Amanda Hocking signs with St. Martin's/Macmillan

[Doug_Pardee Distinguished Bibliophile]

The New York Times reports that the poster child for getting rich by self-publishing, Amanda Hocking, has decided to go traditional. She's signed with St. Martin's (a Macmillan publisher) for a 4-book deal involving a new YA paranormal series called "Watersong." Reportedly, there was a bidding war also involving Random House, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster, with the winning bid being over $2 million (USD) for world-wide English rights.

Hocking wrote on her blog about the decision to go traditional:

I'm writer. I want to be a writer. I do not want to spend 40 hours a week handling emails, formatting covers, finding editors, etc. ... I am spending so much time on things that are not writing. ...

I have not had time to get Lost Without You ready yet. I have a book that is almost ready to publish, but because of everything else going on, I have not had time to get it ready and publish. THIS is a problem. I am a writer, but that doesn't mean anything if I can't get a book to readers. ...

I currently have self-published 9 books, and I will continue to self-publish books in the future. Lost Without You will be coming out self-published ...

[MichelleMuto]

I'm truly pleased for her. There's nothing worse than being an author who doesn't have the time to write. I'm glad she'll be able to do that again.

[Coanda-1910]

I'm wondering if this is going to become a more common pattern now - instead of finding new authors off slush piles, courting the best-and-brightest self-publishing authors.

[MichelleMuto]

I don't know that it will replace the slush pile, but finding a talented author by checking out who's doing what in sales ranks and then reading their book(s) wouldn't hurt.

[RHWright]

Courting relatively popular self-published authors makes perfect sense.

1) They already have a pre-installed customer base.

2) They are already savvy self-promoters. When the publisher can't or won't put more $$ into advertising, the author will already be out there pushing it themselves.

In the case of Ms. Hocking, she already brings an incredible amount of national major media attention to the table. Signing her for a book deal was an absolute no-brainer.

[WVU77]

Unfortunate that, after all she has done, she has choosen Macmillia,n who will not sell ebooks to libraries and are therefore losing a lot of sales of DTB in protest.

[swan480]

---

WVU77 wrote:

Unfortunate that, after all she has done, she has choosen Macmillia,n who will not sell ebooks to libraries and are therefore losing a lot of sales of DTB in protest.

---

That was my first thought, too.

[shadowcat80]

---

Doug_Pardee wrote:

The New York Times reports that the poster child for getting rich by self-publishing, Amanda Hocking, has decided to go traditional. She's signed with St. Martin's (a Macmillan publisher) for a 4-book deal involving a new YA paranormal series called "Watersong." Reportedly, there was a bidding war also involving Random House, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster, with the winning bid being over $2 million (USD) for world-wide English rights.

Hocking wrote on her blog about the decision to go traditional:

I'm writer. I want to be a writer. I do not want to spend 40 hours a week handling emails, formatting covers, finding editors, etc. ... I am spending so much time on things that are not writing. ...

I have not had time to get Lost Without You ready yet. I have a book that is almost ready to publish, but because of everything else going on, I have not had time to get it ready and publish. THIS is a problem. I am a writer, but that doesn't mean anything if I can't get a book to readers. ...

I currently have self-published 9 books, and I will continue to self-publish books in the future. Lost Without You will be coming out self-published ...

---

I have a question, she says she will continue to self-publish books but, wouldn't that be a violation of her contract with her new publisher?  I only asking because I'm confused not trying stir up stuff.  Personally I like Hocking's Tryelle Trilogy and I am happy for her.

[bklvr896]

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

---

---

I have a question, she says she will continue to self-publish books but, wouldn't that be a violation of her contract with her new publisher?  I only asking because I'm confused not trying stir up stuff.  Personally I like Hocking's Tryelle Trilogy and I am happy for her.

---

It would depend on how her contract is written.

[ABthree]

---

Coanda-1910 wrote:

I'm wondering if this is going to become a more common pattern now - instead of finding new authors off slush piles, courting the best-and-brightest self-publishing authors.

---

I think we can count on it.  It fits in well with the general risk reduction approach that the publishers have been taking, as exemplified in the push for blockbusters and series.

[EliseInAZ]

She gives an interesting reason. Barry Eisler just turned down a $500,000 deal with a traditional publisher to self-publish for the same reason.

The problem today is that whether self-published or traditionally published, writers are responsible for too much of their own marketing and promotion. Time to write is a very precious commodity.

[swan480]

---

bklvr896 wrote:

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

---

---

I have a question, she says she will continue to self-publish books but, wouldn't that be a violation of her contract with her new publisher?  I only asking because I'm confused not trying stir up stuff.  Personally I like Hocking's Tryelle Trilogy and I am happy for her.

---

It would depend on how her contract is written.

---

According to Dave's post, it sounds like the book deal is for NEW books, which means that unless she decides later on to sign over her self-published titles, they will continue to be self-published.

[Coanda-1910]

---

swan480 wrote:

---

bklvr896 wrote:

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

---

---

I have a question, she says she will continue to self-publish books but, wouldn't that be a violation of her contract with her new publisher?  I only asking because I'm confused not trying stir up stuff.  Personally I like Hocking's Tryelle Trilogy and I am happy for her.

---

It would depend on how her contract is written.

---

According to Dave's post, it sounds like the book deal is for NEW books, which means that unless she decides later on to sign over her self-published titles, they will continue to be self-published.

---

Actually, to me it sounded like it wasn't even that. If I understood correctly, there will be at least one forthcoming series of books by her which will not be self-published. There will also be at least a few forthcoming books by her which will be self-published.

[swan480]

---

Coanda-1910 wrote:
Actually, to me it sounded like it wasn't even that. If I understood correctly, there will be at least one forthcoming series of books by her which will not be self-published. There will also be at least a few forthcoming books by her which will be self-published.

---

No, you're right, and that's what I meant.  I should have said, "for 4 new books."

[Beth_DeEtt]

Today I ran across this lengthy (13,000 words) blog post of a dialog between Barry Eisler and Joe Konrath, in which they discuss the "legacy" publishing contract offer that Eisler declined in favor of self e-publishing.  The post also offers a fascinating view of current concerns and considerations in self-publishing for electronic media.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/ebooks-and-self-publishing-dialog.html