What counts as an impressive sales figure?

[TheImmaterial]

Hello,

This is a purely hypothetical question about self-publishing sales really. In particular, what sorts of sales are likely to impress a would-be agent or publisher?

I know self-published rarely sell well and anything over 100 would be remarkable indeed (extended family excluded) but what sort of figures would get an agent excited? Perhaps enough to overlook or reassess an initial lackluster opinion of the work (is such a thing even possible?)

For example if a part 2 in a trilogy landed on your desk that didn't seem like anything special would the fact the author can credibly claim X-many sales in Y-amount of time for the first in the series sway you to make an offer?

I ask this really out of curiosity rather than a false hope at landing a publishing deal (I've only just finished my first draft so am a long way from even considering submissions). I've read a lot about agents and publishers saying how they need to love the book if they are going to be willing to put the time and effort into representing it and wondered how that might stack up against proven marketability.

I suppose if i ever do end up in the self-publishing route it'll give me something to aim at

 

[Ian Whates]

In all honesty, I'm not sure an agent or publisher would ever look to make an offer on part two of a trilogy. They'd want something new. Nor would they be interested in a part one that had already been self-published.

Mark Robson -- who is a real exception in self-publishing terms, a veritable phenomenon -- sold some 40,000 copies of his self-published series over five years. When Simon and Schuster took him on, they did so on the basis of a new series, and weren't interested in the existing books.

Yes, an agent or publisher might take note of truly impressive sales figures for self-published work, but their prime concern will be the commercial viability of whatever you're going to be producing for them, not what's gone before.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

All the above...

It's gotta be new, new, new!

 

[Boneman]

If you glance through this list: www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish-a.htm you'll see that there are some books that have been picked up by mainstream publishers and had success as a reprint, but a good portion of those are non-fiction. Of course the site is called 'The Self Publishing Hall of Fame' so it's a bit shameless in its approach, but it's also quite honest.
Publishers are only there to make money: give them a good chance of doing that, and they'll take it. But it's got to be a good chance...

 

[TheImmaterial]

Publishers are only there to make money: give them a good chance of doing that, and they'll take it. But it's got to be a good chance...

That's what I'm curious about really. What counts as a good chance? 1000 copies pre-ordered by fans of the first book? Consistent and increasing sales of a series even if it doesn't appear to be that spectacular?

I suppose another way of asking my question is: if you were a publisher what sorts of prior sales statistics for the author would make you take on the project? What would impress you enough to quieten doubts about literacy merit to make you take on the project regardless?

It's an odd question I know and let me know if you think it pointless to pursue it. I just find it interesting where the barrier between literary esteem and financial incentives might lie for a publisher.

 

[Boneman]

Okay, I asked my niece this question; she's a childrens book editor, so the profit margins are invariably different (more graphics in kids books, often physically bigger, shiny hard covers and so on) and she does work for a large publishing house, and her answer is interesting. "It depends on the editor." One would admire an author's get up and go, and take a real look at the piece, and the other would say "Well if it had to be self-published, it can't be any good".

Which isn't a lot of help at all. But, she spoke to colleagues in the (un?) real world of fiction, and the consensus was that it was the geographics of the sales that would influence them most to take a look: if you'd sold 1,000 copies and they were all in a tight area (say Brighton) they might assume it was your powers of persuausion that had got the sales, possibly not the book itself. But if you sold 1,000 and it was across the country, courtesy of internet/independent booksellers/ etc, they would be more inclined to have a look. And over what period the sales had been made, ie the quicker the better. All very unfair on a self-publisher who is slowly gathering momentum often by word of mouth sales, and their own ability to talk bookshops into taking it. The most telling comment was "If it had sold a couple of thousand, and it was still selling, then I probably might take a look."*

There doesn't seem to be a magic number of sales that will make people in the industry sit up and take notice, but below 1,000 and the guys at her company wouldn't be interested in looking. Unless the 1,000 had been achieved in a very short time, and the person who sent it in had some impressive figures to go with it - 'It has sold 800 copies through the internet in the last x weeks, and I've orders for 400 more', summat like that.

