Friday, November 02, 2012

Self Publishing versus the 'Big Guys' Publishing

I'm following yet another discussion of whether one should self-publish or publish with a Major Publisher.  And I'm trying not to comment in the midst of that because this here is not my field of expertise.  I'm pretty much wholly ignorant about both sides of the arugment.

So I thought I'd go back here to my blog and talk about it in graphics, since I can make a fool of myself on my own blog.

Now, this is my wholly-made-up-guesswork take on the success rate of people who query their completed fiction manuscript to the major publishers in New York.
Remember, most submitted manuscripts are just purely awful.  Nobody who reads this blog falls into the perfectly dreadful manuscript group so you do not necessarily need to worry about the success rate in general.

This attractive graphic to the right is the getting-into-publication rate for those who decide to self- publish.  You will note it has a tiny sliver of folks who attempt this and do not quite succeed.  They are too gormless to use smashwords or the like.

I will just mention that I would fall into that select group were I to try to do this.

Now we hustle onward and come to some more sheer guesswork on my part.  This is the earnings per book.  The first brightly colored graphic attempts to convince you I know what novels earn in the first couple years after they're released by one of the major publishers.

Should mention that, when I say major publishers, I'm including not just the Big New York Six (soon to be Five), but about everybody who plays the print game and gets distributed by the big brick-and-mortar retailers.  Tor.  Kensington.  Them folk. 

The pinky-white slice is books that earn less than $1000.
Moving up in remuneration, and going counter-clockwise or the ill-fated widdershins direction, the red slice is books earning more than $1000, but less than $5000. 
I've assigned green to the great majority of books and assigned a profit of between $5000 and $15,000.
The navy blue slice is books that bring in more than $15,000.  It's not a negligible proportion, really.

I would not go to the barricades to defend the accuracy of this graph ...  but it 'feels' about right.   If anything, I think I'm underestimating the percentage of books that earn more than $15,000.

And, at last, we come to the profits on self-published books.
The info I'm presenting with that big sweep of beige is that most self-published books earn less than $1000. 
Books that fall into that little sliver of higher profit tend to be erotica, or published by authors with a significant platform, or books by those also print published, or work from those who understand marketing and promote diligently.  
Or, of course, all four.

So what am I saying with all this other than I like pie charts?

There are mobs of prophets and orators out there who want to sell writers something -- whether it's a product or validation for their own choices.

What do you want out of publication? 

If you need artistic freedom, if you hunger to put your work in front of readers, if you have something you must say,  if you don't need or expect much money, if you know you can't be published by the Big Guys -- for whatever reason,
then self-publishing may be for you.
You're in good company.  Generations of LitFic writers have felt exactly this way.

If you want to reach more readers and have a reasonable chance to make enough money to live on frugally, (well ... very frugally) try for traditional publication.


  1. I prefer to regard my chances at traditional publication the same way i feel about not to ponder too hard. And hope it comes fast!

    1. I think it might have been John MacDonald over at Absolute Write who said that if you submit a well-written, commercial manuscript to New York, the chances of being published were excellent.

      And you are right about not pondering too hard. (Pondering sale being just a great distraction from writing the manuscript, generally speaking.)

  2. Anonymous6:34 PM

    I think, while you're on the right track with that final graphic, you are mistaken. True, most self-published books will not earn $1000 in their lifetime. But I am a self-published author. I am not in the Amanda Hocking realm in terms of my earnings, but I make a good living from self-publishing. It is my only source of income, and has been for 18 months.

    I have 4 novels that have already surpassed the $15000 mark, and a 5th that will surpass it in the next month. A 6th will release next week, and will likely also pass that mark within a 6 month span or so.

    I was not previously print published. I am currently print published by a small press who contacted me for those rights, but my print sales are so negligible as to be laughable. I do not have much of a platform. I rarely do anything to market, because I believe the best means of marketing is releasing the next book. I do not write erotica.

    But I still fall within that teeny tiny sliver for books that have earned more than $15000.

    And I'm not alone. I'm far from alone. I know a number of other self-published authors who do not write erotica, who were not previously print published, who don't really market much, and who don't have a platform...and yet their books fall into the same sliver mine would fall into.

    On the other hand, I also have a second pen name, also self-published. This one does write erotica. But the erotica sales don't even come close to comparing with those of my historical romance. My best-selling title under the erotic pen name has earned about $5000. I have another that has surpassed $1000. The others may get to $1000, but it will take a long time to do so.

