Amazon Exclusivity (KDP Select) or Publishing 'Wide' ~ which works best? #SelfPublishing

Recently I've been talking to a couple of authors unsure whether to take books off Amazon KDP Select and go 'wide' (ie, publish across many retailers), or whether to move from 'wide' back to KDP Select.  

In the interests of research, I ran a poll on Twitter to see how other authors felt about the two options.  I also invited comments; see lower down for the results.

For new writers not in the know: one massive advantage of publishing exclusively to Amazon is that your books can be made available on Kindle Unlimited.  This works, for the reader, like a library; they pay £8/$10 a month to read any books on KU, free of charge.  The author gets paid per pages read; the royalties for a whole book are roughly equivalent to one sale.

• Advantage for author: it's a great way for new readers to discover you, at almost no cost to them.
• Disadvantage: if they don't like it, and abandon it early, you will earn little, or nothing (you get paid for any pages read after 10%).

The other advantage of KDP Select is that you can do 5 day free promotions once every 90 days, or Kindle Countdown promotions - you can price your book as cheaply as 99p for a whole 7 days, but still get the 70% royalty.

I couldn't vote as it's my poll, but I've always been Amazon KDP Select only.  I make more in royalties via Kindle Unlimited that I do with actual sales, and have had some very successful free promotions and Kindle Countdown offers.


The advantages of going 'wide' probably speak for themselves - i.e., reaching readers who don't use Amazon Kindle.  I don't know anything about this but I hear Draft2Digital is the best and easiest way to go.  Read FAQs about this HERE.  

Writer Georgia Rose (see below), who has chosen and been most happy with this option, told me:  

'D2D is a distributor.  You load up your files to them and they can distribute to sites such as Barnes & Noble, Apple, Playster and Scribd, including libraries.  The will distribute to Amazon, though this is not recommended.  The advice from those in the know suggest you go DIY to Amazon, Kobo and Google (if you can get in there - it can be tricky), and let D2D cover the rest.  On their dashboard it is easy to deselect the platforms to which you don't want them to distribute.'

Well, not quite...

Poll results 

86 writers voted

Amazon KDP Select: 55%

'Wide': 33%

Tried both, not much difference: 12%

**

Here are comments from some who responded:

In favour of KDP Select

'Tried both (only with 1 book, so pretty limited) but have come down on the side of KDP - the KU promo side of it seems unbeatable at the moment.'

'Have got one on KDP and one wide, most of sales for both are on Amazon...have only recently moved onto KU, sales have dropped off, but pages read seem to be doing well. My first book was on lots of platforms, but the vast majority of sales were on Amazon. Made it a no-brainer to put next book on amazon only.'

'KDP. Kindle Unlimited makes me more than sales.  I think if you write bigger historicals like I do, it's a no-brainer. And so much easier to just push your marketing to one avenue than eight or ten.'

'Kindle Unlimited seems, at the moment, the best way for me to reach readers.

'I think Kindle Unlimited seems to work on my Indie books.'

'As to your question, I used to be wide but the tried KDP Select on one book and saw how much better that did with the page reads, so I’m off wide now completely. About half my income comes from page reads.'

'I have done much better by staying exclusively with Amazon in the past, with all of my books.'

..and a last comment!  'I didn't see this in time, but I'd have voted for KU too'

**

In favour of 'wide'

'I’m wide. Have been for a while. I don’t like exclusivity and can still do all sorts of promos, including free ones if I want to...I think a good idea is to keep a first book in Select then once you put the next one out make the first one wide, and so on.

'...what I do is distribute direct to Amazon, Kobo and Google then to all the others via the magnificent Draft2Digital, and PublishDrive (early days there!) D2D provide a universal link to all sites (incl. The Zon) so just the one link needed...I do very little promo as I don’t have time. But via distributors like Draft2Digital you load up your files once, they distribute for you.

'.... but you are totally beholden to Amazon. All your eggs in one basket as it were, when they could change anything at any time.'

