What do writers want?

by Sandra Parshall

In the past, nobody except writers themselves cared much about what writers wanted from the publishing experience, because we were the least powerful people in the process of bringing books to readers. 

We were the crazy ones: we were addicted to writing, everybody knew we would write even if we didn't get paid, we would let an agent keep a manuscript exclusively for six months before rejecting it, we accepted that it might take years to find a publisher, we would grab any lousy deal that was offered because we were so desperate and so grateful to get published.

Now – or so I keep hearing – changes in the industry have given writers all the power, and suddenly a lot of people care what we want.

Digital Book World and Writer’s Digest co-sponsored a survey of 5,000 aspiring, self-published only, traditionally-published only, and “hybrid” (traditional and self-published) authors to get their views on a wide range of issues. Some of the results should be eye-openers for both publishers and writers. The detailed report is for sale for a hefty price through Digital Book World, but last week I listened to a free webinar that covered all the key findings. Following the data presentation, a discussion featuring survey co-authors Jeremy Greenfield of DBW and Phil Sexton of WD, along with hybrid author and Cool Gus Publishing founder Bob Mayer, was equally enlightening.

Perhaps the least surprising finding was that writers who have done both are the most savvy about self-publishing and traditional publishing. They’re the most flexible, the most aggressive about getting deals that benefit them, and they make the most money. Among the writers surveyed, the average annual incomes were $7,630 for self-published writers; $27,758 for the  traditionally published; and $38,540 for hybrid writers.

Money isn’t the biggest factor driving most authors, though. Having a writing career, being able to reach readers, is what matters above everything else. For some, self-publishing is the only way to achieve that, because a lot of traditional publishers have no interest in books that won’t generate big sales.

The “best” writers, in a purely commercial sense – the ones most likely to attract a large audience – do have a choice between traditional publishing and self-publishing. How can traditional publishers attract and hang on to those profitable authors?

Even self-published writers acknowledge the prestige of having a book published and distributed by a respected imprint. The ability to get books into brick-and-mortar stores is also a plus. And many writers simply don’t want the hassle of managing the publishing process themselves.

The author-editor relationship at a print publisher, however, isn’t a big draw for either traditionally published or hybrid authors, the writers who have actually worked with editors. During the discussion, the panelists talked about the pressure on editors to be “book processors” rather than partners with writers, especially when the authors are midlist and not likely to bring in a lot of money.

Traditionally published only authors are the least likely to want more creative control. Hybrid authors, having experienced the freedom of self-publishing, want more of a say in how their work is produced by traditional publishers. If a print publisher can’t provide added value, those writers will go elsewhere. The panelists agreed that publishers must learn how to serve authors better by providing things the writers can’t easily do for themselves.

Marketing and distribution would seem to be traditional publishing’s strong points, but writers across the board realize that only a small percentage (panelists estimated 5-10%) of books receive any kind of marketing investment. The money and time required for promotion must come almost entirely from the author. Regardless of how a book is published, its success or failure is usually a result of the writer’s efforts, and most authors know that going in.

One thing traditional publishers can offer, because a lot of writers don’t understand it, is the management of meta-data, which is key to “discoverability” for a book online. Tweaking a book’s meta-data can have a big effect on its sales, but many authors don’t have a clue about this aspect of marketing or they don’t want to invest the time to do it properly. Writers, after all, must write if they’re going to have a product to sell, and nothing can eat into precious writing time the way marketing can.

The panelists warned, though, that big publishers are just beginning to get a handle on online marketing. They’re learning that they can’t depend on Facebook and Twitter for everything – and that social media marketing is not free. Somebody who understands it has to be paid to do it right.

Writers who want to self-publish also have to learn that nothing is free. Good editing is essential, and good editors aren’t cheap. People with no credentials and no expertise are popping up everywhere to offer their editing services, and aspiring writers must be careful in vetting anyone they consider hiring. Good covers, even for e-books, are also vital, and finding a talented artist whose fee won’t bankrupt you can take some effort. The page  layout must also look professional. As the panelists in the online presentation said more than once, there’s a lot more to self-publishing than pressing a button.

Drawing on the survey data, the panelists had some additional advice for aspiring writers: Don’t wait until you’re published, in whatever form, to begin building your audience. Only a small percentage of the aspiring writers who responded to the survey said they already have websites, blogs, and Facebook pages. If they decide to self-publish, they’ll be starting from scratch, with no audience waiting for their work. If they want to publish traditionally, they’ll discover that a strong social media presence is a big selling point with both agents and editors. If you can bring a ready-made audience with you, you’ll be way ahead of the competition.

When I Grow Up

Elizabeth Zelvin

Writer Patricia Harrington says she “was told once by a psychologist: Ask a woman what she wanted to be when she was nine years old, and for a boy what he wanted to be when he was twelve years old. There will be elements of that desire or avocation later in life.”

Pat herself is a professional grant writer and mystery writer. She uses the idea that childhood aspirations mirror in some way, if they don’t duplicate, what people do become to develop characters in her mysteries. She says she “asked an Episcopalian bishop what he wanted to be at twelve. He answered, ‘a baseball player, and to play second base.’” She thinks his status as a suffragan bishop (“an assistant or subordinate bishop of a diocese” according to thefreedictionary.com) echoes the childhood dream.

Pat says she asked a public housing tenant “what she wanted to be at nine, and she said, ‘a hooker’. Made me wonder....” In fact, I’m less shocked, however saddened, by that response, than many would be because of my years working with alcoholics and drug addicts who ran the socioeconomic gamut from homeless to rich and privileged. The premise did make me want to know more about what people wanted to be when they grew up. So I asked the question on Facebook. It turned out to be more popular than many of my posts, but most the responses it drew were not quite what I expected. In retrospect, I was hoping for discrepancy rather than correspondence, along the lines of “wanted to be an astronaut...became a lion tamer.”(Come to think of it, there is a common thread in that pair: a tolerance for high risk.)

Some of the kids’ ambitions were imaginative:

“An opera singer & surgeon. At the same time.”

“All I wanted was to be a teenager like the girl down the street who I thought looked just like Annette Funicello.”

“I wanted to meet Roy Rogers & Dale Evans and have them come to the Bronx with their horses.”

“I wanted to be Dallas QB Roger Staubach. The only thing we had in common was I had concussions too.”

From a woman: “I wanted to be President of the U.S. I’ve since regained my senses.”

“At 9: mother of 12 kids. At 13: truck driver.”

Sounds like this last woman also regained her senses. I can’t tell you what she does today, because all the information on her Facebook page is in Finnish, a language that is known for bearing no resemblance to any other language (except Hungarian and Estonian; Basque is the language with no living relatives at all).

Many of my Facebook friends are writers, along with mystery-loving librarians and other readers, and that probably skewed the results. But quite a number of the writers have wanted to be writers since childhood. Of course, in today’s economy and publishing climate, many of the writers have other jobs as well. Mystery author Vicki Lane, for example, wanted to be an archaeologist as a kid; besides teaching and writing, she’s been a farmer for the past 36 years. Digging in the dirt...digging in the dirt. Makes perfect sense to me.

I’m one of those who wanted to be a writer from well below the age of 9. Of course, my plan was to become a published novelist at 24, not at 64. But luckily, writing is an occupation in which ability is not confined to any particular age group. In a creative residency I participated in a few years ago, all the composers of postmodern music were in their early twenties, the visual artists mostly in their thirties; the writers ranged from 20 to 62.