Rejectomancy in words and numbers
There’s been a lot of talk online lately about rejectomancy. For those who don’t know, rejectomancy is the dark art of turning rejection into motivation and positive reinforcement. It’s a kind of bloody-minded alchemy of will. As Kate Heartfield wrote for the SFWA Facebook page on the subject:
Now I’m a non-fiction editor as well as a fiction writer, and I understand that rejection is the default, as it would be in any other transaction. When a customer walks past a rack of shirts in a store, that is not necessarily an assessment of the store-owner’s abilities. Maybe the customer is looking for pants. Maybe someone else will buy a shirt.
This is a great analogy and the line “rejection is the default” is absolute gold. It’s really worth bearing in mind two things when submitting for publication:
1. There are hundreds of people vying for a handful of spots, so you are much more likely to be rejected than accepted;
2. Rejection doesn’t mean your story is bad – it means your story is not right for that market at that time. You’re selling shirts while that editor is looking for pants.
Now, of course, repeated rejection might well be a sign that your story is bad. That’s what beta-readers, critique groups, editors and so on are for. As a writer, you absolutely must learn from rejection. Every time a story comes back, give it another read, another polish. Always make sure it’s been through the wringer of critique before you send it out in the first place. It’s in your best interests to only send out your best work, and your best work is not a first draft. Or even a second, third or fourth draft. And the better you get, the more likely you are to succeed with submissions.
You will, of course, get better the more you write, the more you submit, the more you learn. You should always be honing your craft. I know that I’m always looking to improve. I always try to learn from rejection. I’m definitely a far better writer now than I was ten years ago – that’s evidenced by the fact that I can make pro sales now where before I was selling into semi-pro markets, and before that token pay markets, or giving stories away to non-paying markets. Incidentally, you should never do that. I should never have done that. No one reads non-paying markets (except for a few notable exceptions) and you’re really just throwing work away. But, of course, we all do it, looking for that early validation of being published. So go for it, do what works, but try to gravitate to paying markets ASAP. Even if it’s a token payment of ten bucks or a bucket of cold fish or a fucking hat. Get something for your work.
But I digress. Back to rejectomancy. When I say there’s been a lot of it about, I’m talking about things that SFWA post I linked above and then Elizabeth Bear tweeting:
You know, I still get rejections. I got one this week, in fact. I sent the story out again. #fictionfacts
— Elizabeth Bear (@matociquala) July 3, 2015
Right desk, right day, right story, write better. It never stops being true. #fictionfacts
— Elizabeth Bear (@matociquala) July 3, 2015
And Nalo Hopkinson replying with this:
@matociquala I once got 2 rejections in week I was a Clarion teacher. Was hilarious. Shared them w the students. Sent the stories out again.
— Nalo Hopkinson (@Nalo_Hopkinson) July 4, 2015
In fact, those tweets triggered a flood of chat and it’s been Storified here:
https://storify.com/rcloenenruiz/the-writing-life-the-truth-about-rejections
Pretty good reading, right?
You didn’t read it? Go! Read it now, I’ll wait…
*flicks over to the other open tabs*
*makes sure no one is watching*
*giggles*
Oh, you’re back? So, that says it all about about rejection and I don’t need to say more. So why am I crapping on about it here? Because that’s what I do. And I thought I’d add some numbers of my own to the mix. A lot of those folks are talking about novels as well as short stories and the same rules apply to both in terms of submission and rejection. But for the sake of numbers, here are my figures for short fiction.
Out of 56 published short stories for which I have rejection figures, I have a total of 238 rejections. That might seem like a good rate at first glance – after all, an acceptance rate averaging a hit for every 4 or 5 submissions would be fucking great! I’d love to have a strike rate like that. But I don’t.
Some of those early hits were non-paying markets that accepted my story on the first try. Zero rejections for that yarn. Which is good on the face of it, but is actually only because those markets are desperate for anything that’s basically literate and a trained monkey could get published there.
There are also several stories on that list which were accepted with zero rejections because they were written specifically for anthologies after I’d been invited to submit. That happens later in a career when you’ve established yourself and your ability. Sometimes editors come to you. It’s an awesome feeling and one of which I’ll never tire. Of course, even then there’s no guarantee you’ll be accepted, but the chances are obviously much higher than cold subs.
So all those with zero rejections are actually skewing the results a lot.