    I do agree that for most writers, the best path to successful publication (meaning being able to actually earn a living from your writing) is to publish through the major publishers. That said, there is a viable market for self-publishers to do the same...and to make their living from their writing more quickly than through the bigger publishers.

    That said, there's no easy road no matter what path you take.

  3. Anon One --

    It's a valuable perspective you give. Thank you.

    Do you think the percentage of self-pubs who earn your degree of success is correctly represented?

    I want that pie chart to show both the small monetary rewards for most self-pubs AND that larger success is possible.

    You do a great job of pointing out the latter.

    1. Anonymous11:22 AM

      Sorry I didn't return sooner. I honestly think that the smallest sliver on the self-publishing diagram ought to belong to those books which earn between $1000 and $15000. Self-publishers either earn well, or they don't earn much at all. There's not much middle ground, from what I've seen amongst my fellow self-published authors. We either struggle for every tiny little sale, or we sell comfortably and can make a living from it.

      I do have to concede that my knowledge comes almost predominantly from self-publishing authors of historical romance. Outside that realm, I have no earthly idea how things are going.

  4. I would've liked to continue to pursue getting traditionally published because I feel there is a large audience I'm missing by self-publishing. For a number of reasons, I made the difficult (for me) choice to self-publish. I've earned in the lower end of the green wedge with 5 books (2 pen names) in the last 11 months. But it seemed to peak early and has dwindled. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I would encourage authors to think very carefully (and for some time) before self-publishing.

  5. You're in a sweet spot when it comes to self-publishing.

    You're commercial, as you've been print published, and you write fast. That's a key to success in either Big Pub or Self Pub.

    And you've given some thought to this.

    For those of you who don't know, RMW writes sweet Regencies, available through kindle.

    n.b. Traditional Regencies are another self-pub paradise. The major companies aren't nimble enough to market to this niche audience.

  6. Anonymous10:22 AM

    Jo, thanks for your interesting and creative perspective. I've indie-published four books, and had one e-published by a major New York publisher. The only book that has NOT earned more than $5,000 is the New York one, and that's partly due to the subject matter but mainly because the publisher gave it virtually no push.

    My sense from what I read and hear is that there are a lot more self-pubbed authors earning over $5K than your graphs would indicate. Almost all the people we know (dozens) do. And then there are all the NY pubbed-authors putting up their back lists and making in many cases a ton of money.

    Yes, there are certainly thousands of self-pubbed authors making very little money, but with good books and savvy promotion, I believe you have an astronomically higher chance at success than with New York. And with each passing day it gets even harder to sell to one of the print houses.

    Incidentally, three out of my four indie books were originally submitted by my agent to all the big (and some not so big) houses and were rejected by all. The fact that I have made tens of thousands of dollars on these manuscripts while giving all those buyers a positive reading experience makes me say thank heavens for Amazon, Smashwords, etc.

    1. The success stories in self-publishing would seem to depend on those factors you give -- a good book and savvy promotion. Your own case would seem to bear this out.

      One thing you say -- "I believe you have an astronomically higher chance at success than with New York. " -- intrigues me. Certainly, some folks do as well self-publishing as they would at a Major Print Publisher.

      But I suspect this rests on the triad of good book/good promotion/fast production. Mostly on having that good book.

      Maybe it would be fair to say that a good book trumps everything else.

  7. I think the money in the self-pub chart fails to list how money is distributed--it's every month as opposed to deadlines and dates. I've self-published a non-fiction book and a short novella with little promo-just a brief mention on my blog-but the income I receive is pretty handy for maintaining the expenses of running my website and then some. This wouldn't happen if I were traditionally published; that non-fiction title wouldn't even exist because I don't have a platform that NY would consider prestigious. So people may make under $1000, but they're still earning income from their writing each month, which is a boost to the wallet and the esteem (you see that people are buying right there instead of waiting nervously for royalty statements and you can adjust elements to better suit your sales). I'm still on the traditional track, but I don't feel the various routes to publication are an either or situation. And likethe other Anons, I too know of self-pub authors making a nice income; they aren't Hocking, but they are making a comfortable mid-list revenue, which is the section of publishing that is getting squeezed between big blockbusters and less expensive new authors.

