Bestsellers: the sequel

Boy is blogging a great way to get instant feedback ; )
[Warning: this is long, and probably quite boring to anyone not involved in creating/publishing books. You've been warned ; )]

If you've read the comments on my creating a non-fiction bestseller, you'll see a lot of thoughtful responses. It's obvious now that I left out a pile of important caveats, exceptions, perspectives, etc. so here's a quick part two...

1) I'm not suggesting that you do the book for money. My approach is that if you do the book to enhance the reader's life, then assuming other things are in place (but this is a huge frickin' assumption), you're more likely to earn out with that perspective than if the goal is to enhance your consulting prospects. However, I didn't mean to imply that this is an either/or--that if the book earns out because your goal was helping the reader that you won't see any career benefits! From a systems thinking view, things fall out naturally: you create the book focused on helping the reader, not you, but you end up benefitting from a greater awareness of your message (which is more likely to lead to more work for you, and it's a big happy reinforcing feedback loop).

2) There are some very valid reasons why a good book, with all the best intentions, still won't earn out... and yet it's still worth doing for both the author and publisher. A publisher might decide that simply having a book in a particular niche area is an important strategic goal, even if everyone knows the size of the audience simply isn't large enough (at least at the time the book is developed) to sell enough copies.

3) Dave Taylor makes a great point that it's just as unethical to mislead an author into thinking they will make money, when the the odds still show they won't. And my simplistic just care advice, without enough context, isn't by itself going to guarantee a different outcome. His original advice was based on practical realities. But my point is that we have to ask, "reality of what"? It's certainly not my reality. We can tell people, "this is where most books are, but here's how to do things differently, in order to increase your chances of doing better..." In other words, his advice is dead-on and realistic, but that's like saying, "Most adults in the US are overweight, so that's just the reality you have to accept and expect." when in fact, most people can do something to greatly improve their odds of seeing a different reality. The fact that most of your neighbors are living a different lifestyle doesn't mean you have to do it that way.

Tim O'Reilly gave us some really good advice when we got our very first royalty statement, "Assume the book is going to do well, do everything you can to make that happen, but trust me--don't take out a mortgage based on that first check."

4) And James McGovern, who also has written some excellent bestsellers, makes the point that sometimes the goal is simply to get the good information out there, regardless of whether it will sell a lot of copies. I'd put that in the same category as #1, where strategically (and for the good of, say, software development practice as an industry), there are compelling reasons to put out a book despite less-than-stellar absolute numbers given that (especially in the case of James' books) there just aren't enough readers at that advanced level.
James and I have had this debate before... and I think we more or less agreed that yes, someone still needs to do books for beginners, but James' point was that if this is all we end up with, simply because that's where the bulk of the market is, then this too becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy--the industry ends up with nothing but beginner-level thinking.

And this brings up another really important point--if every book is supposed to sell a lot of copies, then where do I (the user/reader) go for help when the thing I'm working on is too obscure or too advanced or too cutting edge to justify anyone doing a book on it? Should the publisher and author do it anyway? Maybe, sometimes. As a user, I'm thrilled if someone would do a book on my off-the-beaten-path use-case (say, "Using Java to write MIDI audio software"). I hate waiting for the critical mass of readers needed to justify someone doing a book on the topic I'm interested in.

But this is where other publishing platforms might make more sense. It doesn't always need to be a printed book, and in fact the longish lead time to go from author's head all the way to Barnes and Noble's shelf is a big problem with the bleeding edge. I've found topics I'm interested in, only to learn that the first book on it will be out... in a year. With other options like print-on-demand, or some kind of electronic delivery, there might be less need to do all topics in a traditional format.

4) Finally, someone with a much better perspective on publishing than I have, Joe Wikert from Wiley (Scoble and Shel's publisher), wrote a response/rebuttal on his blog. He points out something that I hadn't intended but was apparently implied--that the publisher would simply do a book to help the author's career without the publisher doing their own due diligence.
But I think we're addressing two slightly different points. I definitely think the decision to do a book on a specific topic, right down to the table of contents, is a crucial decision that the publisher plays a huge role in. Where I think the author's build-my-resume part comes in is not in the decision of what book/topic/TOC to do, but rather what happens when the words start hitting the page.

The problem lies in the more subtle details of the actual way in which the book is written. The delightful and wonderful tech book author Peter van der Linden put it best when he said in an interview something like, "Too many computer book authors suffer from 'clear only if known' syndrome." Where the material suffers from the same thing you often get from tech support--"Technically accurate, yet completely impenetrable until after you've figured it out."
OK, end of that rant.

Joe Wikert also pointed out is that advances are set based on the individual book, market, author, etc. and then he walks the fine (but appropriate) line between not wanting to "set the bar too low" while simultaneously painting a realistic picture (similar to Tim's advaice) where the author doesn't bet the farm on the book's royalty statements.

So, I certainly agree that there are a lot of variables, many of which the author and publisher can't fully control. And I do agree that authors have to be realistic in recognizing that the book might not earn out, and that they should have a realistic picture of how many don't. BUT... I still believe that this general acceptance of "this is simply the way it is, so do the book for other reasons" isn't as likely to create a book that will sell more copies. And whatever the author's goal is, selling more copies usually means more satisfaction of that goal (spreading "pollen", encouraging a higher level of thought, getting the message out there, creating passionate users, encouraging people to want to read more, etc.)

Most importantly, though, I want to emphasize my original point that barring all the exceptions and qualifiers, we shouldn't be looking at books that are bestsellers as somehow "lucky" or "rare". There is a formula that works! Lots of them, really... but I'm just pursuing one of many possible implementations of "how to create a bestseller." And I'm also holding my head high and not ashamed like I'm somehow "selling out" by deliberately wanting to create a bestseller. Creating a bestseller, remember, is not the goal. The goal is "enhance the reader's life." That this happens to be a formula for making a bestseller is just good news all around, because a bestseller = more opportunity to do more of the good things.