From one of the comments here (my bold for emphasis):
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/christmas-day-biggest-ever-kindle.html

@Hairy, I'm not sure you can really sell books just based on low price, so it's still pretty impressive. You can get loads of books for the Kindle for free, so why would people pay for these ones? We can't sell Kindle books at that low a price, as publishers, and still pay our authors a decent amount once Amazon takes 30% and we pay the high VAT, so they aren't realistic prices.

A few issues here... in conflicting directions.

Firstly, I would have thought that VAT would apply to anything sold by Amazon? To prevent double taxation, VAT charged by publisher to Amazon would offset VAT collected by Amazon paid to revenue and vice-versa so shouldn't make a difference?

Secondly, it stands to reason that higher costs are incurred in maintaining the machinery of editorial, sales, marketing, accounting and a board of fat, overstuffed execs. Offset by the premium value of perceived quality and cheaper, better, editorial with a better hit rate (I'm assuming a certain amount of economy of scale here).

Thirdly, it implies that publishers are in fact paying authors "a decent amount", which is a subject I am not qualified to discuss.

Fourthly, they are realistic prices if somebody can make enough money from selling there to make it all worthwhile.

But, fifthly, can they? If the only way to make money is to be amongst the top ten of hundreds of thousands of competitors, and the likely result of low pricing is negligible earnings, surely it is a self-defeating strategy that will just lower the perceived value of the product and further undermine an already buggered model?

Which leads to a related (but not referenced) "sixthly". Talking to a respected travel journalist in my writing group after this came out which was valuable only in terms of self promotion, we got talking about money in writing and she lamented how all expenses used to be covered by the paper but now the holiday was treated as an unpaid perk with the fee from the article used as a means for the journalist to offset the expense of the flights. The reality, in her opinion, was that there is too much free content to make a realistic fee for paid content realistic.

In supermarkets, there is the concept of the "loss-leader" that drives sales of other products by selling something else at a loss and I know that some writers have used low prices to build an otherwise non-existent market by gaining visibility. But if everybody is at it, then the value of the loss-leader is eroded, as is the total value of the market. If everything sells at a loss, then the market will make a loss. Period.

Which brings me to a "seventhly" that I hadn't previously thought about. Yes, it is still "pretty impressive" to get into the top four sales rankings and 70% of that should at least pay for a cup of tea and a biscuit. But is it really comparable? What would the revised rankings be if they were listed by revenue? And, more pertinent to WW methinks, if they were listed by royalties to writer?

And yet, eighthly, I'm still sending out flashes to places I like because a) it feels good to know I'm being read and b) it is great to see what people do and don't go for and c) I enjoy it.

Which brings me to some kind of a conclusion with the question: should you all hate me for sending out stories for next to nothing because I am devaluing the market as I do so?

Carrying The Burden Of Cannibalising An Entire Industry For Selfish Failure To Gain of Dublin

<Added>

realistic fee for paid content realistic >> realistic fee for paid content viable

Um... I don't hate you
But your post is too intelligent for me to understand.

I don't hate you! I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but I don't hate you!

VAT is level between self-published and conventionally published books - that's true. But I guess what she means is that you have to factor in a 20% loss straight off on all ebooks, which people often forget. Ok that applies equally to self-published ebooks, but I guess she is just trying to make the point that when you see a £5 ebook, the publisher is not getting anywhere near that sum and pushing for more isn't greed, it's simple economics.

it is still "pretty impressive" to get into the top four sales rankings and 70% of that should at least pay for a cup of tea and a biscuit.* But is it really comparable? What would the revised rankings be if they were listed by revenue?

Yup. This is the $64k question and one that will have to be answered if - as I've seen mooted - 2012 becomes the year of the ebook bestseller list. Can you compare a 99c ebook with a £4.99 one?

* though let's not forget the VAT issue - the supplier - be they author or publisher, is not getting 70% of the cover price. They are getting something nearer 50% because of the VAT.

I guess the question of people working for love, not money, is one that any trade has to cope with. Yes, there are people out there offering words for free - twas ever thus, I suspect. People will pay more for a product if they perceive it's worth it. It's our challenge as writers to persuade people - be they punters or publishers - that our particular product is worth it.

Ok that applies equally to self-published ebooks

Yes, I think that was my objection. The fact that a publisher is VAT registered really shouldn't affect their ability to compete against a price that _also_ includes VAT so mentioning it as a factor in that context felt more than a little disingenuous.

I guess the question of people working for love, not money, is one that any trade has to cope with.

I think, though, that there is a weird dynamic going on at the moment.

If people are genuinely publishing for the love of the written word and the money is an afterthought, then that is fine and dandy. They can give the things away forever and a day without criticism.

But I don't think that is what is happening.

Instead, I think committed writers are self-publishing with aspirations of making money (haven't we all got those...) but pricing in a way that destroys value. Worse, because they are committed writers, by the time they launch into it, they have a few books waiting in the wings and (based on the long game posts) they are willing to launch the next one based on a small (read: inadequate) success on the previous one.

I've recently had a bit of an epiphany. Something doesn't add up on a gameplay level; why are self-pub successes so militant in trying to get others to follow suit when surely that increases competition and puts them in a worse position? A similar argument goes for the strong advocates of zero pricing etc. as the more there are doing it, the less effective a strategy it becomes.

