Remedial Publishing Math
Yesterday, Victoria Strauss tweeted a link to The Ugly Truth About Getting Your Book Published, in which Phil Cooke is just the latest voice to proclaim the Awful Truth about Publishing.
The article flaunts various numbers to show that book sales are PLUMMETTING, and everything is AWFUL! (He also includes strategies for dealing with these awful truths. Coincidentally, Cooke runs Cooke Pictures, a media/publicity consulting company who will happily help you survive this terrible storm … for a fee.)
(ETA: Phil Cooke commented to say that he does not, in fact, charge a fee for his services. And then follows up with a sockpuppet. Sigh…)
For example, “Bowker reports that 560,626 new books were published in the U.S. in 2008, which is more than double the number of new books published five years earlier (2003) in the U.S. These figures include print-on-demand and short-run books, which is where most of the growth has occurred.” (Emphasis added.)
And then, from point number three, “Average book sales are shockingly small, and falling fast.”
Ladies and gentlemen, we have MathFail. Let me break it down with simple and totally made-up numbers.
Let’s say a decade ago, 1000 different books were published, and each book sold an average of 10,000 copies. 1000 x 10,000 means 10,000,000 books sold overall.
Then print-on-demand technology leads to an explosion of self-publishing and vanity presses. Ten years later, we have twice as many books being published. But the average PoD title sells what, 100 copies? Let’s be generous and call it 200. Assuming no change at all in traditionally published[1. I hate that phrase, but can’t think of a better one right now] books, we see:
1000 x 10,000 = 10,000,000 traditionally published books.
1000 x 200 = 200,000 PoD books.
10,000,000 + 200,000 = 10,200,000 total books published.
10,200,000 / 2000 = 5100 average copies per book.
Oh noes! Average book sales have been cut almost in half! It’s the end of publishing … even though, in our made-up example, traditionally published books are selling just as well as they did a decade ago.
If you want to educate me, show me useful data. Be specific. Don’t just flash around misleading and utterly useless generalizations.
Want another example? “A book has less than a 1% chance of being stocked in an average bookstore.”
MathFail Redux. If you sell a book to Tor or Baen or DAW, you have an extremely good chance of having your book stocked in an average bookstore. “Sell” to Publish America, and your chances are closer to 0%. But lump everything together, and you can get your average to be nice, scary, and utterly meaningless.
“Here’s the reality of the book industry: in 2004, 950,000 titles out of the 1.2 million tracked by Nielsen Bookscan sold fewer than 99 copies.” And how many of those titles are out of print? Specialty books? Vanity Press?
It’s true that publishing is in a rough place right now. Print runs really are down, overall … but not necessarily to the extent implied in Cooke’s article. Things are changing, and we’re working to keep up and adapt. It’s not the end of print, the end of publishing, or the end of the world.
—
Michele Lee
January 27, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
All excellent points! Thank you for pointing them out and being a voice of reason in all this spin.
Steve Buchheit
January 27, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
ZOMG! The sky is falling the sky is falling. Thankfully Cooke is selling umbrellas.
Tablesaw
January 27, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
The Bowkes numbers used for total books is here: http://www.bowker.com/bookwire/IndustryStats2009.pdf
The 2008 numbers are currently listed as “projected.”
Total number of books for 2003: 266,322
Total number of books for 2008 (excluding “OnDemand, Short Run, and Other Unclassified”): 275,232
Total “OnDemand, Short Run, and Other Unclassified” books for 2008: 285,394.
On the other hand, the fiction category doesn’t appear to include the “OnDemand, Short Run, and Other Unclassified” count. In 2003, it was 24,666; in 2008, it was 47,541. So that seems to indicate that the number of fiction books has nearly doubled in the last five years, without taking short-run books into account. And that’s down 13% from 2007, where the number was 53,590.
