How much do writers earn?

There is a survey that claims 54% of traditionally-published authors and almost 80% of go-it-alone writers earn less than $1,000 (£600) a year. You may have read about in the January 2014 press.

The 9,210 respondents slotted into four groups: aspiring, self-published only, traditionally-published only, and hybrid (both self-published and traditionally-published). More than 65% of those who filled out the survey described themselves as aspiring authors, with 18% self-published, 8% traditionally-published and 6% saying they were pursuing hybrid careers.

77% of Self-published authors make $1,000 (£600) or less a year;

Towpath at Crinan

 0.7% of self-published writers earn more than $100,000 a year

53.9% of traditionally-published authors make $1,000 (£600) or less a year;

1.3% of traditionally-published  earn more than $100,000  a year

43.6% of hybrid authors make $1,000 (£600) or less a year;

5.7% of hybrid writers reported making more than $100,000 a year from their writing. 

Put like that, it sounds a soul destroying exercise if money is the main object of your writing. However,  only 20% of self-pubbed authors and 25% of traditional authors thought making money extremely important. On the other hand,  56% of self-pubbers, and almost 60% of traditional authors, thought it extremely important to "publish a book that people will buy."

The top 2% or so of authors make a good living and the most successful authors – including self-published – make a tremendous amount of money. Maybe that is the lure. We all dream that we'll be one of the lucky ones.

Some writers look to money for validation. If you self-publish, without the prestige of being chosen by a major publisher, then the money is a good substitute. It isn't the only motivation, but matters on many levels. One self-pubbed author thinks the survey is  skewed (my words, not his) because it pits self-pubbed authors with a year or two's experience against traditional authors who spent twenty years in the publishing game. Self-publishing allows authors to learn and hone their skills, and he thinks many are paying bills with money they've earned by writing - and that should be celebrated. 

Read the complete article by Alison Flood: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/17/writers-earn-less-than-600-a-year

Indie wars and statistics

The BBC published a lengthy article last autumn on current publishing in the UK, with some comparison statistics showing US and UK differences. Figures vary - as statistics always do! - depending who is writing, what the angle is and which figures they decide to quote. But the general trend is always the same - e-books are expanding their market share. The graphics are clear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23682885

There's also a wonderful argument going on at :
http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors

Basically there are several groups in the US who think there is, and should be, a distinction between self-published authors and traditionally-published authors. In order to join such organisations, you have to earn say, $1,000 over a calendar year.

"The Published Authors Network has strict requirements on who can join their organization. You have to earn $1,000 in the form of an advance on a single Eligible Novel. Or you have to earn $1,000 in the form of royalties or a combination of advance plus royalties on a single published Eligible Novel. Finally, you have to pull in $5,000 in the form of earnings for a Self-Published novel."

The "author" of the article goes on at length, and the comments section that follows is a hoot. But seriously, if this goes through, UK authors are going to struggle to gain a foothold in the US. Our much smaller market place makes it very difficult to earn such an amount in such a time. With a new book from an unknown author, it strikes me as virtually impossible.