, ask your library to get it.

I don't think the issue is that people are reading her book without buying it or requesting it at the library. The issue is that not enough people want to read it in the first place. That's just the way things work. Far more people want to write books than can be supported by the market.

You seem to suggest that writing altogether is economically unviable, so the author should not have chosen to do that at all.

Sort of, yes. Or at least don't do it expecting to be immediately financially successful. The same way that you shouldn't go into game development and then be outraged that you're not making as much as SAP consultants.

The issue is that certain talents are not recognized at all

It's more that there's tons of aspiring authors, and supply and demand is a thing.

I'm surprised that anyone can read this coldly factual post about volunteer work that benefits society and pays next to nothing ... and then somehow come up with an antagonistic response.

YMMV. But I never read about St. Francis, say, and thought to myself "Shut up already. What ever made you think the bird gig was going to pay off?"

EDIT: "Benefits society" in the aggregate. This particular woman may write utterly worthless books that benefit nobody. I don't know.

There are an estimated 4 million books published every year. Not all of them are "volunteer work that benefits society". I'm going to go ahead and assume it's a very, very tiny minority of them. Most writers (and certainly every single one I know) have nothing to contribute to society except their own vanity.

I have nothing against creative expression, but when people start splashing a bucket of paint on a canvas and going "I'm an artist, I deserve to have a comfortable life" I can't help but roll my eyes.

When did she say she deserved a comfortable life? She writes. She doesn't get paid. Where are these bad vibes coming from?

What was your takeaway from the article?

Almost no writers make significant money from their writing.

And what was the call to action?

"Buy books."

My turn. What about the article is making you roll the eyes and go Socratic on my ass? Whence the bad vibes, bro?

That you think a for profit endeavor is volunteer work! I’m a writer, and as I note above, it’s not that you missed the point of the article and discussion here, you got it and turned it upside down and painted it day glo orange. Either way, it’s bristling.

Yeah, you're right: nyeah isn't the one who missed the point of the article.

And yes, most of the discussion here is indeed "day glo orange". I think that's mostly because so many people are bristling with anger at the author's entitlement... Which AFAICS exists only in their misreading of the article.

Volunteer work? Did we read the same article? The author got income and inked a deal with a publishing house - explicitly that means doing it for the money - and the result is a whinging about how sour they feel about the whole thing. The is ain’t Anne Frank’s diary in the slightest.

Sure, she will eventually get 3,750 GBP for a year's work. Compared to living expenses that rounds to zero, but ok its not precisely zero.

That’s not volunteer work, that’s being a stupid exploited laborer who voluntarily joined a shitty situation. Am I being obtuse about this? The author is very clear about being sore that people “assume” as a published author she got a great payday. This should’ve been a Facebook post to her family as a way of telling them to stop asking for money, not an indictment of audiences not doing enough.

Preach it, brother.

The alternatives being

- Not writing, making everyone worse off

- Writing for the love of the art, no deal, and the author being worse off

- Or taking her current deal, the world gets her book, and she gets some money (Trusting her revsplit is better than average, as she claims, so no sense on other possible deals)

At least to me doesn't come across as sore, she's explaining a common misconception of a situation she's in

Yes. Yes, you are.

"Income"?!? Did we read the same article? The author got a pittance.

> ...inked a deal with a publishing house - explicitly that means doing it for the money

Reads to me much more like in this case, it rather explicitly means doing it for the purpose of getting her story out, knowingly taking the hit of getting just a pittance for it.

> and the result is a whinging about how sour they feel about the whole thing.

No, the result is a factual account about how prospective authors should go into this stuff knowingly, not expect anything close to a living income just from being an author, and be prepared to take the hit of getting just a pittance for getting their story out, if that purpose is important to them. You really must have read some other article.

> The is ain’t Anne Frank’s diary in the slightest.

Yeah, TBH I am also not expecting an immortal masterwork. But, hey, won't we both be surprised as fuck if it turns out to be one? It could happen. :-) (And, hey, it's been many decades since I read Anne Frank’s diary... But as I recall it, purely as a piece of literature that really wasn't an immortal masterwork either. So this might well equal or better that level.)

It's just wild to me that someone spent two and a half years of their life perfecting their book and then...sold away the rights for £2,500. At that point just self publish, or even put it up for free on the internet with a "donate" button next to it. Why devalue your own work to this degree?

