Why Don’t Publishers Believe in Author Websites?

Authors and technology
photo by Curtis Palmer / via Flickr

It’s not unusual for authors to be told by their publishers that an author website isn’t necessary or effective. Publishers may advise authors that they’re better off creating and maintaining a Facebook page instead. (I address the flaws in that strategy here.)

It came up again, yesterday, at a Digital Book World marketing conference. I didn’t attend, but I followed the Twitter stream. Here’s the conversation that happened.

It got me thinking more deeply about why publishers (in this case, Open Road Media, a progressive media company focused on e-books, founded by The Other Jane Friedman) would advise authors to forget the website, or what I consider the No. 1 calling card for a digital-age author. In my experience of having a website *and* being active on social, I would feel hobbled if either piece went away. Social is more powerful with my website, and my website is more powerful with social. That’s not to say there can’t be varying strategies and tools for execution (and there have to beโ€”every author career is different), but to say “no” to an author website for most authors? That seems like an opinion formed in 2005 that hasn’t been seriously revisited or challenged.

But publishers aren’t stupid or inexperienced. They shepherd thousands of new and experienced authors and know what sells books. What’s going on here? Am I horribly wrong in continuing to advise authors to own and control their own website as a long-term priority? Here’s what I think is going on.

1. Publishers don’t believe websites are effective for the time put into themโ€”they create an unprofitable time sink.

I can see how and why this might happen, since most authors are not educated on best practices of websites, what websites are good at, and how they integrate into a larger online presence. There’s a learning curve that no publisher can be or wants to be involved in, so it becomes easier to say, “Don’t bother (because you won’t do it right).”

If the author decides to establish a website anyway, the publisher may be rightly concerned that the author isn’t motivated or capable of maintaining it. Sometimes a bad website or out-of-date website can be more damaging than no website at all. Even if it is up to date, what if the author’s website doesn’t link to all retailers, and it offends an account? What if the author is saying or doing things that make life difficult for the publisher? (I experienced this to some degree at F+W Media, where the editors received requests from marketing: Please tell your author to change X on his site.)

What remedies might there be?

  • Educate authors. No publisher really wants to do this, though I think it’s in their best interest. At the very least, publishers could write up a downloadable guide or record an hour-long webinar that’s periodically updated.
  • Advise authors to use platforms that don’t require technical knowledge to maintain. We’re no longer living in the days of the webmaster; any individual who uses Word or Gmail can also learn to update a website. Some think WordPress is too complicated. But there are a range of solutions out there: SquareSpace, WordPress.com over self-hosting, even Blogspot will do.
  • Clearly advise authors what constitutes a waste of time. No author site should take so long to launch that it’s out of date by the time it’s live. And there’s no excuse for an out-of-date site if you’re using a platform like WordPress.

Bottom line: I think it’s a mistake and a disservice to authors to make them think or believe a website is some sophisticated piece of technology that they can’t handle or maintain. I expect more, and I’ve seen many writers, of every age, successfully start and maintain their sites after being encouraged and educated in a positive and empowered way. This is part of being a capable author in the digital age.

2. Publishers see better, clearer results from other types of activities, such as Facebook or Twitter social engagement, which may demand less of the author. 

As a colleague said on Twitter, it’s important to start somewhere, anywhere. I also believe in the power of incremental progress; you don’t have to launch and perfect everything at once. Start small, and build your skills and presence over time. A Facebook start for most authors feels doable and sustainableโ€”and sustainability is key.

This also helps authors focus on social marketing and soft-selling, whichโ€”even if they don’t know what that meansโ€”they might be more comfortable and successful at, if they’re new to online media. Plus, more than 1 billion people use Facebook. An author, if invested in it, may reach more people there and fewer people at their site, at least initially. (Go where the fish are.)

Yet I have a hard time endorsing a social-only approach when you, the author, are at the mercy of the social media tool for reaching your audience. You can never control what Facebook or any other site doesโ€”with its design, with its user interface, with your likes/followers, with its functionality, with its ad displays. And if and when it goes out of favor, you’ll have to rebuild somewhere elseโ€”whereas with a website, you only get stronger and better over time, assuming you don’t abandon it (and why would you, if you’re still writing and publishing?). When I first launched my website, it was a shadow of what you see now. (I discuss that journey, in depth, in this 20-minute video.)

Finally, Facebook is not an ideal set up for delivering straight-forward information. It’s better at conversation and ongoing connections, rather than delivering things such as media kits, official author bios, event listings, book club materials, and so on. Sure, you can put those things on Facebook, but that’s not an ideal setting for it, especially when people are typing your name or book title into Google. (And what about all those people who don’t use social media?)

3. Publishers aren’t sufficiently invested in the author directly reaching an audience on their ownโ€“or don’t believe it happens at a meaningful enough scale, except for a minority.

We all hear about agents and editors who want authors with a “platform”โ€”which means authors who can directly reach readers. This mitigates the risk involved in publishing a book because there’s a ready-to-go audience that the publisher doesn’t have to find.

