I recently watched a video with a rather ambitious title that promised the #1 secret to getting traditionally published—one that, if followed, would all but guarantee success.
I immediately thought, What shameless clickbait, then proceeded to click on the video.
After the obligatory first half leading up to the grand reveal, the #1 trick to securing a traditional publishing deal turned out to be… be famous. Yep, that was it. If you want to be published, particularly by a Big Five publisher, just be famous.
Of course, that was the extreme end of the point he was making. The real takeaway was that building a platform—establishing a readership and proving that people are already interested in your work—significantly increases your chances.
I’ve heard from industry editors on their own channels that having a built-in audience isn’t necessary, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. That makes sense to me. I’ve always had an entrepreneurial streak, and business rationale has always been something I can easily wrap my head around.
When a publisher takes on your book, it’s an investment. And the point of an investment is to generate profit. The more likely that investment is to yield a return, the more attractive it becomes because of the reduced risk. (The same logic applies to literary agents, though their investment is more in terms of opportunity cost.)
So, working on a platform—while not the guarantee the video made it out to be—certainly seems like a smart move for landing a book deal. I’m certainly making the attempt.
But something about that didn’t sit right with me.
I couldn’t quite put my finger on why, but it lingered in the back of my mind. Then it hit me—the math didn’t add up if the goal was to become a career author.
Think about it: building a platform increases your chances of selling to a publisher, yes, but that’s because it increases your chances of selling period.
So, I did some number-finagling.
Let’s say your book has the potential to generate $50,000 in revenue. That’s optimistic, but let’s run with it.
Now, suppose you land a book deal with a $10,000 advance. You put $5,000 toward marketing (since, from what I’ve heard, publishers don’t offer much help in that department). If the book brings in $50,000 in total sales, you typically get 15% royalties—that’s $7,500—but only after earning out your advance. In this scenario, you’d still only walk away with $10,000 flat, minus marketing costs, leaving you with just $5,000.
Now, let’s look at self-publishing.
Let’s say setup costs—cover design, formatting, editing—come to $10,000, plus the same $5,000 for marketing, for a total upfront investment of $15,000. A retailer like Amazon typically offers 60% royalties. Sixty percent of $50,000 is $30,000. Subtracting your $15,000 in costs, you walk away with $15,000.
That’s three times what you would have made through traditional publishing.
Now, the main advantage of traditional publishing (aside from networking, I suppose) is avoiding that upfront cost. But if you’ve already built a platform large enough to attract a publisher in the first place, monetizing to cover those costs shouldn’t be an insurmountable hurdle.
At that point, the only real reasons to go traditional would be:
A) The validation of getting past the industry gatekeepers.
B) You don’t care about going full-time, so don’t want to handle the logistics of publishing and prefer the publisher taking care of everything.
But if your goal is to be a full-time author—making a living from your writing—then once you’ve built a platform big enough to interest publishers, traditional publishing is no longer the best financial investment for you.
And since it’s a foregone conclusion that publishers will pass on you if they don’t see you as the best financial option, why wouldn’t you pass on them for the same reason?
Just some thoughts—maybe I’m missing something. Would love to hear other perspectives.
That’s all.