http://www.stephanie-osborn.com
with Dr. James K. Woosley
There's been a lot of discussion lately
about the publishing industry as a whole and how it is or isn't
growing, and whether writers are or are not competing. I've shared
that discussion with friends and family, debating both sides of it.
In general, I think that, especially with small presses and indie
presses springing up, the growth is actually good and a positive
thing. In theory we have a tremendous growth capability. In the short
term, however, and in practical terms, I'm not so sure it isn't like
saying we're going to fly to the Alpha Centauri system next year
because some scientists have managed to develop a quantum-scale warp
bubble in the lab. Theoretically it's possible, but practically,
there's a few bugs yet to be worked out.
My friend Dr. James K. Woosley is a
physicist and a Heinlein essayist; you'll meet him in more detail
next week. But he's a hard-core, long-time science
fiction/fantasy/specfic fan, and one of the friends with whom I've
been discussing this issue. He's also skilled at modeling systems,
down to the quantum level. Leave it to him to come up with a way to
quantify this...
~~~
“It's partially an application of
what I call a Sturgeon filter (because if 90% of everything is crap,
then 10% of everything is worthwhile, and successive application can
get to fairly decent estimates of demographics, as in 10% of people
are readers, 10% of those are readers of SF/Fantasy literature, 10%
are readers of more successively refined tastes, etc.
“Still, your potential reader base is
X. Any individual author's actual reader base is a fraction f of
that, or total number fX. Your base X has a total amount of
disposable income C, and an average amount C/X, which is used to
purchase reading material. The number of authors competing for that
money is A, and the average number of works each author has for sale
is n (where n is some conglomerate of new press and backlog, which
complicates the analysis), such that the total competing number of
works is N=nA. The average price of any work is P.
“Total individual items sold is thus
C/P.
“Average sales per item is C/NP.
“Sales per item can be assumed (first
order) to be Maxwell-distributed [an asymmetrical bell curve with one
side steeper than the other --Steph] about that mean.
“The second constraint is time to
read each book, moderated by the number of people who will buy
attractive books that they want to read but lack the time to read,
but also controlled by the fraction of people who re-read books.
Assume an average reading speed (including breaks) of 15,000 words
per minute or 6 hours for a typical novel, and assume further that
the average reader will read one novel per week or roughly 50 novels
per year, if they have the resources, but that an adult steady state
reader will on average re-read 25 novels per year, so that new novels
account for half of their reading.
“Assume that the book stockpiling
factor is also 2. (Speaking for myself it's probably closer to 290,
but...)
“The bottom line is that the
non-cash-constrained market is about 50X novels per year, so that
average sales computed that way is 50X/nA (where, again, n is some
conglomerate of new press and backlog, which complicates the
analysis). Or more simply, Sales(Avg)=50X/N.
“We'll assume cash parity initially,
so that C = 50XP.
“I think a good working assumption is
that X=1 million for SF/fantasy, so that about 50 million genre books
are purchased each year. That is probably a maximum.
“At any time, A is about 500, with
n=10 books (current plus backlog) in active publication.
“That yields a Maxwell-distributed
average of 10,000 copies per book sold.
“At that level of the analysis the
game is zero sum. The situation changes when either the fan base is
increased, or disposable income increases so that people are more
willing to stockpile books.
“And that's about it; danged if I
know what if anything the analysis buys.”
~~~
Note that that's an initial analysis,
and that the AVERAGE number of copies per book is 10,000. That isn't
the best-seller numbers, and it isn't the bottom of the list numbers.
This is how many books the mid-listers should be selling a year.
Food for thought.
~Stephanie Osborn
12 comments:
Ok, taking into consideration that I am only being published right now with short stories and anthologies I am invited to edit, I know how competitive the field is just in indie and mid-market industries. However, even knowing that I am considering and wrapping up a solo project.
But I should sell 10,000 copies a year? Erm... (whimper) Not sure I can manage that...