This presents something of a paradox. How can publishers seek authors with platform (which often involves an online presence that can be quantified) AND claim author websites aren’t terribly effective? But I can see the rationale. If the platform is essentially established ahead of timeโ€”and that process probably took the author yearsโ€”it’s integral, but it’s difficult for an author, on her own, to establish a meaningful platform from the time a book is contracted to the release date, especially if she’s starting from ground zero. (Though, undoubtedly, the author will still be advised to participate in some range of online marketing activities, without being educated on what’s good for the short-term vs long-term, and may not realize that getting on Twitter is kind of pointless if you’re only doing it because your publisher said so.)

Put another way: Some authors are motivated and pretty good at the online and digital platform stuff (and at reaching an audience), and some aren’t. And for those who aren’t, the publisher may believe it’s not worth bothering because the payoff won’t be there in time for the publisher to see an impact on sales.

That seems rather focused on the short-term, or on the publisher’s immediate ROI rather than the author’s long-term career.

I’d argue it’s now the publisher’s job to help authors connect with readersโ€”to be marketing partners. And if they’re going to be a valuable marketing partner, it means educating authors on how to do this stuff for the long haul even if the authors think they’re “bad” at itโ€”which requires authors undergoing an attitude adjustment, not a miracle injection of computer-programming know-how.

There could be another reason publishers aren’t helping authors with this: it takes away their power if the author can reach readers without them. I don’t honestly believe this is motivating publishers in their advice to authors, but when you see hybrid authors such as Hugh Howey, CJ Lyons, Barbara Freethy, and others who do well because they’ve made the investment of reaching readers directly, publishers have less negotiating power. Being in direct contact with readers (through your own site, blog, e-mail newsletter, wherever) is like money in your pocket, a long-term investment that pays off over time. Any of the authors I mentioned above would confirm this. Sylvia Day, speaking at an industry conference earlier this year, said that publishers have to offer “a comprehensive marketing plan that covers things that Iโ€™m not doing myself. I expect them to hit a market that Iโ€™m not already reaching. You need to find me a new audience, to broaden my audience. As far as digital is concerned, you cannot compete with what Iโ€™m doing on my own. You have to knock my socks off with a brilliant marketing plan to be my publisher.”

There are probably two questions in this whole conversation that are most debatable and most difficult to answer, at least on a broad, general, and continuing level:

  • How much of an impact can an author website have on book sales over the long term, versus other strategies such as social media engagement, metadata optimization, Amazon promotion, Goodreads advertising, traditional media/PR, etc? This assumes that sales is the only or primary goal, and that other benefits are negligible (which is also highly debatable!).
  • Assuming the overall impact is meaningful, how many authors have the aptitude, patience, and/or perseverance to be like Sylvia Day? Can this be taught effectively, and if so, is it worth an author taking time and energy away from her writing? (And/or: Should an author spend money on someone else doing it?)

I say it’s worthwhile (because I’ve experienced the benefits firsthand), but I understand why others say no.

Share on:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

87 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don Stevens

Great info Jane! Interestingly enough, I saw a webinar with Guy Kawasaki, who insisted that an author website may not be needed. He mentioned that Google Plus did everything needed to replace it. Nothing should replace an author platform, I think. You never know when guidelines or when the rules change with social platforms.

Jane Friedman

Interesting! I greatly respect Guy K., and think he’s done the best book out there on self-publishing. However, and it seems we agree, I don’t think the advice to use Google Plus instead of a website is any more sound than the advice to rely on Facebook. You don’t own and control it, not everyone uses it, etc.

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Worth keeping in mind that Kawasaki pretty much said the same thing about Posterous, too. And I know a bunch of writers who camped out on MySpace.

Jane Friedman

Ha! Yes.

Marquita Herald

Also, since one of the benefits of having an author website is building a list, it’s worth noting that Guy has access to a huge list as CEO at Alltop. I’ve never subscribed to receive anything from him, but my blog is on Alltop and I receive requests from him to post reviews for his books.

Dona

Very interesting about Kawasaki, I never knew that!

Fauzia Burke

I think Guy is also a consultant at Google, and has written a book on Google+

Jane Friedman

I agree, much potential in Google Plus. Like other social media networks, I expect it to develop a distinct lifecycle and set of limitations, some of which are not yet clear. (These social tools always evolve, as we’ve learned!)

Amber

First of all, Twitter and Facebook take a HUGE amount of my time. My website takes almost none. So the idea that focusing on Twitter or Facebook would actually save me time is…. false. Very much so. If I needed to save time, I’d drop twitter! (And then go through withdrawals)

I remember stumbling across an author website with a single book and it was one of the most fabulous-looking websites I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t hugely functional but it was gorgeous…and based entirely off the cover for their first and only book. It was also clear the publisher had a hand in the design/development for a few reasons (the artwork was pulled from the cover art, sans text, and the logos were there). Frankly, if that’s what publishers are considering not worth it, then they’re right! That website easily cost thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, and it will be out of date by the time his next book comes out. Maybe that’s what they meant by “bells and whistles.” Except… that’s not a standard author website. That’s the top 1% of websites (and possibly the top 1% of authors) and doesn’t apply to most people. It makes me really uncomfortable that publishers would be generalizing the top 1% as if it applies to everyone…are they even paying attention to the midlisters? And if not, why are we taking advice from them?