'I tried KDP Select back in 2013 but it just failed - I gave up after 6 months. I broke out in 2015 on Kobo Canada' 

'I prefer wide. I sell more on ibooks, followed by Barnes & Noble and Overdrive.'

'I'm wide because the opportunities for promotions with Kobo means I make about 25% of my money from there each month, sometimes more. It's my 2nd most successful site after Amazon. Also, I don't like the idea of being tied to Amazon in case anything goes wrong with KDP.'

'Personally, I’m wide. From my point of view it’s not possible to be an independent author while being entirely dependent on the whims of Amazon. My first year off self-publishing, 99% of my sales came from Amazon. Today, almost a third of my sales come from other platforms.'

'I think it's better to go wide, so you can reach more readers. Ku didn't work for me.'

 'You can also go wide by using Ingramspark publication and distribution service'

A bit of both

'I have an e-book publisher who does the work of getting my books out wide, they do print and audiobook as well so I like them. Still, most of my sales are Amazon. & I have a few indies that are KDP. Don’t want to do the going wide work myself'

'..personally I would recommend: KDP exclusive for 3 months for exposure and then go wide'

 'I’ve tried wide and it’s hard to make a dent. Even with KU pages read fluctuate a lot.'

(About doing audio books) 'My audiobooks are a 3-way contract with me, publisher & Amazon. Voice actors get same royalties as author. It’s a way for Amazon to fill their Audible catalog for the freebies. Maybe pitch to Amazon/Audible?'

And finally.... 

'There's so much to learn in this business, it really helps if others share their own experiences so you can try and avoid them and keep moving forward instead of encountering setbacks.'

Which is why I write these posts!

If you are new to the game and are looking for a bit of mentoring/support from the wise, you might like to take a look at Shelley Wilson's Writer Mentoring Programme.  Shelley is one of the most approachable people I've ever met, and is so easy to get on with, positive and practical.  

 

I can also recommend Georgia Rose's Three Shires Publishing - self-publishing support services that may be of use to anyone wary of going it alone.  Georgia is very helpful and really knows her stuff!

Shelley and Georgia are two of the most generous people I've met during my writer and Twitter years.  😀

I hope this has been of help to anyone not sure which way to go - as you can see, there is no 'right' way, and it seems to depend on so many issues like genre, how much work you are prepared to do where marketing is concerned, if you are willing to spend out on advertising, how many books you have, etc.  Comments welcome, of course :)

Ten miscellaneous tips for debut writers

Over two years ago, I wrote a post about the slip-ups often made by new writers, based on my own mistakes and the books I read in my role as a reviewer for Rosie Amber's Review Team.  It's HERE if you would like to read it.  Here are a few more miscellaneous tips that might be of use to the new writer, especially one who is self-promoting on social media.  It's based on further reviewing experience, talking to other writers and reviewers, and my excessive use of Twitter for the past 6+ years!

The book itself

1.  Make sure the names of your characters stand out well, particularly if there are a lot of them.  Don't have main characters whose names start with the same letter, or give them all common names; if you have a group of friends called Joe, Rob, Jodie, Andy, Tony, Ruth, Jack and Anna, it will be hard for the reader to differentiate between them.  One could be known by his/her initials, for instance; then there are nicknames, and the occasional Sapphire or Lysander!

2.  People don't talk in perfectly grammatical sentences.  Nor do they give exactly the right amount of information required by the person to whom they are talking.  They say lots of boring things that should not be included in your novel.  Enough ~ for a brilliant article that outlines everything you should know about dialogue no-nos, by Anne R Allen, click HERE.

3.  Before publishing your first novel, have it assessed by someone other than a friend/family member, unless you are absolutely sure that they can do so not only honestly, but objectively.  I can't advise on critique groups as I have never used one, but it's definitely worth exploring; I've seen many words of thanks to them in the Author's Notes at the back of books I've liked.  