Looking at cold subs, to paying markets, I have a handful there that landed the right home on the first try, but the vast majority have at least a few rejections first. Among those, I have 24 published stories that collected 5 or more rejections before selling. That’s almost half of my published stories that were rejected five times or more. The rest had 1 to 4 rejections, with the handful of exceptions mentioned earlier. But let’s just look at those with 5 or more rejections before a sale.
Of those 24, the breakdown is like this:
8 stories rejected 5 times before selling.
3 stories rejected 6 times before selling.
2 stories rejected 7 times before selling.
3 stories rejected 9 times before selling.
2 stories rejected 10 times before selling.
1 story rejected 11 times before selling.
1 story rejected 12 times before selling.
3 stories rejected 14 times before selling. (Not sure why 14 is becoming a theme!)
And my current record-holder:
1 story rejected 17 times before selling.
That’s right. I have a story that was rejected 17 times and I didn’t give up on it. You know why? Because I’m a stubborn fucker with a skin thicker than a geriatric rhino. You have to be if you want to be a successful writer. But you know what else? That story changed a lot between submissions. It started out as a sci-fi story and sold as an urban horror story. I realised the SF trappings were wrong for that one. I listened to editorial comments. I made it better. And then I started sending it to the right markets for that kind of story.
Several of the stories with high rejection counts had similar changes – massive cuts, title changes, characters taken out or put in. But not all of them. For many of them, the changes were very small, but I just kept on until I found the right desk at the right time. I used rejectomancy to alchemically change those stories from unpublished to published.
Subsequently, among those stories with 5 or more rejections, one won a competition, several were listed on Recommended Reading lists, and a couple were nominated for awards!
That tweet from Elizabeth Bear above is so true: “Right desk, right day, right story, write better. It never stops being true.”
So good. I might put that on the wall above my desk, in fact.
So there you have it. The dark art of rejectomancy. Embrace it. Use it. Learn to love it. Go and read that Storify about rejection again. And whenever you feel down about it all, just remember that some of the greatest books and stories in the world were rejected numerous times before they sold. There’s nothing different about you. Stay strong, be stubborn, thicken your skin, always hone your craft and never give up.
.
Punishment of the Sun at Tales to Terrify
I’m becoming a bit of a regular at the Tales to Terrify podcast, which is fine with me as it’s one of my favourites. This time, it’s my only vampire story, Punishment of the Sun, which was published in the Dead Red Heart anthology from Ticonderoga Publications in 2011. It also got an Honorable Mention in Ellen Datlow’s Best Horror of the Year #4 (Night Shade Books 2012) and was on the Recommended Reading List, Year’s Best Fantasy & Horror, 2011 (ed. Liz Grzyb & Talie Helene, Ticonderoga Publications). I’m very proud of this story. I always said I’d never write a vampire yarn – the whole trope has been so overworked that I thought there was nothing else to say. Then editor Russell B Farr put out the call for the Dead Red Heart antho where he wanted distinctly Australian vampire stories. So I saw a challenge there I could rise to. And I’ve subsequently worked over the whole vampire mythology in my own way again in my novels, but not in a really upfront way – more as a small part of the larger supernatural world I explore in them.
Anyway, go and have a listen to the podcast here and be sure to grab a copy of the original anthology here (or wherever you prefer to shop), because it’s bloody excellent. See what I did there?
.
St Alban’s Writers’ Festival
It’s a little way off yet, but the website for the St Alban’s Writers’ Festival has just gone live. As I’m going to be a guest there, I thought I’d share it so you can put it in your diaries. I think it’s going to be good fun. This one is a new festival, which is described thusly:
St Albans Writers’ Festival is a new Australian literary festival celebrating writers, books and writing of all styles, genres and forms, based in the small and picturesque village of St Albans. The landscape of the Hawkesbury with its diverse population of farmers, artists, writers, tree-changers and weekenders provides a unique and stimulating setting to meet writers, discuss books and debate ideas. This intimate festival – places are limited to about 350 – happens over two days and two evenings, starting on Friday 18th September with drinks and nibbles at the Festival Centre.
They made me a page on the website here: http://www.stalbanswritersfestival.com.au/portfolio_page/alan-baxter/ and you can see all the other guest writers here.
The festival is from the 18th to the 20th September 2015, so get your tickets now before they’re all snapped up. I’ll be there all weekend taking part in a few things, so come and say hi.
.
