In haste: there are lots of good arguments for and against - but I have to admit, I'm inclined to agree with this, re favourite authors:

I want to leave them alone so they can write more books! I don't want them wasting time talking to me. I'm assuming they'll know I and others think they're great because they know their sales figures.

Hi Emma - I certainly agree that promotion is going to be cumulative (ditto networking), with some sales or awareness leading to further sales. But, with my (now doubtless incredibly irritating) nerdiness, I still ask myself, how much is it adding and therefore do we know that it's worth it?

I agree that if you're doing this stuff anyway and you enjoy it then the question is less of an issue (or maybe not one at all).

I wonder if you have a ballpark figure of percentage of your own sales that you guess have come from your use of social media? I know you don't have any way to calculate the numbers, as you've said, but I just wonder what your guess might be (or your guess for people in general who use social media promotion).

As I mentioned earlier, it's the claims that some people are making about KDP that have made me curious about this. A friend emailed me today a link to a book called Make a Killing on Kindle Without Blogging, Facebook or Twitter in which he asserts that for first-time authors with no platform, Kindle sales constitute a closed system that is impervious to conventional promotion but responsive to being gamed using its own rules (optimising search terms, pricing, etc.). He says that conventional promotion is necessary for your later books (I don't own a Kindle yet so I can't buy his book to find out why!). He puts his case forcefully but of course he's selling something. Nevertheless, he's not the only one saying this and he's basing it on data.

I wonder if important distinctions in trying to judge to what extent social media are worth the effort are first book vs second, and/or print version vs ebook?

I wonder if you have a ballpark figure of percentage of your own sales that you guess have come from your use of social media?

No, not a clue - mostly because I don't have close or real-time figures for my own sales. Also because my first novel came out before Twitter was born or (almost) thought of, and I wasn't on FB - and it wasn't that long ago. But then, unless you're self-publishing, "your own sales" is a figure which is surprisingly difficult to calculate. But I also think that, as Flora says, you just can't break it down like that. You just can't map particular efforts onto particular outcomes like that: the model is too complex. As Mark Kermode says, measuring the commercial success of films by the opening weekend reflects neither their true financial success, nor their creative success, and the concentration on the opening six weeks or whatever not only distorts the industry, but actually misleads the studios etc., into making the wrong judgements about how to make money and what will make money. Look at them ten years in, and virtually all films make money.

I do know what Twitter did for my blog, which was why I joined it. Within two weeks, my stats had doubled: twice as many hits per day, and probably four times the days I post. And, anecdotally as the scientists would say, I know that people who found the blog via Twitter went on to buy my books. In economic terms that's negligible, though it's entirely delightful to have thoughtful, committed readers, but it proves that the channel is open. And I've had lots of interest from people wanting me to teach/blog/speak, which is money but also sells books... Again, you just can't separate out the different elements. You have to see your whole writing work-life as a holistic network, with stuff wizzing around in all sorts of directions. That's not to say that you shouldn't think about which ways to go, which branches to build and which to ignore. But you really can't start thinking like Beeching, or it'll wither on the vine.

Emma

------------------------------

PS: there are various ways of trying to judge figures, and I wrote a whole lot and then decided it wasn't really germane to your question, but since I'd written it, I'm going to post it anyway, in case anyone else is interested:

1) Yes, when I've done something highly visible, my Amazon ranking spikes, and almost certainly that reflects copies sold. But Amazon ranking and copies sold are very, very different things. If I did something highly visible at the exact same moment that Peter James's new crime novel came out, I'd be much further down the rankings for the exact same number of copies/searches, or whatever the algorithm is - because it's all relative. If you really want what Jess Ruston calls crack for writers, try NovelRank, for tracking real Amazon sales.

2) Your publisher's figures for what leaves the warehouse may well get through to you when the book is newly out - though they may not, and you may prefer it that way (I do, because there's f-all I can do about it, and it just makes me stress). But the full breakdown (as well as being notoriously incomprehensible) only gets through in royalty statments six months after the end of the period they describe. (Yes, yes, yes, I know, it's out of the quill-pen Ark, but that's how it is) But for newish titles (or all titles) that will actually will mean even less, because generally speaking books are sold on sale-or-return. 25% of new hardbacks are returned eventually... but it might be a year after they "sold".