I'd counsel research if paying for a professional assessment service; I gather that some refrain from negative feedback, which could be because of today's culture of encouragment, or simply because they're hoping to get more business and recommendations from you.  Receiving only encouraging feedback is lovely, but it won't help make your novel better.  Make sure they have proper industry experience (for instance, with a Big 5 or established publisher) before handing over any money; see link in 4, below.  Beware of authors who have set themselves up as editors or critique providers; they may just be topping up disappointing book sales and will not necessarily have the expertise to do these jobs.  Check out their 'best selling' author claims; don't believe website blurb.

4.  Always have a thorough, cover-to-cover read of the final copy of your book, after editing and proofreading, before publication.  You might spot a typo that the proofreader has missed, or a bit of bad formatting.  You should do this even if you have a publisher; always ask if you can see the finished draft before they press 'go'.  Don't just chuck it at them for the final proofread and think 'job done'.  I'd say at least 25% of self-published or indie press published books that I read have far more than the acceptable 5-10 errors  Some indie presses do not use experienced, professional proofreaders; you can read more about this HERE.

5.  If you're going to write about drink/drugs and those who use them a lot, or any sort  of 'street' culture/crime/gang life, etc, make sure you know what you're talking about.  Few crimes against contemporary literature scream 'amateur' more than getting drug terminology wrong, for instance.  You can't get it from Wikipedia or the Urban Dictionary.  You have to know about it.  And if you are not a drinker but your characters are, make sure you fully understand about quantities/effects.

For another post with some excellent tips for new writers, by Louise Marley, on With Love For Books blog: Click HERE

Social Media

1.  Your bios on your social media profiles should be about YOU, not your novel.  Of course you will mention that you are a writer, but people are more likely to check out your book if you look like an interesting person than if you have written 'check out my book' (or worse, 'buy my book here') in your bio.  There is no need to make a separate profile for the book itself, as these are clearly just promotional tools; many do not like to follow inanimate objects.  Remember the word 'social' in the phrase 'social media'.

2.  In relation to the above, please don't do tweets/other posts asking people to 'download, read and review'.  Even if your book is free.  It's a 'big ask', and it looks like begging.  The onus is on you to make your book appear interesting enough for people to want to download it, and to make it compelling enough for them to want to read it all the way through.  Few members of the reading public review; they're less likely to if they feel under pressure to do so. 

3. Don't advertise your book as a 'five star read'.  It's so 2011, and all books except the most dire have at least one 5*.

4.  If you have requested a review from a book blogger and they have provided one, thank them.  Even if you're not 100% happy with the result.  They've given up their time, free of charge; it's only common courtesy.  One book blogger told me that about a fifth of writers who are reviewed on her blog don't say thank you; some of them even have the cheek to submit another book.

I am always a little miffed when I've reviewed a book for Rosie's blog in a favourable way, tweeted it, and the writer just clicks 'like' on Twitter and retweets.  How much would it take to thank me for my time?  This lack of manners guarantees that I will never promote that review again, RT the writer, or read anything else by them.  

5.  And finally.... Twitter auto DMs asking people to check out your book/blog/website, donate to your kickstarter, follow you on Instagram, like your Facebook page, etc, etc etc.  Just DON'T.  Not even the ones that invite people to let you know if they want help in promoting anything.  I have never talked to anyone on Twitter who doesn't detest auto messaging.  This can't be underlined too emphatically, or said too often.

I hope some of this is helpful :) 

Daring to change genre ~ could it become the new black?

I read an author interview on Shelley Wilson's blog the other day, in which children's fantasy writer Lynette Creswell talked about writing fantasy for grown ups, and other genres.  

The other day I was talking online to author of the fantasy Storm Trilogy, Anthony Lavisher, who says he's going to write a thriller next, possibly followed by something historical.

Is this a bad idea?  Some might say yes, but I applaud them.

Since I've started this self-pub thing, one piece of advice I've read over and over again (and, indeed, have given myself) is to stay roughly in the same genre.  This is why: if Angela Author has built up a fanbase for her historical fiction over the last 5 books, those readers are going to be disappointed if her 6th book is about space ships and aliens.  "It's not what I expect from an Angela Author book," they will say, and may give up on her.