Bloodlines table of contents announced
I’m very happy to announce this one, as I’ve been sitting on it for a while. You may remember, if you follow my short fiction writing, that a couple of years ago I had a story in a book called Bloodstones. Published by Ticonderoga Publications and edited by the wonderful and award-winning Amanda Pillar, it got a bunch of award nominations and loads of excellent reviews. It’s a great anthology and you should really check it out if you haven’t already.
Well, Amanda said that Bloodstones was hopefully the first of a series of dark urban fantasy anthologies and now the second one has been announced. Where Bloodstones was an anthology of dark urban fantasy with mythological influences, the new one, Bloodlines, is really embracing its title. Billed as “a non-traditional dark urban fantasy anthology” it will feature tales inspired by blood and blood magic. I’m sure there’ll be a very exciting array of yarns here, because Amanda Pillar is a brilliant editor like that. And I’m very pleased to say that my story, “Old Promise, New Blood”, will be included. Here’s the full table of contents announced today (alphabetical):
- Joanne Anderton “Unnamed Children”
- Alan Baxter “Old Promise, New Blood”
- Nathan Burrage “The Ties of Blood, Hair and Bone”
- Dirk Flinthart “In The Blood”
- Rebecca Fung “In the Heart of the City”
- Stephanie Gunn “The Flowers That Bloom Where Blood Touches Earth”
- Kelly Hoolihan “The Stone and the Sheath”
- Kathleen Jennings “The Tangled Streets”
- Pete Kempshall “Azimuth”
- Martin Livings “A Red Mist”
- Seanan McGuire “Into the Green”
- Anthony Panegyres “Lady Killer”
- Jane Percival “The Mysterious Mr Montague”
- Paul Starkey “The Tenderness of Monsters”
- Lyn Thorne-Adder “Lifeblood of the City”
- S. Zanne “Seeing Red”
That’s a fine line-up of talent right there. I’m sure a cover reveal will be coming soon, and the book is slated for release in print and ebook before the end of this year. Exciting stuff!
New author photo
I just wanted to make a quick post to show off my new author photo. I hope you like it. I love it! It was taken by the extremely talented Nicole Wells, and I highly recommend that you check out her work.
She has a website here: http://www.nicolewells.com.au/
And a Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/nicolewellsphotography
Author photos are notoriously hard things to get right, especially when, like me, the author is no catwalk model. I think Nicole captured just the right vibe with this one, given the dark weird fiction that I write. And even my artist wife, who is very hard to please with this sort of stuff, thinks it’s a brilliant photo. So approval all around. Thanks, Nicole!
.
Mirrorwalk at Tales to Terrify
Those wonderful people at Tales To Terrify have been very good to me, and there’s another of my stories up there now. This time they’ve done a wonderful podcast of “Mirrorwalk”, originally published in Murky Depths #16, back in April 2011.
You can find the podcast here: http://talestoterrify.com/tales-to-terrify-176-bergin-baxter/
Matt Cowens has done a brilliant reading of the yarn. I’m really glad to see this one getting some attention again, it’s a story I still like a lot. I hope you enjoy it!
.
On established authors singing the praises of self-publishing
Let me start this piece with the following: I have no problem with any method of publishing. Whatever works for you and gets you the results you want is great. I’m a hybrid author – I’ve self-published in the past, I still self-publish a small amount and nowadays I’m mostly traditionally published in both big and small press. This is not about criticising any particular path to publication.
Okay?
Good. Glad we’ve got that covered. What I do want to talk about is a thing I’ve seen a lot of lately, most recently in this article by Harry Bingham. There have been several of these things, (Konrath is the feral posterboy for the movement – search him up yourself if you’re interested) but in a nutshell, the case they’re stating is this:
The great machine of publishing is constantly morphing and moving on, but we’re now in the era of self-publishing and that’s the way forward for everyone. They cite their own recent successes as evidence.
Now, self-publishing is in a huge renaissance and it is a great way forward for many people. But these authors going on about how they’re leaving the behemoth of traditional publishing for the clear, honest waters of self-publishing success are being disingenuous at best and wilfully ignorant at worst.
In the article linked above, Bingham extols the virtues of his decision to do away with big traditional publishers and strike out on his own with the latest book in his series. He talks about how it’s doing very well thank you, and we’re in a brave new fourth era of publishing (or the end of the third or something) where it’s better for authors to take control. This really annoys me, because the only reason Bingham is doing so well is because he’s spent fifteen years as a traditionally published author, building a huge fan base through those first two eras, using the marketing power and bookstore penetration that only traditional publishing can buy.