Not that it changes your overall point, but they didn't. They sold away the rights before they spent the two and a half years writing their book. If they hadn't gotten the advance and therefore the ~guarantee it would get published, they might not have written it in the first place.

But they can't choose to self-publish after they finish it, because they chose to sign their contract long before that.

Okay so I’m also a writer - self publishing on Medium (and earn $x.xx occasionally some months) and also a 100% independent musician and producer and songwriter. I release through DistroKid which I found here ages ago. I actually lose money by having it available to stream.

You are absolutely spot on about the tone. It’s incredibly whiny and woe-is-me and complaining about a system that, as she admits, is known to be poverty level revenue for the vast majority. The big tell is “support authors!” as if it’s some kind of requirement people do more than simply sustain an industry already on the brink. She has the gall to even get an advance, publish, and make it the audience’s guilt trip she’s gotta tell people she didn’t make squat? That’s a high horse.

I dislike the article and its perspective. It’s PETULANT. Thousands of writers simply appreciate audiences for sharing their TIME for reading a piece. This article? It’s a dressed up complaint and I’ll have none of what she’s having.

For reference, I’ve got 10k Spotify plays, worldwide, over the course of 10 years and it’s under $20 worth of revenue. When I write about this fact, I don’t complain about the income. What is my big takeaway? I’m grateful people I’ve never met and will likely never meet have found my music worth listening to and chosen to give it a little slice of their life. That’s a good perspective, a healthy one, and I’m with you on your impression.

I dislike your comment and its perspective. It’s PETULANT.

The conclusion the author should have reached isn't 'authors need more support' but rather 'this is how the world tells authors it doesn't need so many books'.

The market isn't that good at detecting and rewarding genius work in the short term. Herman Melville, Edgar Allan Poe as well as Oscar Wilde died poor.

In fairness Wilde’s lack of wealth was largely downstream of his (unjust) legal problems. And Poe suffered greatly from a lack of copyright protection.

They didn’t suffer from a lack of people wanting to read their works, in the way that most modern authors do.

These comments where they somehow suggest more of creativity is not necessary is rather upsetting. Should they then just be doing what the world handsomely rewards, which currently seems to be optimizing ads at a big tech company.

Looks like we need to change the priorities set by the market. Targeted taxes and subsidies are the way to do it.

People are clearly willing to write and publish a book even with no payoff. If you had taxes and subsidies, even more authors would write to the point that most authors can't live off of writing, since clearly they are willing to write enough to flood the supply of books until most authors can't make it.

The whole point of subsidizing was that authors can make a living, perhaps. I am not sure I follow you. But also, if subsidies are a thing, wouldn't you agree that it is better spent on issues like these, however?

There are more books published today than ever before. 96% sold less than 1000 copies when published by the big publishing houses. I feel like that is the strongest sign the market can give that there are too many authors or many of them aren't good enough.

https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books

"Good enough" by what metric? I mean all art is subjective.

I agree your argument based on supply and demand. But, my point was that the creative adventures are not rewarded well enough in our system, and somehow things that are terribly meaningless like ad-optimization attracts so much revenue that companies don't know what to do with. This imbalance is upsetting.

Either that, or niches are booming and are getting properly served, either by passion or profit

That's fair. Now if we go with this line of thinking, and push a little bit past the obvious, the seeming difference in earning potential between authors and entertainers - whether YouTube influencers, classical athletes or singers, combined with clear winner-take-all dynamics of the latter groups, is how the world tells us...

... we need more human connection.

It's not just whether or not the content is lighter, more engaging, or hyperoptimized. It's not just that. Maybe what's common between all this, and other high-engagement creations like high-outrage news reporting, is the same instinct: seeking out what's important, by proxy of what we expect others will also seek out and talk about. So, in short, seeking connection.

Just random musings, no real conclusion here.

first suggestion: don’t take 2.5 years to write a book

second suggestion: don’t go with a traditional publisher if you’re not getting a hefty advance- a small advance means no publicity, and the royalty rates are too dismal to do your own advertising

go indie: with 70 percent royalties on ebooks you can make more than this author in a week

trad publishing is a club: don’t expect to make money when you join an elite(ist) club

Assuming the seventy percent figure is KDP, there are so many restrictions on that tier an author rarely gets anywhere close to that rate.

