In my first post in the Moriah Jovan/The Urban Elitist cross-blog series on how author’s might earn money from their work,  I made the following questionable assertion:

If requiring payment from every reader will limit the potential for a written work to be discovered by a larger audience, then I believe the writer should forgo that revenue. For now. [snip] If I could choose between 100 readers who had paid $10 each, or 1,000 readers who had paid nothing, I would choose the 1,000 readers. Only with a base of readers can a writer expand her readership to the point where she could earn enough to make a difference in her life.

I’d now like to go even further out on a limb and suggest that there are some related lessons authors might learn from the world of scholarly journals.  This might sound like a bit of a stretch, but stick with me for a couple of minutes.

Scholarly publishing, the strange but somewhat profitable sector of the publishing world where I make a living, moved into the electronic age far faster than consumer publishing (hmm…think there’s a connection between profitability and e-publishing?).  This is particularly true for scientific publishing.  For both journals and books, the majority of scientific content is now read in an electronic format, either online or in a downloaded pdf in most cases.

When a brand new journal is launched, many publishers offer the electronic content for free for two or three years in an attempt both to gain readers and to maximize the journal’s potential impact in its field of specialization.  Usually they don’t just put the content online and wait for readers to show up.  Instead, in promoting the new journal, they tell customers (usually academic and corporate libraries) that to get the free content they have to “opt-in.”  That is, they have to take action and sign up for the journal to get the free access.  From the start, the publishers know which customers have an interest in the title.  And because it’s electronic, they can monitor usage and see where it is and isn’t happening.

After those two or three years are up, the publisher looks at the new journal’s number of opt-ins, its usage, the reviews it has received and its impact factor (essentially how often the title has been cited in other journals), and then uses all of this information to set the price for the title.  So the opt-in model not only gives the journal a running head start before it’s priced, but also gives the publisher invaluable market research in the process.

Does it work?  Well, usually the number of opt-in customers that are converted to paid subscribers is in the range of 10-20%.  That doesn’t sound so great, but evidence shows that it’s better than the alternative.  Although data is relatively limited, journals that use the opt-in model seem to do better, and to do better faster, than titles that are never available for free.  (Sorry, nothing online to show as evidence.  Please let me know if you’re aware of anything online that has data on the success rate of the opt-in model.)

Not everyone likes this model.  Scientific societies, who are often responsible for the content of these new titles, sometimes complain that the opt-in model devalues their content.  They believe their content is of such a high quality and has such great contributors that of course customers will be willing to pay from the very first issue.  Why, they think, should they wait several years for those royalties to start pouring in?

Self-published authors, of course, often feel the same way when faced with the decision of whether to try to sell their little known book (and their little known selves).  Its a perfectly legitimate argument.  But, just as with a business strategy, sometimes it makes more sense to take a long-term approach.  Sometimes a short-term financial loss is necessary for longer term financial gains.

In a sense, most authors are like journals.  Their work will probably have a consistent thematic focus from book to book, story to story or article to article.  Their style will remain fairly consistent, as will their quality (though hopefully the quality of an author’s work will improve with each book).  A core audience of readers will return to the author’s work, just as they would return to the journal, because there’s something about it that they need in their lives, whether it be for professional or personal reasons.

If an author does decide to let the electronic version of his book out into the world for free, I think it’s very important to collect whatever contact information he can from those who download it.  Asking for an email address in exchange for a free ebook is perfectly fair.  This can be used not only to announce the next book but also for (occasional) updates on the author’s progress and any other relevant news (published stories, articles, etc.).  Potentially, an author could even survey those who had downloaded the book to find out what they liked and didn’t like about it.  No matter how many beta readers and editors might have previously given feedback, I’d bet an author could learn a great deal from her casual readers.  Maybe the mere fact that these casual readers were asked for feedback will make it more likely that they will want to read the author’s next book.  If they feel like they’re contributing and that the author values their opinions, many will feel like they have a vested interest in the author’s work.

Yes, that first book is out there floating around in the ether for free and, at least in its electronic format, it will always be free.  But assuming that the next book’s content, style and quality are consistent with the first book, the author has ready-made audience (with contact information!) for book number two.  Probably only a fraction of those who downloaded the free first ebook will buy the second.  So be it.  Those people who do buy it will be the start of the author’s core audience.  They are the people who will be the agents of free word-of-mouth publicity.  They are the ones, hopefully, who will come back for the third and fourth book.

Even first-time authors published by a publishing house could potentially benefit from the Cory Doctorow model of letting the ebook out into the world for free and using print sales for revenue generation.  I’ll have more on Doctorow’s modus operandi later in the series.

I know the analogy between journals and authors is not a perfect one.  Just because the evidence seems to indicate that journals using the free opt-in model do better in the long run does not necessarily mean that the same strategy will work for each and every author.  But authors who think such a strategy might work for them should not be ashamed to give their first book (or even their first few books) away for free in an electronic format.  It’s a perfectly legitimate strategy used by companies with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.

The key word here is not “free.”  It’s “strategy.”  An author needs to have one.  No matter how many free books are tossed out into the (soon-to-be) million ebook world, fame and fortune will not come looking for him, and neither will a moderate income from writing.  They must be pursued smartly and deliberately.

Related Posts:

1. First, Make It Good Note:  As mentioned previously, Moriah Jovan and I are doing...
2. Business Model for eBook Only Publishing House Consider this open source business development. I wrote this at...
3. The Future of Book Publishing (Maybe) There are many people and blogs doing an obsessively thorough...
4. eBook Warehouse Just as Seth Godin has dared to imagine a better...
5. eBook Design Hugh McGuire at The Book Oven Blog brings up an...