3) Nielsen Bookscan figures are more up-to-date, but expensive if you want your own (£75 per ISBN for a snapshot, I think,), and only cover c.70% of sales for trade books, and c.50% of sales for academic and STM titles.

4) In terms of your standing in the book trade - which controls whether you'll get another contract and how much they'll give you for it, absolute figures aren't nearly as important as how they look relative to what your publisher expected to sell (and so relative to what they paid you for the book, and how much cash they spent on marketing and publicity etc.). 5000 copies of a book sold is a major triumph for a literary debut they paid £3000k for, very bad news for a literary-commercial crossover debut they paid £50,000 for a two-book contract for, and an unimaginably awful disaster for an established commercial name. I'm guessing the figures, but you get the idea.

This is all on the move: Amazon buy firm, some big publishers are trying to go over to firm sale for backlist, (I may be out-of-date here) and I should imagine that e-book sales figures are more real-time, and get-at-able (although your share is much more problematic, as it's a % of net receipts, not a royalty per copy).

Thanks, Emma - that's all very, very interesting (I wish I had something more detailed to offer in response to such a long post but that's all I've got in the locker!).

I can understand how novelrank would be "crack for writers". That guy whose book I linked to says in his intro that he provides a chart for figuring out your actual Amazon sales from your rank (your overall rank of, say, 34,045, rather than being 11th in the crime section) and was able to contact and author friend and accurately congratulate him for selling seven books the previous day.

Google Ben Hatch - he isn't self-publised but he spent ALOT of time marketing his book on Twitter to great effect. I think these days you have to unless you are a really big name - IF I ever get published I intend to spend a lot of time tweeting, doing interviews on blogs etc. I think it's well worth it.

<Added>

Also - I have got into the arguably slightly tragic habit of tweeting an author if I particularly enjoy their book - they do usually reply which if I am honest prob does also make me more likely ot buy their next book. I should add I don't do this very often and am not a total groupie....

he isn't self-publised but he spent ALOT of time marketing his book on Twitter to great effect.

Although I know I wasn't the only one who followed him back, then promptly un-followed him as all I got was an absolutely barrage of broadcast promotional tweets - several an hour - with not the slightest sign of any engagement with the community. And it actually put me off buying a book which I had thought looked rather fun.

Ditto. I followed him then unfollowed...not only due to the barrage of promotional tweets (it got to the point of being driven mad because every time i looked at Twitter there he was at the top of my timeline) but also the fact that he kept direct messaging me to ReTweet him. Same on Facebook.

Lots of people did oblige and he has certainly profited from it, but I found it all rather pushy and distasteful. Good luck to him, but personally I wouldn't have the nerve to take things to such extremes.

Yes, it was the DMs that really got to me - that's intrusive in a way that just broadcasting isn't.

(it got to the point of being driven mad because every time i looked at Twitter there he was at the top of my timeline)

Me too. I've followed several writers and agents that I thought would be interesting but then unfollowed them because I got bored with the constant sales pitches, completely unadulterated by any attempt to be interesting or entertaining. It felt like buying a magazine full of very dull ads and with no editorial.

If you are looking for a traditional publishing deal, a social media platform will not make or break said deal.

I think I mentioned this before but at the last FantasyCon a panel of 3 editors - from Gollancz, Angry Robot, and Solaris - agreed that they will no longer consider a submission from an author who doesn't have a 'web presence'. This they defined as website plus either Facebook or Twitter. They all also agreed there is no real evidence that a web presence leads to sales, but they believe it's important and that sales could/will follow eventually. It could be argued that these are SF/Fantasy publishers and therefore may be conscious of the fact their readership tends to be ahead of the game where social media is concerned, but even if that's so, you can be sure other genres won't be far behind.

Like everyone here, I'm struggling with this issue. Part of that struggle is in facing the stuff that may need doing that I don't like to do. Which is further complicated by my feeling that whatever I do on the internet, it has to be what I want to do, otherwise my reluctance is going to be obvious to everyone, including potential readers. So, my gut feeling is that I have to find my own way through this ever-changing maze of electro-gubbins, and make it an enjoyable journey. The bedrock of which is that my writing is what I am passionate to write: whatever I do to promote it must be as passionate.