But I've been thinking about this.  All creative minds grow and change, don't they?  Surely the essence of creativity is that you're always thinking of new stuff?

I photographed various piles of books around my living room!

The books I write are all character driven, from multiple POVs.  I went darker with The House of York, but they all centre around relationships, usually family.  After The House of York, the plot for The Devil You Know popped into my head - it's about five people who think a local serial killer might be someone close to them.  I wanted to write something more suspenseful, including the odd character with some seriously evil sh*t going on in their heads.  I slid diagonally, I suppose, rather than changing genre....

.... but what I'm coming to is this.  Most of us read several different genres, so if you love the SciFi of Joe Bloggs and the financial thrillers of Bob Smith, might you not like to read Bob Smith's SciFi, too?  Should we be as fearful as we are that we'll put off our readers if we produce something that isn't along exactly the same lines as what's gone before?

 

Bit of a GRR Martin bias on this shelf!

The cheapness and easy availability of Kindle books means that most avid readers have tried new genres over the past few years, and discovered new writers.  In 2010, I was told by a reputable literary agent that she couldn't sell You Wish to a publisher because it was written from multiple 1st person POVs.  I had no desire to rewrite, so I self-published.  Several years down the line, multiple 1st person POVs has become so popular that I rarely open a book that features the same narrator all the way through.  Many readers didn't seem to care for it at the time, either, but now accept it as a popular style, and comment about the author's skill in changing 'voice'.

....so, my point is this.  If a certain style/format used to be thought of as unsaleable, but is now not only accepted but the happening way to go, maybe authors writing in multiple genres might become more accepted, too.  The norm, even.  I know some have got round it by writing the alternative genre under a pen name, but unless you have a good publisher behind you it can mean starting off a whole new promotional platform for that pen name.

Okay.  *Deep breath*.  My next book will be part one of a post apocalyptic series.  No, not zombies, much though I love to read about them, but a pandemic.  Essentially, though, it will still be a Terry Tyler novel.  It centres around one family and their friends, their hopes, fears, love lives, joys and disappointments, but in an end-of-the-world setting rather than comfortable middle class life in East Anglia.  I think that if you like the way I write, then you'll like Tipping Point (working title) as well.  

I'm fascinated by survival after disaster, by the psychology of how people cope, by the manipulation of the population by the media (Tipping Point deals with this, too) ~ isn't it, therefore, logical that I would want to write about it?  If you like the way someone writes, then you like the way they write, full stop ~ surely?  Unless they're moving from romcoms to air conditioning installation manuals, it's likely that you'll still have time for whatever they bring out.  And with any author you like, even if it's action thriller after action thriller or vampire after vampire, you always have your favourites and not-so-favourites.

I hope I'm right and am not just trying to convince myself.  I daresay there will be some readers who say, "I like her family dramas but I don't really want to read about a global disaster."  But if more of us dare to branch out into other genres, it might give others the confidence to give it a go, too.  It might also encourage readers to try genres they always thought they wouldn't like.  I only discovered that I love zombie apocalypse books by accident.  A lady who reads my books asked if I'd be so kind as to read her zombie apoc short story.  I did so out of politeness, and bloody loved it, so much that I've bought three of her books since, and it's now my most-read genre after histfic. 

Maybe it depends how orientated you are towards marketing.  I'm not so much; I always have about 4 stories on the 'to be written' list, and when I've finished one novel I just pick which one I want to do next and crack on.  I'm sure those savvy book marketing people would pour much scorn on this!

I don't know where else I'm going with this really, but if you've dared to publish in more than one genre, are thinking about it but are wary, feel hemmed in by your publisher, or have any other thoughts on the subject, I'd love to hear about it! 

Self publishing: a creative choice, not a last resort ~ thank you, Anton Newcombe...

.... for reminding me of something I've been thinking about lately...

For anyone who is not familiar with the name, Anton Newcombe is a brilliant musician and founder of 90s band The Brian Jonestown Massacre.  Last night I watched the 'rockumentary' Dig! , about seven years of friendship and feuding between BJM and their more commercially successful peers, The Dandy Warhols.  Newcombe had many chances to be signed by recording companies, but blew most of them, perhaps on purpose.

