I really don't get the whole 'social media is evil' view point. Yeah, Facebook is pretty useless unless you're using it to keep in touch with friends and family (for example, my uncle lives in Sri Lanka. I wouldn't hear much from him without Facebook), but Twitter is pretty damn good. It's full of agents, editors and writers. It isn't just about people bleating on about what they had for breakfast.
Book sequels are hitting shelves faster
- Thread starter Ransonwrites
- Start date
I need a cut and paste "What Mouse said" (we probably need a shared one for our hive brain.)
I find Twitter good. I don't tweet much, and I mostly zone out of the people I follow, except a few I find funny (Marian Keyes, mainly, and our own J-Wo), and a Chrons list that Abernovo kindly built, and another list I follow from the agency I'm in. But it's not onerous and, as Mouse says, if you're querying not being on Twitter puts you at a real disadvantage. (I knew when Hex's agent started following her that she'd get an offer, and my own agent started a few days before I got an offer.)
A couple of things I've heard recently -- one of the agents(can't remember who) said that you wouldn't believe the time they're prepared to put into checking your internet footprint. Now, that goes two ways -- If you've got your book in all sorts of query threads, or you're saying stupid things on the net, or you're behaving unprofessionally, it's the red flag for them to walk away. But, also, they are looking for people who can, at least, negotiate their way around the tech-world.
Plus, in terms of promotion, it's easy. I rarely tweet about my worlds or writing, not just because I'm not supposed to, but, because, frankly, my dog wearing the cone of shame is more fun. I do blog, but I see Tweeting as different, a new way to reach out to some people and have a giggle. I like the personalisation you can put into it - I have some sci fi geeky stuff and none of my professional colleagues see that side of me. I also have a lot of management consultants who follow me and probably wonder when I ever actually work since #amwriting, is one of my most common comments.
But you don't have to do it, as KMQ says. Having said that, my agency provided me with a guide to social media and definitely encourage me to use at least one platform.
And, if you look at someone like Mark Lawrence and see how he uses it, it can be a fantastic tool for promotion. One thing he does, which I like, is that if you make a reply (even an inane, silly one) he favourites it. Not all the authors do that, and it's a nice touch, one that's relatively quick I think. Or Marian Keyes does loads of retweets for charities.
By the way, I occasionally bleat about breakfast. But mostly cake. Which is always relevant, no matter what platform we're on.
I find Twitter good. I don't tweet much, and I mostly zone out of the people I follow, except a few I find funny (Marian Keyes, mainly, and our own J-Wo), and a Chrons list that Abernovo kindly built, and another list I follow from the agency I'm in. But it's not onerous and, as Mouse says, if you're querying not being on Twitter puts you at a real disadvantage. (I knew when Hex's agent started following her that she'd get an offer, and my own agent started a few days before I got an offer.)
A couple of things I've heard recently -- one of the agents(can't remember who) said that you wouldn't believe the time they're prepared to put into checking your internet footprint. Now, that goes two ways -- If you've got your book in all sorts of query threads, or you're saying stupid things on the net, or you're behaving unprofessionally, it's the red flag for them to walk away. But, also, they are looking for people who can, at least, negotiate their way around the tech-world.
Plus, in terms of promotion, it's easy. I rarely tweet about my worlds or writing, not just because I'm not supposed to, but, because, frankly, my dog wearing the cone of shame is more fun. I do blog, but I see Tweeting as different, a new way to reach out to some people and have a giggle. I like the personalisation you can put into it - I have some sci fi geeky stuff and none of my professional colleagues see that side of me. I also have a lot of management consultants who follow me and probably wonder when I ever actually work since #amwriting, is one of my most common comments.
But you don't have to do it, as KMQ says. Having said that, my agency provided me with a guide to social media and definitely encourage me to use at least one platform.
And, if you look at someone like Mark Lawrence and see how he uses it, it can be a fantastic tool for promotion. One thing he does, which I like, is that if you make a reply (even an inane, silly one) he favourites it. Not all the authors do that, and it's a nice touch, one that's relatively quick I think. Or Marian Keyes does loads of retweets for charities.
By the way, I occasionally bleat about breakfast. But mostly cake. Which is always relevant, no matter what platform we're on.
I'm not a fan of twitter. People use it and it means I may set up an account on there at some point, but it's not a format I like or enjoy in any way. I rank it up there with reddit as things people love and I would happily see nuked into oblivion. It offers nothing facebook doesn't already offer. Or at least nothing facebook didn't used to offer. Over the years FB have removed control of what you see in your feed to the point that it's little more than a picture and quiz fest with the option to keep in touch with family and friends from the distant past.
But then I purposefully don't have a smart phone or wear a watch because I have enough attention vampires in my life
Everything I see about Rothfuss he seems to be working hard for charity. Mark Lawrence does a fair bit too. It's good to see people using their hard earned success to do good things.