I'm uncertain there is a barrier between literary esteem and financial incentives - they'd be bust if they don't make money - look at a Katie Price book and tell me you can't write better than her (ghost), it's what sells the book, apparently... and cars... and motorcycles... etc etc.

I hope this is of some help. My own personal take on self-publishing is that I'd do it if I'd completely exhausted all the other possibilities, and I was convinced my book was the best it could be. And I'd be up and down the country, in my alter ego 'Supersalesman'... "Quick! To the salesmobile..."

Someone here will be able to tell you how many copies a publisher has to sell to even make a profit; there's bound to be a thread on it somewhere. But can I be depressing (or not) and say, as with so many things that it's so often not what you know, but who you know...? which leads me to

*No, damnit. they don't have a scifi imprint. I have told her a hundred times to get another job...

 

[The Judge]

I just find it interesting where the barrier between literary esteem and financial incentives might lie for a publisher.

Depends on whether your name is Katie Price, I imagine. If you don't have her... er... assets publicity-wise, or you're not otherwise in the public eye, I can't imagine a publisher taking on any newcomer's work for which he/she had 'doubts about literary merit'.

I think I'm right in saying that GP Taylor self-published 'Shadowmancer' and subsequently that was taken up by Faber and Faber I believe, together with the sequels, so it is possible. I know that the book isn't universally well-regarded for its literary qualities, but even then I can't believe the publishers thought it was utter crap.

I wouldn't let it worry you, TheImmaterial. Or rather, I wouldn't let it give you expectations. But if you're curious, have a look at Taylor and see what he may have said about his experiences.


PS Humph. I thought of the Katie Price thing first. Boneman's just quicker at typing than me

 

[Stephen Palmer]

GP Taylor's case is incredibly rare...

 

[Project Corvus]

My impression is that it is not at all rare for self-published books to be picked up by publishers. Cetainly not from the perspective of how rare it is for any book to get published. It may, in fact, be the coming thing.

I have recently read agents and publishers commenting on having picked up writers successful at selling their own books.

Regarding selling Part 2 of a series, I had the ocassion to hear about that from an agent at a writers conference in Seattle. Nobody, was the idea, wants to put effort into promoting something that benefits another publisher. They want all or nothing of a series.

 

[Ian Whates]

My impression is that it is not at all rare for self-published books to be picked up by publishers. Cetainly not from the perspective of how rare it is for any book to get published. It may, in fact, be the coming thing.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's incredibly rare for this to happen.

 

[Grifoney]

I too am at the stage of wondering which avenue to try. The difficulty that I have found is this; when publishers and agents publicly state an aspiring author has to be very original and gifted at the outset in order to be picked up, yet we see everyday clear examples of shockingly bad prose and editing/characterisation.
This in turn leads me to not only champ at the bit as it were, but also to doubt the veracity of the same tired statements from beleaguered Publishers and agents.
What we hear is not what we see.
Until that dichotomy is resolved for me, I still veer towards self publishing and aggressive marketing and advertising.
The difficulty that brings causes conflict however. It is all too easy (by an agent/publisher) to state that if the work is self published is can't be good. Yet I see so many examples of poor genre fillers out there. What hope have aspiring authors got when the truth of the matter is it's not so much whether you are good but whether you will sell. And as has been proven time again more get it wrong than right.

 

[Ian Whates]

The difficulty that I have found is this; when publishers and agents publicly state an aspiring author has to be very original and gifted at the outset in order to be picked up, yet we see everyday clear examples of shockingly bad prose and editing/characterisation.
This in turn leads me to not only champ at the bit as it were, but also to doubt the veracity of the same tired statements from beleaguered Publishers and agents.
What we hear is not what we see.
Until that dichotomy is resolved for me, I still veer towards self publishing and aggressive marketing and advertising.
The difficulty that brings causes conflict however. It is all too easy (by an agent/publisher) to state that if the work is self published is can't be good. Yet I see so many examples of poor genre fillers out there. What hope have aspiring authors got when the truth of the matter is it's not so much whether you are good but whether you will sell. And as has been proven time again more get it wrong than right.