Terry

Hi Terry - that's interesting that those publishers admitted that there's no evidence that a web presence helps (not the same as evidence that it doesn't but telling that they don't know). And of course a web presence maybe isn't the same thing as being active on the web, but still.

I really do wonder whether this is something that publishing houses encourage authors to do because it doesn't cost them, the houses, anything and if it's an ineffective use of time then it's the author who is the one losing out. It's a no-risk strategy for the publishing house - they simply have nothing to lose by pressuring authors to do it.

I had a look at the website of my current favourite thriller writer, John Sandford, recently and was impressed by how well-defended he is against contact. I bet he's not on Facebook!

Incidentally, he also has an interesting piece on there on swearing in his novels.

I think I mentioned this before but at the last FantasyCon a panel of 3 editors - from Gollancz, Angry Robot, and Solaris - agreed that they will no longer consider a submission from an author who doesn't have a 'web presence'.

Gosh Terry I missed that when you said it - and that's very interesting.

Genre is very, very different though. I should probably put a caveat on my posts to the effect that all my knowledge stems from the mainstream literary and children's sector.

Also I'd venture that what a publisher says to a panel of aspiring authors and what they do in real life may be different. I bet if a completely irresistable proposition came in they would bend the rules.

But - as with all other variables in being an aspiring author - being an outlier in any field definitely makes the bar higher. The norm with aspiring and debut writers is increasingly a web presence and a willingness to interact with fans.

Apropos the "X is a recluse and does just fine" - I would be ware of predicating too much on what an established author does and can do. Any publisher can understand that an author wading through bucketloads of fan and abusive emails might decide to close down that channel of communication. It's harder to understand why an author currently without any fans would want to close that door.

being an outlier in any field definitely makes the bar higher. The norm with aspiring and debut writers is increasingly a web presence and a willingness to interact with fans.

Yes, you're in competition with other new names, not with the established ones. And as you said further up, Flora, it isn't always possible to calculate a direct input/output for these things, because the network of cause and effect is complex, and indirect.

I do agree with Terry that the challenge is to work out what, of the possible things you might do, suits you best and disrupts/takes over your proper writing life least.

On the other hand, I think that you do have to give anything you try a chance - which people who are basically hating every scrap of the idea may not be willing to do. Twitter, notoriously, makes almost no sense at all for a while - but (for me at least) it's turning out to provide the biggest return, of various sorts, for the least input of time and thought, of just about everything I do. If I'd given up sooner, I'd never have discovered that. (They're just bringing out the e-book of the collection In Bed With... which I had a story in, presumably on the back of 50 Shades. Interesting to watch the campaign trundling along)

Hi Flora - completely agree that the John Sandford thing isn't an argument in favour of what he does - as you say, he's very well established and can probably afford to chuck a few million bucks away rather than be twittering if he doesn't want. I just thought his page was an entertaining example of the opposite extreme of the use of social media!

Good point about genre vs literary, as well as trad pub vs e-self-pub. I wonder if genre books can use their own sales, beyond a certain threshold, as promotion (in the way as is being suggested for KDP in using temporary low price to shove your book up the list into visibility and then the sales generated to keep it high enough up in the list to be noticed, though I'm waiting to read in more detail about this) - the Kindle bestsellers list has lots of subgenres for genre fiction and one enormous bucket for literary fiction, which makes it easier (though not easy) to get high enough up the list to be noticed if you're doing genre fiction.

Hi Emma - that's interesting that you found Twitter the biggest payoff for the least time. I've come across a few people now saying that the thing to do is choose one thing - Twitter, FB, etc. - and just stick to that rather than trying to do several.

Genre is very, very different though. I should probably put a caveat on my posts to the effect that all my knowledge stems from the mainstream literary and children's sector.

This is an interesting, debatable point. I'm not sure genre is very different, at least not so much in the area we're discussing. As well as being in various SF groups and associations, I'm also a member of the Scattered Authors Society (children's authors). The last time I went to an SAS event, they were talking about the value of blogs, Twitter, etc, and deciding these things were important, in some way at least. The elements of the discussion were no different, really, to what's talked about in SF worlds, just a couple of years behind.

Terry