But then I purposefully don't have a smart phone or wear a watch because I have enough attention vampires in my life
Everything I see about Rothfuss he seems to be working hard for charity. Mark Lawrence does a fair bit too. It's good to see people using their hard earned success to do good things.
Twitter is nothing like Facebook. They offer different things. I use FB for family and friends. I use Twitter to stalk agents/editor/writers and occasionally rant about sexism/homophobia. Twitter is a decent tool for writers.
90% of my photos on Twitter are of cake.
90% of my photos on Twitter are of cake.
I'm not a fan of twitter. People use it and it means I may set up an account on there at some point, but it's not a format I like or enjoy in any way. I rank it up there with reddit as things people love and I would happily see nuked into oblivion. It offers nothing facebook doesn't already offer. Or at least nothing facebook didn't used to offer. Over the years FB have removed control of what you see in your feed to the point that it's little more than a picture and quiz fest with the option to keep in touch with family and friends from the distant past.
But then I purposefully don't have a smart phone or wear a watch because I have enough attention vampires in my life
Everything I see about Rothfuss he seems to be working hard for charity. Mark Lawrence does a fair bit too. It's good to see people using their hard earned success to do good things.
Ah, you see, I hate FB. With a passion.
Which is why, I think, it's important to find the platform that works for you.
That's good to hear, but for how long...?
The thing I like best about FB is the potential for networking. So useful.
Ransonwrites
Eternal factotum
Bizarrely, the only networking I do on FB is with one of my distant former employers who is in no position to offer me another job. Perhaps I'm missing the point...
I am greatly encouraged by the news from those with personal contact with publishers that they don't give a stuff. Yet it seems clear that agents do, and they are still a gateway to publishers, as well as a (hopefully) competent negotiator of contracts.
I suppose social media becomes a burden when it's imposed. I have been labouring under the impression that it was a requirement... and in some senses I still think it is. I think agents want to see evidence of awareness and the ability to self-promote to some degree, which correlates with their ability to sell the author to a publisher, and the publisher to sell the work. And, as springs has implied, there is an element of character involved - you can social media share yourself out of a job by dissing your employer, and you can equally well scare off an agent or publisher by being 'controversial' in all the wrong (i.e. non-profit making and politically dangerous) ways.
So if your internet presence reveals someone interesting, provocative but not intentionally offensive or engaged in incitement, then even if it matters not to them in terms of marketing, it matters to them in terms of a preliminary job interview. This is how I've come to view querying: it's a spec application for a job as a self-employed contractor.
In terms of blogging I actually like it. I prefer the term blogwriting/blogwriter to 'blogger' which sounds like some kind of disease. I view it as an opportunity to indulge in discussion of subjects in, around, related to and nothing at all to do with what I'm writing. All the posts are automatically reposted to my social media accounts where they get some very limited visibility and might, one day, attract some attention from an interested party.
Or not, as is most likely. Yet in so doing I feel I am doing enough, within reason, to try to tick the social media marketing box and demonstrate my ability to self-promote going forward using cross-platform mindshare synergistically while leveraging stakeholder data mining.
But as others have said, my time is better spent writing compelling novels than compelling internet copy!
I am greatly encouraged by the news from those with personal contact with publishers that they don't give a stuff. Yet it seems clear that agents do, and they are still a gateway to publishers, as well as a (hopefully) competent negotiator of contracts.
I suppose social media becomes a burden when it's imposed. I have been labouring under the impression that it was a requirement... and in some senses I still think it is. I think agents want to see evidence of awareness and the ability to self-promote to some degree, which correlates with their ability to sell the author to a publisher, and the publisher to sell the work. And, as springs has implied, there is an element of character involved - you can social media share yourself out of a job by dissing your employer, and you can equally well scare off an agent or publisher by being 'controversial' in all the wrong (i.e. non-profit making and politically dangerous) ways.
So if your internet presence reveals someone interesting, provocative but not intentionally offensive or engaged in incitement, then even if it matters not to them in terms of marketing, it matters to them in terms of a preliminary job interview. This is how I've come to view querying: it's a spec application for a job as a self-employed contractor.
In terms of blogging I actually like it. I prefer the term blogwriting/blogwriter to 'blogger' which sounds like some kind of disease. I view it as an opportunity to indulge in discussion of subjects in, around, related to and nothing at all to do with what I'm writing. All the posts are automatically reposted to my social media accounts where they get some very limited visibility and might, one day, attract some attention from an interested party.
Or not, as is most likely. Yet in so doing I feel I am doing enough, within reason, to try to tick the social media marketing box and demonstrate my ability to self-promote going forward using cross-platform mindshare synergistically while leveraging stakeholder data mining.