Or maybe I'm just missing a trick. Like with Facebook where the supposedly free service is actually a potent data collection, profiling and advertising / sales support machine - you are what they are selling - I'm wondering whether there is another game in progress? For example, there is a huge expansion in service industries supporting self-pub - if agents and publishers are both trying to jump ship to different, more profitable, areas of the business, why not writers? Or maybe it is just the innocent act of fomenting a revolution (that seems to be working, at least).

Whatever, I started the thread without a clear idea of my position - which is probably why nobody else seems to understand it either. Just watching that space at the moment.

G

I hadn't worked out my own position earlier so confused everyone and the thread died accordingly. Trying to restate it now to get it alive again as I think this is interesting.

1. There is no meaningful money in writing at my level.
2. There is no point writing without being read.
3. I am sending out stories for diddly pending the global sensation of somebody actually liking one of my novels and the resultant mega-bucks film rights etc.
4. The glut of free content is undermining the value of writing as a whole.

On a collective basis:
The more free content that goes out, the harder it becomes for all writers to get decent value for their work.

On an individual basis:
Without sending out free content, there is:
- next to no chance of getting read by anybody
- no "tribe" of followers and fanbase to attract publishers
- a complete absence of the considerable pleasure of knowing your work is being read
Countered by the fact that, if I am successful, one day I will be in the happy position of looking for realistic money but the unhappy position of having helped to destroy any possibility of same.

Obviously, I want to be read. Equally, the smattering of flashes that I get out there are hardly significant individually, but collectively (as the entire species of wannabes like me) the result is detrimental on the industry.

Or is it?

Discursive of Dublin

Not feeling very clever this morning (and ought to be doing lots of other things) but various things occur to me

The logic works, but I'm not sure it's like that in the real world.

Giving away stuff for free or peanuts - either as a calling card, or just for the pleasure of being read - has always happened.

People will still pay for good writing - so there is still (some) money in good writing. Those who dowload 99p novels soon find out their limitations.

For the book trade, the amount of flash, say, out there, is simply below the radar. It makes no difference. Maybe I'm thick, but I can't imagine people reading flash for free instead of buying a novel - seems to me it's additional, not substitutional (not the case with e-books of novels, of course). And I don't think the fact that they can get them for free changes how they feel about paying for a novel - either they think it's worth £6.99, or they don't.

Yes, I know I'm not actually personally responsible for the demise of the publishing industry!

But...

There _is_ a cheapening of content and arguably (anecdotally at least) it is getting harder to get paid for content in general. Even the three for twos of big name publishers serve to reset expectation. Eg: "If they can make money selling at a fraction of full price, why pay full? I'll wait for the next promo."

And will people always be willing to pay for content once an expectation is set?

To parallel; television. It used to be only national broadcasters and only free content. Now that only trash is available free, I have stopped watching TV rather than pay for content I still imagine _should_ be free.

G

I'm also struggling with all this at the moment. If it's any consolation, I expect tons of other writers are, too. I'm about to go into self-publishing and will then have to make decisions about free content, bundled short story collections, etc.

While I think you're right that it is getting harder to get paid for content in general, quite a few writers are going into self-publishing convinced it will make them money. I did a course last year in Oregon and Dean Wesley Smith for one has gone into self-publishing purely because he became convinced that the figures will work. Okay, he's got inventory, a name, experience, etc, and he's a largely commercial writer anyway. Nevertheless, he said some things that I found encouraging for anyone who's not so commercially-minded, which I didn't necessarily expect. For instance, he believes that self-publishing will suit authors who write in the cracks between genres. Traditional publishing has for some years now been reluctant to budge an inch out of the genre grooves. Dean reckons, probably rightly, that there must be plenty of readers out there who want less regimented stuff.

I've got a new novel and honestly don't know if I'd prefer it to be bought by a traditional publisher or do it myself. With the former, yes, it's paid for, and there is a degree of respectability involved. But there are plenty of negatives, too: little to no control over cover art; having the book squashed into a genre; probably having to commit to following up with another just like the first; little to no money spent on promotion; low sales; having the rights tied up for who knows how long. With the former, time is on your side. Yes, you'll have to pay for cover art, say; but you can choose your artist. You can allow the book to be picked up by word of mouth, and so on. For a new writer, then the traditional route makes sense: if nothing else, you should learn something about the craft and the business, and your early work goes out there professionally finished. But if you've been writing for a long time, you don't necessarily need the input of a traditional publisher, especially when much of it is getting cost-cut anyway, and their requirements are increasingly becoming more rigid and ultra commercially-focussed.

I met an artist at FantasyCon this year and really liked his work. He's now done three covers for me, for short stories I have the rights back to, which I'll be selling via my website (when it's done), Smashwords and all the usual suspects. They're original to each story; digital and impressionistic rather than too prescriptive, which is exactly the kind of cover image I like. I'm absurdly pleased with what he's done and feel really inspired to be in control of what I put out there.

On your point about why do self-publishers appear to be just increasing the competition: Dean made a good point - that the world is a much bigger place than we tend to think, and the audience for books is truly enormous

Terry