Grifoney, the publishing world is a lot more professional than you're giving it credit for here. If you're so confident your own prose is superior to that of authors who have been published in recent years then you're in with a good chance -- though prose style is only one of the essential elements. (I'd love to know who you feel produces such shockingly poor prose and characterisation, by the way.)

I do understand your frustrations, though. I recall sitting in a hotel bar a few years back when I was struggling hard to get short stories published and receiving many more rejections than acceptances, and decrying how difficult it all was. Looking back, I probably made a right idiot of myself, since my two drinking companions were both established authors. One of them, Al Reynolds, said something which I sensed was probably right even then, although it wasn't what I wanted to hear: "It is hard, but given time the cream still rises to the top."

I don't think anybody claims that self-published novels are automatically bad but, unfortunately, a lot of them are. It's inevitable, because self-publishing lacks the quality control that the vetting of agents and publishers provides. Undoubtedly there's work of a high standard as well, but it isn't always easy to tell the wheat from the chaff.

As far as becoming a published author goes, I've always believed three things to be absolutely essential:

1. Ability
2. Hard work
3. Luck

And a thick skin doesn't hurt either.

Best of luck, whichever route you end up pursuing.

 

[Susan Boulton]

What hope have aspiring authors got when the truth of the matter is it's not so much whether you are good but whether you will sell.

I have to disagree here, you have to be good and you have to sell. Publishing is a business like any other, that is something aspiring authors tend not to think about. They are so focused on writing their magnum opus that they fail to see beyond it.

To catch the attention of a publisher or agent you have to;

Have a good grasp of language and the use of it (whether you are writing in English or Venusian)

You have to be able to handle and create a plot line using the above. (Easy to say, but damn hard to do)

You have to master the art of pacing your action. (The ebb and flow of a story is like its heart beat, get it wrong and your novel has a major heart attack.)

You have to create characters to weave into your plot that are both interesting and believable to the reader. (The why behind a characters' actions is as important as what they do.)

You have to avoid all the pitfalls of clarity, showing not telling, confusion of place, time, characters present in the scene, handling of POV, change of POV, place, time etc, etc. (What my agent calls burrs that catch on the reader and drag them out of the story)

Once you have gotten these licked you have to research the market.

You target agents and publishers that work in your genre.

You know what is selling in your genre.

You have to understand why new novels by new authors, of 90,000 to 120,000 words sell better than a 230,000 manuscript. (did you know that 20% is added to the length of a novel when it is translated from English to French. Too longer length could kill a first time novel's chance of being sold outside its domestic market. An agent or publisher will be looking to sell your work all over the world, and unless your 230,000 effort is the best thing since sliced bread *shrugs shoulders*)

You have to show the agent and publisher that you have a professional approach to your work, understand the meaning of deadlines and commitments

Even if you do all this and say catch an agent, you need to remember your agent has to prove most of the above to a publisher on your behalf. And if your book is sold to a publisher it does not mean you are going to have huge sales. A book is a product and like all product launches things can go wrong. Also a new author has an up hill struggle to prove themselves in the market, same as any new product.

Taking all this into consideration you need to ask yourself are you prepared to spend years working to reach your goal, or do you want the supposed quick fix, which honestly is what self-publishing is in many ways.

I am not against self-publishing, but folks need to look hard at their reasons for doing so and be realistic about what they will get out of it.


Edit; and what Ian said

 

[Ursa major]

Let's just imagine that it's true that some books containing "clear examples of shockingly bad prose and editing/characterisation" get past the gatekeepers -- agents, editors and whoever else is in a position to give the thumbs down -- and into print**.


So what? Should a budding author rely on luck to get their book into print? Or should they seek out the most lenient*** gatekeepers?

Of course not. What would be the point? If a book is good**** and it meets all the requirements of those whose business it is to present books to the market, it will make it into print.