    1. Hi Evangeline --

      I had not thought of this at all -- the business of making the money here and now, with nothing with-held against returns. Both gratifying and useful to get that check in the mail soon after the books are sold.

  8. Lovely pies, Jo. Can we have apple next time? :)
    The X factor in the equation is promo and the Y factor is subject matter. Even with a substantial platform, I find selfpubbed books, backlist or not, lagging in sales unless I hire someone to promote them. (I'd rather pull teeth than do promo) Those authors who are natural at such things or who are selling books with a large audience will naturally do better than others.
    The traditional market is still larger than ebooks, and the cost of editing, covers, promo, etc is high for self pub books. So trad pubbing should always be the first objective for unknown authors. Having an alternative is just a nice safety net.

    1. Hi Pat --

      There are approximately 678,922,041 things I would rather do than promotion. That is the sad truth of self-publishing. You're out there on your own.

      The best of all worlds might be to do traditional print publication and self publish on the side. Or establish a name in traditional and then move on to self-publishing if the print career doesn't seem to be taking off.

      I love it that self-publishing is out in the world, adding to the creative chaos, giving writers and readers alternatives.

  9. I like your view, and I would tend to agree...

    1. *g* In the last decade, I feel as though a troop of wildmen had tromped into the woodwright's shop and dumped a load of strange, unwieldy, oddly-shaped, new tools all over the tables.

      Everybody's picking them up and turning them over and arguing about what to do with them.

      (You can see me in the back corner, leaned over with a hammer and a little chisel tap, tap, tapping away, grumbling, "Will you folks pipe down and let me work?")

  10. You make me giggle, Jo.B., because I love the word, "gormless", and because none of us would ever think of you in terms of fitting into that wedge of gormless writers.

    You've touched on some other important reasons for self-publishing that have nothing to do with $$, and I think it's important to give weight to those reasons and others: independence, originality, creativity, accessibility, immediacy... to name a few. I think too often we (I) get caught up in a numbers game, giving validation to a thing based on its dollar value. Where would we, (especially romance writers), be today without Charlotte Bronte? Could it be argued that she would have difficulty finding a traditional publisher today? How many other Charlottes might we have missed out on along the way? How long should Charlotte query before she makes the decision to self-publish? Did Charlotte's goal in writing have anything to do with money? (I am, of course, referring to my figurative "Charlotte", because I'm sure the real Charlotte B. enjoyed her creature comforts.)

    (Side note: I think part of this discussion/review of the two modalities of publishing will always be biased by our perspectives on the $$ potential of traditionally published books. My vision of the "Published with Major Print Publishers" pie has a vastly different look to it than yours does, but that's cool. Until we have hard fast numbers, we simply won't know the truth of it.)

    I think it's also TREMENDOUSLY important that we all diversify. They aren't called "The Big Six" for nothin'. Just as a handful of publishers are cornering the traditional publishing market, I think it's hugely important for writers to promote and publish through different formats - traditional and self-published. Amazon, Kobo, Smashwords, PubIt, etc. Diversify, Baby! Diversify! And you can't just go with the guy who's paying the highest percentage rates. They all use different algorithms to promote. The thing we can do to return control to writers is share information.

    1. Hi Sophie --

      Would be really interested in the way you see the money coming out of the traditional publishers.

      If I seem on the high side, it may be because I'm thinking print publishers who make their money overwhelmingly from print editions. I didn't include any of the e-pubs who also do print, like Carina, Wild Rose, Elora's Cave, LooseID and so on.

      If I seem low, it's probably just my innate pessimism.

  11. Anonymous11:42 AM

    Hi Jo,

    Sorry, I need to tromp into your woodwright's shop and leave a comment. From where my husband and I sit, self-pubbing is an amazing avenue for success. He (Rick Murcer) doesn't want me to give dollar figures, but he's doing very well. Enough that I will retire soon (24 working days left!).

    Murcer would fit into your piechart in the little blue sliver of those who have made over $15,000 profit. You said: "Books that fall into that little sliver of higher profit tend to be erotica, or published by authors with a significant platform, or books by those also print published, or work from those who understand marketing and promote diligently. Or, of course, all four." Um...Nope. Murcer does not write erotica, nor does he have a significant platform. He was never print published. He doesn't market or promote diligently.