But as others have said, my time is better spent writing compelling novels than compelling internet copy!
Kissmequick
loony
My apologies - edited to add.
Until social media actually sells books
I think I have bought precisely one book because of it (the author using it anyway -- I'm not including reviewers etc as that isn't the author).
How often has anyone here bought a book because they followed an author they had not previously read? How many, compared to the other ways you find books?
People follow the blogs of authors they already like. Or at the least have already heard of ! (Or, as in one case with me, they follow the blog but have no intention of reading the books) Same with twitter. You need to have fans first, and then pretty much you're preaching to the converted. New fans maybe like to have a little read to see what's coming or whathaveyou, but that's about it. They follow you not for adverts for your book, but because you might say something interesting, in fact tweeting about Your Book too often puts people off following you.
Social media is great for interacting with the fans you already have (or recently in my case, chatting with someone who is translating my books into Turkish and was a bit confused about a slang word or two!)
I don't suppose it has sold one copy of my book. Forums? Perhaps -- one forum I am a member of had me on their book club for instance. But even so, that's not a given. It's a bonus.
It gets your name out there. That's about it. It IS really great for networking though, that is, contacting/talking to other people in publishing. For interacting with people who already liked your books and want to see more. But it's not what sells books, especially first books/series (It may have a bigger ROI on later ones). Not when the author is talking anyway -- it's good for word of mouth sales, but no author controls that!
Put it like this - under my real name, until very recently, I had more twitter followers than under this name, and sold circa a 10th of the books (per book, and with a small press - for them the sales numbers were average).
IMO yada yada.
tinkerdan
∞<Q-Satis
A writer can be tech savvy and create toe-prints everywhere, but that doesn't mean he has a presence and I would think the only advantage one would have in checking the web for that author would be to gauge the presence or the whole footprint. If they have people flocking to their web presence than it might be a good tool.
As for serialization become more rapid in the industry It seems there are a number of issues that it might suggest.
It's not just the impatient nature of the consumer, but it's also the lack of faith in the publishing end of things. (faith that the work in question is not just a fad.)
They might want to get a trilogy out quickly because they are not sure how long that particular fad might last-which doesn't really reflect at all on the ability of the author.
So yes as a new author the trilogy might work best if its all bunched together. But it would almost track that there would be some conditions.
1. You need to have all three in progress by the time the publisher accepts the first one. Unless you can hack them out that quickly.
2. Once accepted the publisher has their own processing time before it comes out with the first book which may buy you more time.
3. You may have even more time if the first book doesn't go well and there is just as much chance of that as there is of any other possibility.
4 If it does sell then you might want to have the next two ready at the same time if they really want them out quickly because they will only get it out as quickly as their process gets it done and that can be a while.
If you self publish you can move it easier, but I tend to think that if you start pushing it it will wear down your quality and ultimately wear down the writer's productivity unless you truly can hack out a novel a month.
As for serialization become more rapid in the industry It seems there are a number of issues that it might suggest.
It's not just the impatient nature of the consumer, but it's also the lack of faith in the publishing end of things. (faith that the work in question is not just a fad.)
They might want to get a trilogy out quickly because they are not sure how long that particular fad might last-which doesn't really reflect at all on the ability of the author.
So yes as a new author the trilogy might work best if its all bunched together. But it would almost track that there would be some conditions.
1. You need to have all three in progress by the time the publisher accepts the first one. Unless you can hack them out that quickly.
2. Once accepted the publisher has their own processing time before it comes out with the first book which may buy you more time.
3. You may have even more time if the first book doesn't go well and there is just as much chance of that as there is of any other possibility.
4 If it does sell then you might want to have the next two ready at the same time if they really want them out quickly because they will only get it out as quickly as their process gets it done and that can be a while.
If you self publish you can move it easier, but I tend to think that if you start pushing it it will wear down your quality and ultimately wear down the writer's productivity unless you truly can hack out a novel a month.
Brain failure here - can you remind me - Springs are you and Hex both YA writers?
(Just wondering whether with the uptake of Twitter being greatest in the YA generation, if it is the most important in that book market.)
Hex writes YA, and the book I'm agented for is Ya, but most of my stuff isn't. But, whilst there is a definite bent to YA in eg the twitter pitch contests, the agents who are active range quite widely - Juliet Mushens, Ginger Clark etc all take adult.
Similar threads
-
-
Why Don't I See David Gemmel's Books in US Bookstores Anymore ?
- Started by BAYLOR
- Replies: 5
-
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: The Book of Carol: 02:06: Au Revoir Les Enfants.- Started by nixie
- Replies: 0
-
You wonder if anyone still reads these once well-known fantasy books.- Started by Extollager
- Replies: 33
-