At the start of the article he talks about how he was lucky enough with his first book to be in an era when publishers had money and he enjoyed a £50,000 marketing budget for that first book. Stop and think about that. Fifty. Thousand. Pounds. I wonder if that, and the subsequent fifteen years of audience building, career refinement and learning, has anything to do with his current self-publishing success? I think it might.
Konrath is the same. He rips into traditional publishing all the time, while making a mint with his self-published works, selling them to all the fans he developed while being a traditionally published author and enjoying the rewards that brought.
Sure, traditional publishing has many flaws. It’s not perfect. But the simple fact is that traditional, especially big five, publishing affords you a level of perceived integrity, presence and opportunity that is simply not available to the self-published. I know from direct experience. When I was an indie I made some good connections and got involved with lots of stuff through my own hard work, but nothing major. Now that I’ve been published by Harper Collins, I’ve been on the Supanova tour, on ABC Radio, reviewed in major broadsheet newspapers and so on. My latest book is available in every bookstore in the country, enjoying shelf space and exposure. (And you know what? It could still be selling way better than it is, but that’s another story.)
Some people see huge success with self-publishing, but very few. For most it’s a hard slog, often with no reward. For authors who have enjoyed all the benefits that come with a big trad deal to then start venting against the trad publishers and singing the praises of self-publishing is not only disingenuous, it’s unfair. It makes those who are new and know less about the industry blind to the truths involved.
Someone might think, “Well, if Big Name Author is ditching trad publishers for indie success, I’ll just go indie”, when the only reason Big Name Author can see success is because he’s already Big Name Author, and that’s because of the big traditional publishing deals he’s enjoyed.
There’s no one way or right way to be published. There’s whatever works for you. But don’t declare that life in the rain is fantastic when you’re wearing a coat and carrying an umbrella supplied by someone else.
.
On the length of a story
There’s been a bit of to and fro via The Guardian recently about fantasy novels and short stories. Firstly Damien Walter wrote this pile of bollocks about how publishers need to stop encouraging big fat fantasy multi-book series. Then Natasha Pulley responded with this bullshit about how fantasy just can’t be done in short books, and especially not in short stories. I do wish people would stop trying to proscribe what the rest of us like to read and write.
You know what? A good story is exactly as long as it needs to be or it’s not a good story. Simple as that. If that means a fat book trilogy, or a ten book mega-series, or one thin novel or novella, or a short story, it doesn’t matter. A good story is good because it’s told in the right amount of space it needs. A really good story is made from great ideas, wonderfully written, using exactly the time and space required.
Sure there are plenty of rubbish, bloated books out there and loads of short stories that fall flat. But even the shite stuff has found its niche if its successful, because people are reading and enjoying it. If people are reading and enjoying something, get the fuck off your high horse trying to tell those people that they should be reading and enjoying something else.
Ellen Datlow, a living legend among short fiction editors, posted on Facebook about the second article I linked above and here’s what she had to say:
As a short story editor who has been reading and publishing sf/f/h stories for over 35 years, I’m astounding [sic] at the author’s ignorance. There are hundreds of brilliant, effective, imaginary world short stories that have been published and continue to be published. I don’t know how someone who claims to have taught a class in short fiction can claim that “That means that there is an incredibly narrow taxonomical window in which short fiction can be recognised as fantasy at all. What we recognise as fantasy is long. Sometimes really long.” Even if your definition of fantasy was valid (and it isn’t), you’re dead wrong.
I agree with Ellen 100%.
On the subject of longer series, to use my own recent books as an example, The Alex Caine Series is (so far) roughly 300,000 words spread fairly evenly over three books. Each book is not especially fat, but each one is a fast-paced dark fantasy story. All three contain details of a bigger arc that tells a bigger story. That’s what I like to read mostly – standalone books that also contribute to a larger ongoing story in series. That’s why I write them. But I also enjoy and write standalone novels, and novellas, and short stories. One day I might write a fucking great three million word epic if I think the ideas therein are good enough.