    Its difficult to say how much money other self-pubbed authors are making, but we do know a few (not erotica writers) who are quitting day jobs and making a decent living. We also know of several self-pubbed writers who are NOT doing so well (Rick gets emails asking for advice all the time: how did you do it, what can I do to improve sales, etc. He wants to help, but we never know quite what to answer.)

    That being said, we also believe that diversity is important. We're trying to keep a foot in both worlds, if possible. It seems sensible.

    A few weeks ago, Rick and I attended Bouchercon, the mystery and crime writer's convention. We were surprised that so many writers had no idea how successful self-pubbing can be. It is a viable option, Jo.


    1. I see self-pub as a very viable option.

      The problem is assessing how viable. One hears the success stores. Folks share the $15K per book stores, not the $378 per book stories.

      I long to stand with a clip board at Bouchercon or RWA National and ask every self-pubbed author who passes rude, intrusive questions about money. I would use my golden lasso.

      I suspect self-pub greatly expands the number of those who make a little money. This is wonderful. The world is a richer place because the sea levels have dropped and these many little islands can now poke their heads above the sea.

      Big island folks -- the ones who could publish as big pub/small pub/Indie pub/e-pub / self-pub or any kind of pub at all because they write well and they write commercial -- have some of the most confusing choices to make.

    2. Anonymous11:28 AM

      Some of us have been sharing our actual sales figures with Brenda Hiatt, who has added self publishing to her Show Me the Money page. If more would share their numbers, it would be much easier to get a true sense of the scope of possibilities.

  12. Very interesting indeed, I hadnt thought of publishing in those hard financial terms. As both a traditionally published and Indie author, I'd say both have pros and cons. OK, my publisher is small/medium sized but the experience was not a happy one - the original cover stank and the editing was poor - it took lots of nagging to turn things around. Now I'm happy being an Indie author - for me it's about being heard rather than big bucks, (just as well really!)

    1. Hi Grace --

      I'm sorry to hear your publisher experiences have been bad.

      Covers ... What can I say about covers?

      Y'know -- one of the NYC Publishers or a big Independent Publisher is going to break ranks and give Romance books the thoughtful, beautifully designed, intelligent covers they deserve.

      (Kinda like the covers they're giving YA right now. YA readers, being discriminating intelligent 15-year-olds can be trusted with beautiful covers. Romance, as we all know, is read only by moronic fluff bunnies who need lots of pink flesh slopped across the front to tell them what genre it is. But I digress.)

      Anyhow, someday one of the publishers is going to break ranks and they'll sell scads and scads, (what the devil is a scad, I wonder. It sounds vaguely fishlike,) and the curse will be broken and a thousand Romance covers will bloom ...

      I'm hoping your self-pub experience will soon be about Big Bucks as well as artistic choices.

  13. Jane O9:50 AM

    I would think that one of the problems for an author going the self-published route is the sheer volume of self-published books out there.

    I'm looking at this from a reader's perspective. Let's say I'm feeling adventurous and want to try something new. I read a blurb and the book sounds like something I might enjoy. I buy the book, and it is utter crap. Self-indulgent garbage that should never have seen the light of day. I try a few more, have the same experience, and decide that's enough. Henceforth, the only ebooks I buy will either come from major publishers who will, I hope, keep out the real garbage or will come from the backlists of authors I already know or will be recommended by reviewers I trust.
    Pretty much the same way I buy paper books.

    1. You've laid out the major problem with self-publishing. You have to wade through a lot of drek.

      Sturgeon's law states, 'Ninety percent of everything is crap.'

      I went to the wiki to get the exact quote, and I hope it's right.

      Sturgeon is said to have remarked at a talk at NYU in 1951,

      "I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud.[1] Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms."

      (... from the wiki and therefore suspect, but heck, this is just a blog.)

      Thinking about this one-in-ten rule ...

      When I go to B&N and trail my finger along the shelf I do maybe nine books that are definitely pedestrian To one book I'd call good work. I'm not talking about world-shaking and significant work -- but a book somebody can read and enjoy very much. It's more than competently constructed. It has some aspect that makes it worth spending an hour with.

      Does self-pub rack up the same score? Are nine out of ten of them pedestrian but readable and one worth somebody spending an afternoon with?

      (Let me continue on the next message)

    2. Because I was interested in how good or bad self-pubbed books actually are, I looked at the twenty-five latest Romance books released on kindle.