** - No human process is infallible. Having said that, I don't recognise the failings Grifoney has identified in any of the books I've read, even in those I've heartily disliked.

*** - And the most lenient will include authors who think the only answer is to self-publish (and vanity publishers willing to take their cut from this delusion). Which is not to say all self-published books are bad; but without proper quality control before the book is published, all self-publishers are taking a big risk, not just financially but in terms of their reputation.

**** - In terms of plot, setting, character, prose, etc.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I too am at the stage of wondering which avenue to try. The difficulty that I have found is this; when publishers and agents publicly state an aspiring author has to be very original and gifted at the outset in order to be picked up, yet we see everyday clear examples of shockingly bad prose and editing/characterisation.
This in turn leads me to not only champ at the bit as it were, but also to doubt the veracity of the same tired statements from beleaguered Publishers and agents.

Don't make the mistake of thinking publishing is fair. It isn't. But if you have the ability and, more importantly, the perseverance, you might get somewhere. Might. You have to be lucky too.

 

[iansales]

Having said that, I don't recognise the failings Grifoney has identified in any of the books I've read, even in those I've heartily disliked.

It depends on your threshold. I've certainly read best-sellers whose prose left a lot to be desired. Dan Brown, for example.

 

[Ursa major]

It depends on your threshold. I've certainly read best-sellers whose prose left a lot to be desired. Dan Brown, for example.

That's how I'd characterise that particular author's prose, but that's a far cry from "shockingly bad", which I would translate as being too distracting to allow a reader to get into the story.



(Perhaps it's the difference between actively - even egregiously - bad and passively so, Brown's prose being in the latter camp.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Yes, but writers like Brown do have something they do well to compensate for their mediocre prose, or they wouldn't have all of those readers.

If we could figure out what that something was and find a way to combine it with our own immeasurably better prose, we might be bestselling authors, too.

 

[Susan Boulton]

Yes, but writers like Brown do have something they do well to compensate for their mediocre prose, or they wouldn't have all of those readers.

If we could figure out what that something was and find a way to combine it with our own immeasurably better prose, we might be bestselling authors, too.

Very true.

On various forums have read the same about J. K Rowling and Stephenie Meyer.

You might not like the books and feel the prose are lacking, but their stories have tapped into something that the buying public like. And it isn't all hipe and good marketing, all these authors started out the same as any other new author. Something happened that started the ball rolling. If it could be bottled I want some!

 

[mygoditsraining]

On various forums have read the same about J. K Rowling and Stephenie Meyer.

You might not like the books and feel the prose are lacking, but their stories have tapped into something that the buying public like.

Re: Brown, Meyer, et. al. - I would say their writing isn't bad per se, but it's very targetted. In the same way that I can't listen to the music of the Jonas Brothers or Miley Cyrus, I can still appreciate that it is aimed at a very specific (and large) demographic that I am not part of. Likewise with books -taking a look at pacy crime stuff (e.g. Lee Child) or paranormal romance (Christine Feehan) - I can't make it through any of them without at least once slamming the book shut in disgust, but then I have to recognise that it's not aimed at me. The writing isn't bad - it's fit for purpose.

I suppose my addition to the advice in this thread is to be determined, but realistic about your expectations. If you produce something you think you'd be happy to send out into the world, and you're absolutely sure that it is the best work that it is going to be, then exhaust every single possible "conventional" method of selling your work available to you.

I know it's popular at the moment to tear down the industry as being false arbiters of taste who pass over works of staggering genius and churn out bi-annual Ant and Dec biographies, but from talking to authors I'm led to understand that it's massively worth your while to push for the industry route above all others. Agents and publishers come with a mass of connections: other publishers, pluggers, buyers, reviewers, agents, authors, editors, script doctors, tv execs and film production staff: to be able to jack into that network through a contract is, in the long run, going to pay off because you won't just have a book at the end of it - you'll have a career.

If you get some rejections, or some advice, take what feedback you get on board and work endlessly to improve. If absolutely nothing comes of it, be prepared to think very seriously about the possibility that what you've come up with might not be marketable, and that you might have to start over.