A viral tweet that made the rounds over the weekend caused quite a stir in oldpub circles. Family festivities kept me from covering the story yesterday, so we’ll dive in now.
The background is that two of the big New York publishers are embroiled in antitrust litigation. An oldpub author tweeted out the bombshell, alleged to have come out at trial, that half the books oldpub released last year sold fewer than 12 copies.
This claim is almost certainly nonsense. It appears to have originated from another author’s Instagram post, and no one can find it in the trial transcript. So as schadenfreude-inducing as the idea of oldpub underperforming a garage sale may be, we have to file it in the BS drawer pending documented proof.
That doesn’t mean this rumor was entirely fruitless. It prompted another oldpub author to fire off this post, which is one of the most hilarious copes I’ve read in years.
In it, the author duly debunks the bombastic tweet. He then seeks to correct the record on oldpub’s real sales numbers.
This claim took off with the usual suspects—conservative pundits claiming publishing is too “woke” and self-publishing evangelicals saying every author would make a fortune if they ditched traditional publishing—but the publishing professionals I know said this claim is very fishy. (I’m pretty sure publishers would go out of business if 50% of their books sold less than 12 copies!) So this statistic isn’t true. Or at least it isn’t true in the way you might think.
You’ll note the in-group signifiers, like putting a descriptor that Death Cultists self-apply in scare quotes when it comes from the mouths of infidels. There’s also the Freudian slip of substituting evangelicals for evangelists. Taken together, they indicate we’re reading an oldpub apologist eager to get in the Cult’s good graces.
Which is odd because he goes on to make what reads like a newpub evangelist argument from 2013. He points out the inaccuracy of legacy sales tracking methods used by oldpub, lets slip that big NY publishers keep some books in print forever (which means the authors never get their rights back), and admits oldpub’s lackluster selling power.
In my experience, and with the data I’ve seen, most traditionally published novels that you see on bookstore shelves or reviewed in newspapers sell several hundred to a few thousand copies or more across formats. I’ve seen some flops that sold only a couple hundred. And of course not all traditionally published novels appear in bookstores or reviewed in newspapers.
I’d dated the arguments in the OP to 2013, but the mention of newspapers is a flashback to 1993.
Anachronisms aside, the argument for oldpub was always that signing with a big publisher was the only way into the traditional book distribution system. That meant signing all of your rights away forever in exchange for 8-15% royalties on sales through brick-and-mortar stores. Then 12.5% on eBooks, which oldpub worked to stifle.
Which made the perceived potential for much higher sales volume the only point in oldpub’s favor.
But go back and read the paragraph estimating oldpub’s sales again. Moving copies in the 3 to 4 figure range used to be the oldpub caricature of newpub books. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that sales numbers don’t significantly differ between oldpub and newpub authors. Due to higher royalties, that would mean newpub authors earn 6 times more than their oldpub counterparts.
Not that newpub authors out-earning oldpub authors is some new revelation. The data have shown that’s the case for years.
Proving yet again that there is no reason to sign your soul away to oldpub. Except Death Cult clout chasing.
And getting back to the topic of anachronisms, even Amazon is old news now. The real future of publishing – and all the arts – is neopatronage.
My proven track record in both markets shows you I know what I’m talking about.
Read my Amazon Top 5 in Sci Fi debut novel.