      (Methodology disclosure: I searched Amazon kindle for 'romance novels kindle new releases' and sorted my list by 'publication date'. I eliminated novellas, short story collections, and duplicate books by the same author, counting only the first one. None of these books are free. I eliminated a of odd books that popped up even though they obviously weren't Romance.)

      Here's what I can say about the twenty-five books:

      1) All twenty-five books most recently listed kindle Romance books were were self-pub.

      Looks like self-pub at kindle is a flood compared to the trickle of books coming out of publishers.

      2) I found one pretty good one. The first few pages contain what I'd consider technical awkwardness, but the writing is lively and idiomatic. If I were an agent, I'd request a full.

      (This is Cassandra Lea, 'Perfect Guy'. If anybody does reviews, would you please request it and review it and come back to tell me what you think of the whole.)

      3) Two books, despite hackneyed stories and a couple major writing problems, show promise. If I were an agent I'd reject the manuscripts, based on the sample pages, but I'd include a few lines of comment with the rejection letter.

      Y'know ... this is where my heart is sad.

      Would these woman become better writers if they diligently pursued print publication? Have they 'settled' for this not-quite-ready-for-prime-time writing when a ruthless and demanding editor with cries of revise! revise! revise! could take them to a new level?

      4) The twenty-two other books are overwhelmingly godawful.

      They're cliche-riddled. They tell' what's going on instead of putting the reader inside the story. The hooks are painfully clunky. They have wandering POV, inconsistent verb tenses, lame dialog, and are just bloody bad.

      Okay. I'm picky. I know that. I demand a lot in the books I read. But these sample pages were physically painful to run my eyes across. If the writing was a sound, it would be the screek of fingernails on a blackboard.

      (and continuing)

  14. 5) So. Comparing self-pub and traditional pub from the standpoint of reader access.

    If you pick a random book from the shelf at B&N, it has one chance in ten of being worthwhile, readable, very good indeed. It may not be to your taste, but someone will be moved by this book or at least spend a pleasant hour or so in its embrace.

    At B&N, also, almost any book you point to will be marginally competent. They'll be the 'gentleman's 'C'' of the genre, the styrofoam peanuts of the writing world.
    A few scattered up and down the shelf will not achieve even this august stature. You could get a lemon.

    Self-pub, though -- if these books are a valid sample and I'm judging them fairly -- doesn't do nearly as well.

    If you pick up a self-pub book on kindle, you have one chance in twenty-five of getting that marginally competence I take for granted at B&N.
    You have an ominous ninety-six percent chance of getting pure crap.

    And if you're in the market for that really good book, the worthwhile one that entertains and delights somebody? The one-in-ten good stuff Sturgeon speaks of?

    On the B&N shelf, the chance is one-in-ten.

    The grim mathematics of probability means the chance of finding an excellent book in those self-pubs is less than one in 250.

    I do not like those odds.

    This is NOT a criticism of the writers. The volume of self-pub is so great there may be more great books in absolute numbers among the self pub than are being put out by New York in print.

    This is the READER's dilemma.

    The average cost of the twenty-five self-pubbed books I looked at is $3. For twice that, one can get a book that's run the gauntlet of submission, selection and editing in the publishing industry.

    So what motivation does the reader have for buying self-pub?

    There are special case.
    Following a known author into her self-publishing venture is a no-brainer. If she's good writing for Berkely, she'll be just as good (probably) writing on her own.
    Trying out a free book has no downside except wasting a little time.

    But until readers get reliable gatekeepers who will do the sieving for us, the self-publishing universe is a big bowl of very thin soup. I suspect most of the best chunks sink unregarded down there with the celery.

    All that said ...
    whaddu I know?

    Most of the twenty-five books that showed up on my list today have have no reviews. But a good few of them have collected reviews -- god knows from where. Maybe print editions?

    5-star reviews -- 56
    4-star -- 21
    3-star -- 6
    2-star -- 3
    1-star -- 10

    for an overall average of 4.14.

    Loretta Chase's Lord of Scoundrels weighs in at 4.5
    Kinsale's Flowers From the Storm is at 4.3
    Sherry Thomas Private Arrangements is a scant 4.0
    and my own Lord and Spymaster tips in at a bare 3.9

    In the face of those 77 four- and five- star ratings,
    maybe take my opinions with a grain of salt.