This morning I read an Interview with Newcombe in The Guardian by Rhik Samadder which, amongst other points, reiterated his anti signing-with-an-established-record-label policy.  I was so glad I read it.

Most writers, whilst penning their first novel, have fantasies about submitting it to a major literary agent and being taken on by a major publishing house.  This fantasy becomes reality for one in a million, if not less.  Alas, many soon realise that their first novel leaves much room for improvement, and is not the stuff of which bestsellers are made.  I started writing long before Kindle; back in the days when I occasionally submitted novels to agents I gained some interest, but it amounted to 'yes, like the way you write, but can you change the content according to what is currently in vogue, so I can sell it to a publisher?'

I've written about this before so won't go on and on about it again ~ the point I wanted to make, in a roundabout way, is that writers should not see self-publishing only a last resort after they've been rejected by mainstream publishers, but as a creative choice, because they want to make their own choices about what, when, how and for what price they publish.  Yes, self-pub stuff on Amazon ranges from the brilliant to the truly dire, but the desire to 'be a published author' leads many to sign with small independent publishers who have zero clout with booksellers, or, worse, with rip-off vanity presses (hybrid, or 'contribute towards the cost').  

As far as independent publishers are concerned, some writers find that they end up with all the restrictions of trad pub - losing control of content, timing of publication, price, etc - with none of the advantages - no promotion, no financial advances, no books in high street shops and, on occasion, proofreading and editing that leaves much to be desired.   

 

 
Self-publishing means you can make your own decisions about every single aspect of your books.  You're not bound by what some editor, who may or may not have a good understanding of the market, considers saleable.  When you say you self-publish 'by choice' let it mean that it's your first choice, not a last resort after 30 rejections.

I remember one writer saying that he'd felt so excited by the 'indie' movement in publishing, when Kindle was first introduced, but became disillusioned by the reality: people bunging up any old rubbish on Amazon and thinking they were going to be the next GRR Martin.  This has added to the bad name self-publishing has had since the days when vanity publishing was the only option available.  

Acceptance by a publishing house or a recording company should not be seen as the only affirmation that creative output is worth something; such large companies exist to make money, first and foremost, not to nurture the artist, who is not encouraged to be 'edgy' or explore new ground; money invested has to be a safe bet.  As Courtney Taylor-Taylor of The Dandy Warhols said in Dig!, all the record companies give you the spiel about caring about your career, not just your hit records, but if you don't have a hit record you soon find out how much they care about your career.   Similarly, with major publishing houses and literary agents: if you don't produce the hot selling goods, you're history. 

But what about validation of your talent?  Doesn't acceptance by a literary agent/publisher give you that?  Not necessarily.  I've heard, straight from one horse's mouth, that acceptance by an agent doesn't necessarily mean that you're a terrific writer, just that you've produced a product they can mould into something that will earn them big bucks.  If you want validation, wait to see if readers buy more than one of your books.  Rejoice in your genuine reviews from book bloggers and the reading public.

I've read fantastic books by self-pub authors that are easily as good as those by well known writers and some published by mainstream houses that are pretty mediocre, but sell because of that, and the money behind them, of course; 'vanilla' is always popular and, indeed, is pushed by the media.

Saleability to the masses (and investment from large corporations) does not necessarily indicate creative brilliance; it's fair to say that creativity and making money do not go hand in hand. 

It took me a while to realise that I actively want to be self-published.  I can't imagine letting someone else have control over my work.  If you understand the importance of good editing and proofreading to produce something worth selling, you should be proud that you do it all yourself.  Once you stop worrying about writing synopses and what-the-hell-agents-are-looking-for-this-month, or getting yet another rejection letter, your writing life gets a lot easier.  And you can spend your time producing novels, not query letters.

Did I really write THAT?

