FIVE months ago I published a short book called “Boom.” Commercially it was a bust. No news in that: Most books lose money and are quickly forgotten by all but their wounded authors.
But this experience wasn’t just a predictable blow to what’s left of my self-esteem. It’s also a cautionary farce about the new media and technology we’re so often told is the bright shining future for writers and readers.
My month of self-flackery seemed to work. In the sales rankings on Amazon for Kindle Singles, “Boom” broke the top 25, and almost all the titles ahead of it were fiction. In categories like “Page-Turning Narratives,” my work often ranked No. 1. I was a nonfiction digital best seller!
Eager to know how many copies this represented, I asked Byliner for sales figures. It took them a while to respond — because, I imagined, they needed the time to tally the dizzying numbers pouring in from Amazon, iTunes and other retailers. In fact, the total was such that Byliner could offer only a “guesstimate.” In its first month “Boom” had sold “somewhere between 700 and 800 copies,” the email read, adding, “these things can take time to build, and this is the kind of story with a potentially very long tail.”
My laid-off Aussie editor, at least, did right by me in the end. As The Global Mail unraveled and its owner shut off funds, my editor managed to salvage the $15,000 I’d been promised long ago. A few days ago “Boom” also resurfaced on Amazon, as mysteriously as it had disappeared; Byliner pledged its continuing “commitment to long-form journalism”; and I learned that sales had inched into four figures. In all, a disappointing rather than a ruinous seduction.
Horowitz 's article is replete with the subtext that his mistake was in going digital, and not that he had the bad luck to sign with two digital middlemen which subsequently went under. Having been burned once, Horowitz would have you believe that, in general, digital publishing is not a viable option. (Anyone running an ebook startup might as well go flip burgers; you're doomed anyway.)
This doesn't bode well for all the authors who want to self-publish, does it?
Horowitz's article is getting passed around as evidence that authors are being screwed by Byliner in particular, and digital publishers in general, but few seem to be paying much attention to the fact that Horowitz had uniquely abominable luck.
Paul Carr, writing over at PandoDaily, noted that his experiences with Byliner fared better than Horowitz's:
Three years ago, I published a short book through Byliner, detailing my recovery from alcoholism. I certainly had gripes of my own the (then fledgling) company. The commissioning editor originally offered me a $5k advance before suddenly dropping it to $3k as we were about to sign the contract. Then Byliner sat on the manuscript for months and only finally published it when I offered to buy back the rights; after which the publicity machine stopped rolling after a couple of months, leaving the book to fend for itself. I have friends who have written for Byliner who have had similarly frustrating experiences, including one whose book was abruptly cancelled apparently because Byliner decided it wouldn’t sufficiently appeal to the company’s core audience of “middle-aged women” (it was a book about tech).
And yet, as I read Horwitz’s column, I felt myself first confused, then steadily more angry at the unfairness being meted out to Byliner, specifically, and to the ebook publishing industry, generally.
Most of my — and Horwitz’s — issues with Byliner (renegotiated terms, sluggishness in publishing, sudden halting of publicity) I’ve also experienced with traditional publishers large and small. If Horwitz has issue with those, he has issue with the entire publishing industry. Also, some of Horwitz’s gripes are plainly beyond Byliner’s ability to fix: is the firm really supposed to arrange bulk orders of a Kindle Single for conference attendees? For one thing, that’s just not how Singles work.
Carr goes on to note that his e-single sold 14,710 copies, earning him around $9,200 over the past 3 years. He's earned more from some of his traditionally published books, but he also has earned less on some titles.
And more importantly, this wasn't a book. It was a single article, really more of a short memoir than anything, leading Carr to remark that "Close to ten grand for a long piece of journalism really isn’t too bad at all".
That's a failure all right. It reminds me of how Stephen King's early serial web novel The Plant was deemed a failure and cancelled because downloads exceeded an arbitrary ratio to sales, even though the novel had generated almost half a million in profit before the end.
When I read Horowitz's piece on Friday, my first thought was that it was a hatchet piece designed to attack digital publishing in general.
My second thought was that his irrational and illogical conclusion could be summed up in a few words:
If at first you don't succeed, give up. Whatever you are trying to do is impossible, and you're better off not trying a second time.
If you break it down to its simplest form, Horowitz's argument is really that simple. And it really is that wrong. Amazon invested in ebooks for 7 years before opening the Kindle Store. JK Rowling was turned down by a dozen publishing houses. And Margaret Mitchell was rejected 38 times for Gone with the Wind.
Horowitz is giving up on digital publishing after being burned once. That doesn't strike you as a sound idea, does it?