And charging 2.99 for an eBook is a death knell in some genres, it’ll cut sales by an order of magnitude.

sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about. as a KDP user, I see every day that it’s 70 percent, so $3.50 for a $5.00 retail price. at a minimum you’re not being clear.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634500 lays out the restrictions and costs associated with the 70% tier.

Anyway, KDP is hardly “going indie.” It’s just boring old self-publishing with externalized capital expenditures.

Modern authors should publish on their own websites,

And spend 6-12 months time before launch in marketing and talking on social media.

We need more empowered authors.

Yeah but it sucks that these days more and more professions require that you market yourself.

It would be great if people could just write and live from that.

I genuinely hate that. DoNt oNlY bE a dEvELoPER bUT AlsO a TeChniCAl WriTeR aND bUiLD yOuR pErSoNaL bRAnd ... uh no sorry I have a life

There are just so many books published today that there is no guarantee of any amount of readership by just releasing a book.

Modern authors may be forced to spend too much time in the sludge pits of social media for any hope of financial success, but we don't need to pretend that's being "empowered."

Also, publishing on your own website and nowhere else will not work. Such is the modern age of platforms.

This post evoked a sense of sadness within me, though I can’t quite pinpoint the reason behind it. In the era where influencers without much depth to their content get to reap the monetary benefits, while those who genuinely showcase their creativity in rather holistic ways are left unrewarded. This trend has been around perhaps for longer than I imagine, but to put it in words made me realize this intensely.

I will do my part and ask my library too.

If it makes you feel better the economics of “influencers” is way, way, way worse. This lady at least got some money! The average “influencer” just gets nothing.

That does make me feel better. It is also the barrier of entry into the field that is low in being an influencer, perhaps. But, I am suspicious that an average writer earns better than an average influencer.

35% of books published are profitable

96% of books sold less than 1,000 copies in 2020

50% sold less than a dozen copies in 2020

This is the state of the industry, publishers publish many books gambling for the hits the make up the vast majority of their revenue.

It is a very cold industry with many authors failing to get readers interested. They best measure of schuss is to have a preexisting readership or be popular elsewhere, and even then that's by no means a guarantee of a books success. And this data is from before AI. The 35% probably undersells it because books like hers probably received no marketing.

[1] https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books

  35% of books published are profitable

Profitable to the author or to the publisher?

I was going to ask exactly that question!

But, given that

   96% of books sold less than 1,000 copies in 2020

and assuming, like the author of TFA seems to have reason to believe, that the overwhelming majority of authors don't get more lucrative deals than she did, it... Pretty much can't be for the authors.

We grew up in the 80s or 90s that meant get published means money, being on TV meant being famous, the elite were separated from the public. Internet democratriced all of that. Now we are all mixed. You can be famous on the internet, be someone on Twitter, and at the same time need a regular job.

> being on TV meant being famous ... and at the same time need a regular job.

Also, "being on TV" can mean not only still needing a regular job, but also not really being famous in the slightest. There's bazillions of "reality" show participants pretty much nobody has ever heard of.

> the elite were separated from the public. Internet democratriced all of that. Now we are all mixed.

Muahahahaahaa, good one! Wait... You don't really believe that, do you?!? Because if you do, they really pulled the wool over your ears.

I wrote a book for O'Reilly. I got the same advance, $2500. I got paid the same royalty rate, 10%.

It wasn't worth it at all financially. I bet I made $6000-$7000 in total. Of course, that's not why I did it.

But, in a new consulting role there is a kid who is early twenties. It came up that I wrote a book and I told him the book and the publisher and he said "other than the car parts company I don't know O'Reilly." I was pretty shocked by that. He's a computer science graduate. That generation doesn't read tech books at all apparently.

It used to be that this was another item on my resume to stand out. It feels like that is totally devalued. And basically everything else on my resume now that Claude has infinitely more knowledge about everything. It's so depressing.

This has always been the case. What's new is that LLMs let people churn out books in seconds, meaning that for e-books in particular, formerly (possibly) lucrative topics like niche erotica are about to get competed down to zero.

If you read the OP and felt angry or offended, can you quote a key sentence that seemed to be a problem?

I don't think it's any "key sentence". I think it's simply summarized by the first sentence of the current top comment by christina97:

> I’m not sure what the author expected?

It's less about being angry or offended, and more like, why is this being posted? It's not news. It's how publishing works.

I'd guess it was posted precisely because it is news to lots of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com