    1. Jane O8:16 PM

      I am extremely dubious about most reviews. Too many review sites give EVERYTHING high marks. (I blame the teachers who did that when the reviewers were in school.) The only reviews worth paying attention to are the ones from reviewers who also give bad reviews and who, whether the review is good or bad, give their reasons for the grade. A 1-star review because "the writer uses words I don't know"? Or because "there aren't enough sex scenes"? Surely you josh.

      And as for reviews of self-published books? I could probably write a book and get 56 5-star reviews from my friends and relations.

    2. Hi Jane --

      Ah. The infamous family-and-friends reviews.

      My dog would give me a great review if she could get past the whole paws-on-the-keyboard thing. Her spelling is actually better than mine.

      I rather like the reviews that say there aren't enough love scenes in the book when what they obviously mean is there's not enough sex. I blame it on the Romance genre covers.

      I understand Amazon has come up with some 'bot' and they're removing author reviews of other authors. Also they may possibly be pulling reviews that seem to originate in the same household or even the same zip code. That will stop innocent friends-and-family reviews, but not anyone who's seriously gaming the system.

      I do tend to read the 1- and 2- star reviews first.

  15. You should have seen the average for my beloved DELICIOUS: probably 3.5 on a good day. I totally get why people might hate some of my other books, but this one leaves me scratching my head.

    I've recently dipped my toes into self-pubbing, a novella in an anthology with Courtney Milan and Carolyn Jewel in August and a standalone novella in September. I can't comment on the #s for the anthology since I haven't asked for my parters' permission, but I can give #s on the novella.

    Now the novella is not a very good example, since 1) it's erotica and I don't normally do erotica and 2) I did no separate promotion for it at all, since it is linked to Tempting the Bride, my October release and 3) it is not priced competitively.

    I have backlist books that Random House has made available for $3.99 in the U.S. and I have made available overseas at the same price (Canadian readers are screwed as RH charges an arm and a leg for those same books in Canada, for reasons beyond me). The novella is priced at $2.99. So if I were a reader wanting another Sherry Thomas book, I would go for the backlist first.

    (Why is it $2.99? Courtney Milan and Carolyn Jewel, both experienced in self-pubbing, told me that they would not price a novella at $0.99, unless it is being used as a loss-leader first entry in a series. So normally I would have put it at 1.99, but this is erotica and I do believe in the buttsecks surcharge.)

    It's been available for exactly 2 months (or data is available for exactly that much time). And I've sold 1,111 e-copies of various sort and 44 POD copies. My agent gets 15%--I actually did most of the formatting on this one since I was short on time, but normally her digital liaison would have done all the work if I'd scheduled stuff better+they ponied up for the cover and the copyediting. After my agent's cut, so far I have accrued, if my spreadsheet is correct, $1,914.60, pretax.

    Not exactly earthshaking #s, but not terribly insulting either. And it is not the end of the money it will earn. Right now it is still selling about 100 copies a week, or thereabout. I expect it to peter out to 50 a week soon enough. If it holds at that rate, in another five months I'd have sold another 1000 copies and by the anniversary of its publication I would be assured of $5000 from it. But the rate could dip to 25 a week or even lower, in which case I'd take twice or thrice amount of time to get to $5000.

    (Let's not forget I also paid $500 in editing out of my own pocket.)

    I don't ever expect to see $15,000 on this novella, but then again, it is not my bread and butter.

    (I have also put up my first four books for self-pubbing abroad--because we only sold Random House North American English rights so they actually cannot sell e-versions overseas. Private Arrangements and Delicious went up end of April, early May. Not Quite a Husband and His at Night only went up beginning of November, since I've had the busiest summer I've ever known.

    I immediately noticed something strange. His at Night has sold more than twice as much as Not Quite a Husband--and that is just historically aberrant. NQAH has traditionally been the one that sold best in E, on strong word-of-mouth. Then we realized that Amazon UK, where the bulk of the sales are made, has NQAH listed at the equivalent of $5.99, instead of the $3.99 we asked for.

    So yes, price definitely matters, even for a book with an Amazon rating of 4.5, or somewhere in that range.)

  16. Sherry --


    I have no idea what this all means, but some people looking at this will.

    How wonderful and interesting that you retained overseas e-version rights. Hmmm .....