Other fun numbers:
Change in “OnDemand, Short Run, and Other Unclassified” from 2007-08: 132%
Change in “OnDemand, Short Run, and Other Unclassified” from 2006-07: 462%
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Remedial Publishing Math -- Topsy.com
January 28, 2010 @ 12:48 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Victoria Strauss, Steven Saus, Anton Strout, Heidi L. Ellis, James Ackerson and others. James Ackerson said: RT @jimchines: New Post: Remedial Publishing Math http://bit.ly/dbQR6K […]
Read On The Web
January 28, 2010 @ 3:09 am
[…] Jim C. Hines » Remedial Publishing Math: […]
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2010 @ 8:32 am
Thanks for this! I’ll include that link in today’s post, too.
Phil Cooke
January 28, 2010 @ 11:11 am
Jim: Thanks for linking to my article, but I’m afraid you’ve missed my point. First – the numbers weren’t from me, they were from publisher Steven Piersanti, President of Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Second – I don’t charge a fee to help writers. We work with major organizations – the leaders of which often are bestselling authors. But we are a media company focusing on television, film, and social media. Finally, I passed the numbers along not to lament the demise of publishing (I just turned in my 5th book manuscript last week to my agent), but to stress how important it is for authors to take charge of their own careers. I’m thrilled you apparently have a publisher that promotes your work well, but for the vast majority of writers, little to no help will come from their publisher for marketing or promoting their work. Looking at these numbers is a real wake up call that we need to develop our own plans for developing a “tribe” (as Seth Godin calls it,) who will be a ready audience for our books. Change isn’t coming, it’s already here – whether we’re ready for it or not. Again, thanks for the link, and the great work you’re doing on the blog. – Phil Cooke
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2010 @ 11:19 am
Thank you Phil. I’ve updated the post to note that you do not charge fees.
As for the rest, if you’re reposting an article (which I assume you had permission to do) based on such blatantly flawed math and logic, then you are responsible for perpetuating bad information.
I notice you never actually address any of the flaws I pointed out. You just repeat your rally for a wake-up call based on bad info, a tactic often used by scammers and others hoping to score cash and attention.
Bob Sampson
January 28, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Ouch. Jim – I like your blog, but lighten up a little! I don’t know Phil Cooke, but his response was gracious and very helpful. To compare him to a scammer trying to score cash is ridiculous. I for one am taking his advice to heart. Nit-picking on who’s numbers are more accurate is simply a waste of time. The world is changing, and to ridicule those helping us understand that change would be suicide.
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
I never said he was a scammer. I pointed out that he was repeating the blatantly flawed myths and misinformation used by scammers.
By the way, Phil, you should be aware that WordPress tracks IP addresses from commenters.
Bob Sampson
January 29, 2010 @ 1:17 am
Duh – of course it’s the same IP. I typed it on his computer. We’re all at the Sundance Film Festival’s writer’s lounge where Phil is speaking to the Windrider Forum. When his wife showed us your response, she let me write my comment back to you. BTW – I included his company email address so you can contact him. I finally met him tonight and his business partner is Ralph Winter – producer of Planet of the Apes, X-Men, and Wolverine. Perhaps Phil could help you make a movie out of one of your novels. (But before you contact him, I suggest you dial down the hysteria a bit. 🙂 -Bob
Jim C. Hines
January 29, 2010 @ 7:53 am
I see. So you’re not a sockpuppet, but a fan leaping to Phil’s defense when he or his wife pointed out that someone was being mean to him on the Internet?
If you truly want to defend him, you might try addressing some of the criticisms. Phil could be partners with the Queen of England, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s pushing bad information.
But if all you’re interested in is more vague but enthusiastic cheerleading, please don’t bother to respond.
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Remedial Publishing Math -- Topsy.com
January 30, 2010 @ 2:46 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim C. Hines, Jim C. Hines. Jim C. Hines said: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Phil Cooke and sockpuppet: http://bit.ly/9d2mT7 […]