4 thoughts on “Only 40 Self-Published Authors are a Success, says Amazon”
I couldn’t read that article, but I’m dubious about the spin on that number. It implies an annual income of approx $400,000 to $500,000. How many authors in general make that? I’m guessing not many. However, there are a large number of authors (over a 1000 at least) on Amazon making around $50,000 per year, which is a decent wage. And many more than that who are making over $20,000 per year. I think most people would consider that “making money”.
So I tend to agree that the purpose was to have a headline to that make self-publishing look unprofitable, since few people will actually read the article compared to those who see the headline, and the NYT is not a champion of indie authors. I wonder if Amazon will respond to this at some point (given they hasn’t mentioned that stats in their KDP newsletter).
But you larger point is valid, Riley: whatever is considered “making money” — be 40 or 40,000 (a more reasonable estimate) — that is a tiny percentage of all authors. Very few authors will see a living wage from their work, but that is not the point of writing (doing almost anything else is more likely to provide a living wage than writing). Writing is it’s own reward, and whatever we get from it in terms of income is pretty gravy.
I read that a few days ago, and while I understand how Amazon reached this number of 40, I think their evaluation of all self-published authors is incorrect. I know authors who don’t sell on Amazon, but sell hundreds (sometimes thousands) of printed books in person. They sell them at conferences such as HalCon, and speaking engagements. I know a few who don’t sell much on Amazon but sell hundreds on ChaptersIndigo.
Their statement says only one thing: 40 self-published authors sold more than a million copies of their eBooks in the past five years.
Perhaps ten of those 40 authors sold a million copies of their eBooks priced at $0.99. What about the ones who sold half as many for $3.99? Who makes the most money?
The 40 number is something that will be regurgitated for next year. It is meant to discourage self-publishing. Well, I’m not discouraged because average traditionally published authors don’t have it any easier, and they are not making any more money than we are.
I didn’t look at it as a way to discourage, I looked at it as a sign that writing isn’t what you should do if you’re looking to only turn a profit.
I don’t discourage anyone from writing their story, even if you don’t make money from the endeavor, it’s good to get somethings off your chest. I think people would be surprised just how much writing can lift a weight off of your soul.
I don’t disagree with you: writing helps me get through life. It’s beneficial for the soul. I’d write regardless if I published or not. In fact, I’d write more if I didn’t publish because I’d have more time to just write.
But I don’t edit my drafts, spend hours getting every word right, then hire an editor and market my books for my health. So while I write for the soul, I publish for the money. I need money to eat and for a warm, dry place to sleep. I also like taking in a film now and again.
I invest in my writing/publishing because that’s my retirement fund. So yes, I write to turn a profit, and I feel these sorts of ‘announcements’ are geared toward discouraging self-publishers. But they are falling on blind eyes with me. They only make me work smarter.
I couldn’t read that article, but I’m dubious about the spin on that number. It implies an annual income of approx $400,000 to $500,000. How many authors in general make that? I’m guessing not many. However, there are a large number of authors (over a 1000 at least) on Amazon making around $50,000 per year, which is a decent wage. And many more than that who are making over $20,000 per year. I think most people would consider that “making money”.
So I tend to agree that the purpose was to have a headline to that make self-publishing look unprofitable, since few people will actually read the article compared to those who see the headline, and the NYT is not a champion of indie authors. I wonder if Amazon will respond to this at some point (given they hasn’t mentioned that stats in their KDP newsletter).
But you larger point is valid, Riley: whatever is considered “making money” — be 40 or 40,000 (a more reasonable estimate) — that is a tiny percentage of all authors. Very few authors will see a living wage from their work, but that is not the point of writing (doing almost anything else is more likely to provide a living wage than writing). Writing is it’s own reward, and whatever we get from it in terms of income is pretty gravy.
I read that a few days ago, and while I understand how Amazon reached this number of 40, I think their evaluation of all self-published authors is incorrect. I know authors who don’t sell on Amazon, but sell hundreds (sometimes thousands) of printed books in person. They sell them at conferences such as HalCon, and speaking engagements. I know a few who don’t sell much on Amazon but sell hundreds on ChaptersIndigo.
Their statement says only one thing: 40 self-published authors sold more than a million copies of their eBooks in the past five years.
Perhaps ten of those 40 authors sold a million copies of their eBooks priced at $0.99. What about the ones who sold half as many for $3.99? Who makes the most money?
The 40 number is something that will be regurgitated for next year. It is meant to discourage self-publishing. Well, I’m not discouraged because average traditionally published authors don’t have it any easier, and they are not making any more money than we are.
I didn’t look at it as a way to discourage, I looked at it as a sign that writing isn’t what you should do if you’re looking to only turn a profit.
I don’t discourage anyone from writing their story, even if you don’t make money from the endeavor, it’s good to get somethings off your chest. I think people would be surprised just how much writing can lift a weight off of your soul.
I don’t disagree with you: writing helps me get through life. It’s beneficial for the soul. I’d write regardless if I published or not. In fact, I’d write more if I didn’t publish because I’d have more time to just write.
But I don’t edit my drafts, spend hours getting every word right, then hire an editor and market my books for my health. So while I write for the soul, I publish for the money. I need money to eat and for a warm, dry place to sleep. I also like taking in a film now and again.
I invest in my writing/publishing because that’s my retirement fund. So yes, I write to turn a profit, and I feel these sorts of ‘announcements’ are geared toward discouraging self-publishers. But they are falling on blind eyes with me. They only make me work smarter.