A Data-Driven Case for Traditional Publishing. (Book Sales Data Inside!)
It’s pretty well known that not all books become bestsellers.
Statistics show that most books sell less than 300 copies.
Part of that is because of market saturation: There are approximately 3 million books published every year. There’s a lot of books for readers to choose from, and a lot of noise for authors to combat to get those readers to buy their book.
Out of that 3 million, 2 million are self-published. Given that most self-published books sell ~250 copies, it’s clear that the DIY authors are bringing the overall average sales number down.
Contrast that with the 1 million traditionally published books, where the majority — 53% or 530,000 — sell more than 1,000 copies and 6.7% — or 67,000 — sell more than 10,000 copies.
I believe traditionally published books fare better for three key reasons —
Authors have to establish an audience and proof of concept to get past the (often unfairly maligned) gatekeepers like editors, literary agents, and me — both of which are likely to increase sales because the book is needed, wanted, and works
Traditionally published books are professionally produced (so fugly covers and tons of typos are way less likely)
There are more people invested in the success of the book than just the author (including literary agents, collaborators like me, and the hundreds of people at a publishing house)
Not to mention that when you traditionally publish, you have a shot at things that will make your book sales explode — like tv/movie/film/streaming adaptations, national press, and maybe even some celebrity support!
In other words — when you traditionally publish, statistics show that you won’t be average, and neither will your book sales.
Statistics come from NPR, independent publisher Berrett-Koehler, and WordsRated.com.