The bottom line is that setting up a website yourself or hiring an affordable designer (<$1500) is not a huge amount of time and money for a career author and takes very little time in the long run compared to twitter and Facebook.

Jane Friedman

Thanks for the excellent points, Amber. That gorgeous author website you saw, that the publisher surely had a hand in: I think you’re right that’s what publishers have in mind when they think “author websites are not worth the trouble.’ There’s too much focus on flash and a single title launch, not enough on long-term sustainability and easy maintenance from the author’s POV. Unfortunately, I think most publishers are forced to focus on the short term gain from a single title release, rather than how a site will grow and be important for the duration of an author’s career.

Dawn J. Stevens

Absolutely correct. Building a “flashy” website is not worth it. Building a long term website with rich content and food for search engines (and your hungry readers) IS worth it.

trackback
Joanne Tombrakos

Great article Jane! An author needs both. No doubt. Social is not going to work without a home base and a website that no one is directed to is going to get pretty lonely.
I think the suggestion on the part of publishers goes back to what I see in so many industries. The bulk of the population still does not get what is happening on line and has no idea how to be truly effective. Which is good for me. It gives me something to consult about ๐Ÿ™‚

Jane Friedman

Indeed.

Sometimes I feel very bad for new authorsโ€”all the conflicting advice and perspectives must be very confusing, especially when the very entity you would think to trust (your publisher) could be misguiding you.

Nina Amir

Great post, Jane. I am a firm believe that the author website/blog is the centerpiece of all they do on line. And it’s a necessity for discovery.

Jane Friedman

Thanks for reading & commenting!

trackback

[…] It's not unusual for authors to be told by their publishers that author websites aren't necessary or effective. Should their insight be trusted?  […]

Shirley Hershey Showalter

As an author over 60 years of age :-), I can speak to the value of a website combined with social media, especially when working with a small publisher. The website is an integral part of my outreach to readers. I hope to make it a hub for book clubs as well as media. I have invested in some coaching and am lucky enough to have family in the website construction business, but I can affirm that even elders can do it — and that it’s fun. One week after launch, my publisher has ordered a second printing!

Jane Friedman

๐Ÿ™‚

Some authors have a meaningful income stream related to events, readings, and other gigs tied to their writing work. I don’t know how that would be better marketed and publicized than on a author website, as you point out.

Bob Mayer

Take a gander at most publisher websites and perhaps their focus is directed in the wrong way? Frankly, publishers spend little time if any promoting any authors than their top 5% so their advice has to be taken with a bit of skepticism.

Second, publishers are only beginning to realize their job is to sell books to readers, not distribute books to consignment outlets. I rarely comment any more on these types of issues because I’m too busy writing and selling books to readers. For some authors, it is indeed a waste of time. For others, it’s invaluable. I believe a web site is a single landing pad to direct people to where they can purchase an author’s books in all the variations: Kindle, Nook, Apple Audio, etc.. Additionally, it generates income through affiliate sales.

At Cool Gus we build a single page for every one of our authors and update the links constantly. This allows the authors, and us, to direct readers to one place to learn about the author and their books and then one click to buy. So if publishers are really worried about their authors wasting time building web sites, perhaps it’s because it might be the publishers job to help their authors?

In Special Forces we didn’t believe in saying what shouldn’t or couldn’t be done: we focused and spent our energy on DOING.

Jane Friedman

Yep, agreed. Appreciate the comment, Bob.

christinakatz

Hi Jane,

I wrote a post for you in the past about this: https://janefriedman.com/2011/11/24/katz-workout/ which might make it sound like I don’t think established authors should have websites. But in this post I was talking about rising writers, not established authors.

It seems to me that a company like Open Road Media, which specializes in reviving and perpetuating the careers of already-successful authors (Jane, please correct me if I am wrong about that) would have an especially challenging time getting old horses to do new tricks (no offense, Open Road authors).

And it also seems to me that many publisher are more invested in driving traffic to their own sites and online book retailers than they are invested in helping authors become a self-sustaining businesses.

In fact, I would go so far as to say, that once we hit the tipping point where more authors are empowered and less authors are dependent on publishers (not sure when this will be quite yet) it will be a whole new ballgame. But thanks for this post, Jane, because I hadn’t really considered how many baby boomer authors there are vs. how many Gen X and Y. And I can imagine how publishing is much more invested in how they can leverage the works of those BBers because they have the established names and backlists.

To anyone who has been swayed by the argument against platform, I would say, platform is EVERYTHING in your writing career. Your platform determines your success as an author, whether you are self-published or traditionally published. It also determines how large of a readership you will command in and outside of your published works. And, most importantly, platform determines how much you can earn as a writer in a rapidly changing publishing eco-system.

Don’t let anyone talk you out of platform-building is my advice. I probably would not have a career at all without my platform-building skills. And in the future, I predict that authors with the best platform skills will be the authors who dominate the marketplace whether they work with publishers or not.

Jane Friedman

I’d say we’re on the same page. ๐Ÿ˜‰