Like any artists, writers should improve as they go on, yes?  If we're not constantly learning from those we admire, reading the work of the most brilliant in our field, keeping an open mind about our weaknesses and going over and over our work before we publish to wheedle out the crap bits, then we're doing something wrong.  That's right, isn't it?

But isn't it demoralising when you read something you wrote (and published) a few years back, something you thought was as good as you could make it, and see that it needs some serious attention?  Have you ever done that?

You know that (excellent) advice about putting your manuscript away for a month before you start the redrafts ~ I sometimes wonder if it ought to be two years rather than a month.  When I read the first novels I wrote, over twenty years ago, I cringe, badly, at some bits.  That's okay, they were my first attempts and if I couldn't see their faults I might as well pack it all in and do the housework; happily, I didn't bother to submit them to agents because I suspected they were not good enough, even at the time.  But in the last couple of weeks I've re-read two of my earlier published novels, and did that 'ouch' thing again.  Nobody's Fault, which I wrote in 2011, needs a good edit, I think.  Far too many exclamation marks in dialogue, sentences not succinct enough, long passages that need splitting into paragraphs, a feasibility issue - and that's something I yell about in other books!

I also read What It Takes written in 2013, which is better, but not better enough.  Both books have some very good reviews (after all, there is nobody more critical that the creator of any piece of art), but, now that I review books on a regular basis for Rosie Amber's Review Team, I can see that I would have given Nobody's Fault only 3.5* ~ fairly enjoyable, fairly well written, but needs some work ~ and What It Takes just 4* ~ good, but not memorable.  

(Note Mar 5 ~ it's only 99p for the next few days, if you want to see if you agree with me or the reviewers!!  HERE)

When I read my later books (Kings and Queens, Last Child, Round and Round and The House of York ~ they're all HERE) I feel proud of them ~ I wonder if I'll cringe at parts of them in a few years' time, too?   And perhaps I shouldn't say that I'm critical of my earlier stuff ~ but in these days of so many writers using gushing superlatives from reviews to advertise their work (and I am guilty of that, too), maybe a bit of honesty doesn't go amiss.

I still like Dream On and Full Circle, with only a few reservations, although those were written in 2012.  They're my 'lightest' books and quite a few people name them as their favourites of mine; it's a matter of taste, too, isn't it?  I was reading through the almost-final proof of my yet-to-be-published novella, Best Seller, last week when my sister was here, and read out to her a sentence I thought should have been phrased differently, with my suggested amendment.  She said she couldn't see the difference.

Maybe it's just that all writers have their best novels and their not-so-good ones, as even your favourite band will have the odd album you don't like.  I love Aerosmith but am not so keen on Draw The Line and Rock In A Hard Place.  One of my favourite writers is Douglas Kennedy; The Job, The Pursuit of Happiness and The Big Picture would probably feature in my all time top 100 books.  I also loved Temptation, The Moment and The Dead Heat, but thought Leaving the World and State of the Union dragged on and on; I skip read and might have not even finished.  

Maybe that's all it is, and I shouldn't worry too much.

Some writers never read their own books, as some actors never watch themselves on television.  In reviews, I criticise books for the same mistakes I have made myself ~ which is why, whenever I write advice for debut novelist type posts, I always make clear that I am talking from experience.  I recognise some of those flaws only too well.

In 1990 I discovered the novels of Susan Howatch.  I read what I consider to be her five best ones (The Rich are Different, Sins of the Fathers, Cashelmara, Penmarric and The Wheel of Fortune), but when I tried a couple of novellas she'd written before them, I wasn't so taken with them.  Perhaps if even maestros such as Ms Howatch have work that's less than compelling, it's okay for me to go 'ouch' at my older works, too, and I should stop giving myself a hard time.  That, or re-edit the ones I'm not so keen on.  That would be the best thing to do, I suppose ~ but I'd rather spend the time writing the new.  On the other hand, if someone reads one of the not-so-good ones first, they might well abandon and never try another one by me.  Maybe that's just the way the cookie crumbles, one man's meat, and all that (and yes, I always give cliches a wide berth :).

Do you cringe when you read your old stuff, too?