Are Success Odds Always Diminishing?

[Stuart Dren]

This wasn't specifically for trade or self publishing, so I tossed it in the misc bucket.

Given the various market/reader progressions and seemingly growing supply of fiction, do you feel that one's personal chances at moderate success drop, even slightly, on a yearly basis? Or do you think the broad strokes are largely peripheral as far as timing goes?

I'm trying to imagine what this will look like in a decade.

Any and all thoughts welcome.

 

[Madman Starryteller]

Not that I would propose or endorse it, but perhaps we need another great library fire of Alexandria? But this time on the internet/cloud.

Alternatively, we create bot network that highlights the importance and coolness of literature. A network that's everywhere spreading pro-literature propaganda for everyone. Something that makes everyone want to read more.

But then we would also need more humans on the planet.

Tricky topic.

 

[Banespawn]

If we look at it purely on the basis of supply and demand, I imagine it fluctuates. In theory, more or less people means more or less writers, but it also means more or less readers. Supply and demand are in lockstep. Education and literacy rates may rise or decline, but again, that is going to affect both sides of the equation to an equal degree.

AI writing might flood the market, creating an overwhelming supply, but I think that will hurt self-publishing more than traditional publishing, as I think readers who want to avoid stories written by AI will put their trust in traditional publishers over random Amazon writer #89873394. I think this already happens to a large degree simply based on the general quality of traditional vs self-pub books. That's not to say that there aren't good books being self-pubbed, or that bad books don't find their way through the traditional route, but the average quality on the traditional side is considerably higher. I feel like that type of gatekeeping, or quality-control, will help to mitigate the AI flood.

Regardless of how much those outside forces impact our chances of success, they are minor compared to the things we actually have control over. If we are consistently working and improving, then our chances increase commensurately. I won't say that luck isn't a part of the overall equation, but it's maybe 1% of the whole. No amount of good luck will save truly poor writing, and no amount of bad luck will keep truly good writing from finding some measure of success.

 

[Naomasa298]

Success odds have never been particularly high.

 

[Homer Potvin]

How are you defining success? The market has never been more flooded, but you've also never been had as much control over the marketplace as you do now. And the means of production have never been more accessible. Forty years ago, you could not sell a book unless you:

1. Paid an exorbitant amount to print it yourself
2. Had a physical brick and mortar store in which to sell it
3. Had a traditional print marketing plan in an established publication to let alone know it was available.

Now you need none of those things, as product, marketplace, and marketing can essentially by DYI'd for "free."

So which is an easier path to success? End of the day, if your writing is good and properly marketed, you will be successful to one degree or another. If your writing sucks, none of the above matters. That shouldn't change much over time.

 

[Stuart Dren]

That's not to say that there aren't good books being self-pubbed, or that bad books don't find their way through the traditional route, but the average quality on the traditional side is considerably higher. I feel like that type of gatekeeping, or quality-control, will help to mitigate the AI flood.

The self published ones that commonly rise to popularity tend to be the smut/romance side, don't they? Well, not counting Shy Girl i guess. I sort of explored discovery in this thread: What Self-Published Stories Have You Read?

To me, trade publishing seems like it's shrinking. Maybe I'm wrong.

How are you defining success? The market has never been more flooded, but you've also never been had as much control over the marketplace as you do now. And the means of production have never been more accessible. Forty years ago, you could not sell a book unless you:

1. Paid an exorbitant amount to print it yourself
2. Had a physical brick and mortar store in which to sell it
3. Had a traditional print marketing plan in an established publication to let alone know it was available.

Now you need none of those things, as product, marketplace, and marketing can essentially by DYI'd for "free."

So which is an easier path to success? End of the day, if your writing is good and properly marketed, you will be successful to one degree or another. If your writing sucks, none of the above matters. That shouldn't change much over time.

Well everyone has a different idea of it. Right now I define it as 5k net profit per book average, perhaps within 5-10 years of publishing. It's not a lot of money given the effort involved, but it seems like a reasonable ask of the market for a moderately well-marketed, well-written book.

That shouldn't change much over time.

I think it's changed a bit over the last decade. Audiobooks have exploded to the point where I wonder if a high-production audiobook (closer to a radio play) might be the next 'thing.' But that's just format.

I'm pondering how saturated the market will be in ten years. It's not slowing down. Even the Internet in general gets more packed with people and content every year. That's got to have an effect on aspiring authors, doesn't it? And who knows what the algorithms will be doing by then, possibly pushed even further towards a 'pay for ads or get hidden' model.

It's hard to gauge how many people are interested in fiction. Apparently there are still lots of readers out there. It just doesn't feel that way when I meet people.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Right now I define it as 5k net profit per book average, perhaps within 5-10 years of publishing.

Not terrible. Write a book a month and you might not starve to death.

A lot of the complaints you here are from people who suck at writing and want to blame anything environmental they can find. Not referring to any of you obviously, but most of the time when I hear somebody whining on the Internet, I check out their books for sale and am like, yeah, you suck and that's why you're not selling any books. Nobody wants to admit that of course.

 

[Stuart Dren]

A lot of the complaints you here are from people who suck at writing and want to blame anything environmental they can find. Not referring to any of you obviously, but most of the time when I hear somebody whining on the Internet, I check out their books for sale and am like, yeah, you suck and that's why you're not selling any books. Nobody wants to admit that of course.

I've had that thought for a while. It's moved more towards being critical of the marketing or lack-of than quality, though.

Shadow of the Conqueror "Book 1 of 1" by a Youtuber is ...well decide for yourself on the quality. But look at that review score! And with than many reviews, imagine how many people have purchased it. I know, that's just celebrity power, but it's an argument that success/failure might be edit: significantly more weighted by marketing/popularity than quality.

 

[Homer Potvin]

but it's an argument that success/failure might be edit: significantly more weighted by marketing/popularity than quality.

Which is true to one degree or another for any product since the dawn of consumerism, but is more true when you have a bunch of similar products of similar quality. Cigarettes were the epitome of that back when they were allowed to advertise. As for literary quality in general: it's completely subjective and largely irrelevant. People can rail at the quality of 50 Shades of Grey all day but it doesn't change the fact that it sold a zillion copies. No sales person ever let inherent quality get in the way of anything.