Well Heri, if you have been keeping up with Sarah Hoyt's and Amanda Green's blog, you will know why I say that's an interesting result. Evidently very few of the mid-listers are receiving that sort of sales, at least according to their royalty statements. You won't start as a mid-lister. You'll start much lower and gradually work up the distribution curve - unless you produce a spectacular, hits-best-seller-immediately, in which you'll shoot to the peak of the distribution.
What this is, is an indication that something may not be right in the industry as a whole. Given the anti-trust suit against some large publishers, the combination isn't a good sign.
I should have said blogS...
Links to said blogs on the side of my blog.
Ah ok, that makes a bit more sense. And unfortunately I have not been keeping up with their posts, other deadlines to keep track of.
But yeah, I can see how reaching that number would be a problem with the restriction of small advertising (ie only in local venues), limited travelling budget, and generally having to depend on e-publications to boost number of sales. Even though that helps exposure, if a writer hopes to do what they like for a living, then it becomes even more difficult.
Does anyone have a possible solution? Other than keeping two jobs and praying?
Well, that's not all that is going on, apparently. There are allegations that: sales are not being accurately reported; and that some sales by mid-listers are being attributed to best-sellers; and that the marketing and promo is set to sell exactly the right numbers to keep everyone where they are currently.
I don't know how true that is. I deal with a large small publisher (hoping that isn't an oxymoron!), two other small pubs, and Baen Books, which is a large publisher that feels like a small publisher in their interactions with the authors. I've not had any of the experiences that have been reported, so I cannot say. Nor am I calling out specific publishers, and I will not.
This blog post came about literally as a discussion between myself and friend-since-grad-school Dr. James K. Woosley, who is and has been for many years, a modeling expert. In the course of the conversation (electronic: Skype and email) I got the above model from him in an email. I thought it was blog-worthy, as I'd not seen anyone try to model sales scientifically before. He gave his permission provided I cleaned it up a bit to make it tidier, which I did, and here it is.
Yeah I had heard that as well, about sales reports and the like. However, I had also heard that the big sellers were also letting go alot of their authors because they only wanted to keep the ones that would ensure that their bottom line would remain profitable. In addition, those authors are writing under psuedonyms so it seems that the big listers have more people than they actually do - kinda unfair but makes sense when you consider they are protecting their bottom line.
However, it makes things more difficult for mid- and low-listers (not meant as an insult) because that means our 'playing field' has gotten a lot more competitive. So in addition to being concerned as to whether or not the publishing agency a writer is considering is honest, then you have the added competition of authors you know are much better and will be a bigger draw.
So, what can we do?
I have heard rumors about writers being "let go." But that's all I've heard: rumors.
As for what to do, I think my answer would be severalfold. Might be something I ought to expand into a blogpost eventually, but here goes the concise version.
1) Band together as writers. And I'm not just talking about the usual writers' guilds like SFWA and MWA and so forth. I mean actual writers' groups that are there to help support writers at all levels of the business, who are going to point out which publishing houses engage in such practices and which don't, and are going to help the newbies hone their craft as well.
2) Maybe we need to create a kind of Preditors & Editors list (or get them to add a category or page) that lists the publishers who practice these techniques.
3) Learn the publishing world in all its facets.
4) Consider indie publishing as well as trad pubbing.
Those would be the suggestions that come immediately to mind.
Sounds like a lot to put together - who would be able to provide reliable information? There is the fact of misinformation, wouldn't that hurt? I mean, both the author and the publisher.
Yes, and it would take someone far more skilled in politics than I am to know.
This post has wonderful timing. I was just having a hypothetical discussion with a friend of mind about publishing and ect. I sent my friend a link. :)
Thank you, and I hope it was useful. Any time you forward links to my blog or my website, *I* am grateful, lol.
1.I'm skeptical about that reading speed. I think 350 words per minute is pretty fast.
2. The market is getting larger...MUCH larger. There is possibly as many as 8,000,000,000 people alive now. Assuming that English is the major world language a great number of them will read english....call it half? (4,000,000,000) Then ten percent of those will read? call it. (400,000,000) and ten percent will read sf/f? (40,000,000)? and ten percent of THOSE will read the particular "stuff" I write? 4,000,000
nope...doesn't match.
Post a Comment