There are big series out there where each book is the same size as my entire Alex Caine trilogy. Peter F Hamilton writes single novels bigger than some big fat series! And all those things are good. We need that variety. I love to experience a glorious, dense, richly detailed series, then read an anthology of amazing, tight fantasy short stories. I like standalones that aren’t in series. I love novellas. But I only like any of those things if they’re good, and being good or bad is not predicated solely on their length. It’s predicated on being a good story, well told. Some yarns are too long or too short for my taste. I might wish they would get to the point more quickly, or delve more deeply into their world and story. But it’s not the length alone that dictates quality or validity. And I know my taste is vastly different to the tastes of many others, and their taste is equally valid. Even if they’re wrong.
You know the old adage – it ain’t the size that matters, it’s what you do with it.
So stop telling people what to read and publishers what to publish. Put all your energy into sharing the stuff that you think is good, regardless of length. Help the cream rise to the top and let the rest take care if itself.
.
Mad Max: Fury Road is the best film in years
Mad Max: Fury Road
Holy balls, man, Mad Max: Fury Road was outstanding. There was nothing about it I didn’t like. I was wary going in because the hype had been so huge and so many of my friends were loving it that I felt sure I would be underwhelmed. Sometimes even a great film is overshadowed by the scale of its hype and you simply can’t enjoy it as much as you might if you’d gone in with no expectations. This is not the case with this film. It started and by the time the title slammed into the screen after the opening sequence I was upright in my seat and grinning. My adrenaline was pumping and I was thinking, This is gonna be fucking awesome!
And it was. It was insane, relentless, breathtaking, beautiful and intense. If I didn’t have to go to work that afternoon, I’d have turned around and gone right back in to watch it again. I’m desperate to see it again as soon as possible and that rarely happens. Not only is exactly the high-octane thrill-ride it purports to be, it’s something greater. Fury Road exemplifies, in every way, exactly what cinema is for.
Film is a unique medium, as all mediums are. You can make a film of a book or a graphic novel, but those things retain certain attributes in their native form that it’s not possible to recreate in other forms. For example, Alan Moore’s Watchmen is the perfect example of a story absolutely suited to the graphic novel. The double page spreads, Gibbons’ artwork and Moore’s words create a graphic experience that’s just not the same in book or film. A great novel has the beauty of the author’s language and descriptive prose that isn’t evident in a film version (or even a graphic novel, for that matter.) In the same way, everything about Fury Road is perfect for film.
The style is essential. George Miller has created a look and feel that’s visceral. He’s also eschewed CGI for real stunts and genuine car crashes, explosions and racing as often as possible. (Here’s a good post on why the overuse of CGI is increasingly crappy.) Of course, there is CGI in Fury Road, but it’s really the weakest of the visual effects and only used when it’s essential. There are regular nods to the 3D version as well, and that combines with the CGI at its worst with the guitar swinging towards the camera and back near the end of the movie. You’ll see what I mean. But even as that is the worst visual effect in the film for me, it’s still so beautifully over-the-top and insane that I forgave it. And all the CGI and 3D stuff always came second to the primary, powerful live-action film-making. And it’s film-making done to perfection.
The pace almost doesn’t let up, but when it does the calmness is sublime. The colour palette from burning desert to cold night is wonderfully filmed. The overcranking of speed and under-selling of violence -regularly brutal, never gratuitous – is all right on point. It’s a truly all-encompassing experience that utilises the medium masterfully.
But that wouldn’t be enough on its own. Spectacle without substance is an exercise in directorial masturbation. *cough*MichaelBay*cough* On top of all the cinematic beauty, the story, mythology and characters were solid and mesmerising. The performances, especially from Charlize Theron, were superb. The development of the broken world and the way some people had risen to control the desperate masses was utterly believable even within the epic, inconceivable scale of some of the things suggested. We didn’t have everything spelled out for us, but the story unfolded exactly as we needed to know things, just when we needed to know them. All of the above is essential to make perfect cinema. It all came together in one explosive and mind-blowing feature in Fury Road and that’s what makes it it the best film I’ve seen in years.
And I would be happy to leave it at that and let the film stand on its own brilliance, but there have been a lot of shouts from idiots about feminism, men’s rights, cocks withering and dying at the mere sight of the promo poster and so on, so I’m not going to leave it there. I’ll address that bullshit directly.
No doubt you’ve read about the whiny rapist shitstains called MRAs, or Men’s Rights Activists, who have whined and shat themselves about this film because they call it part of a damaging feminist agenda. Apart from it being hilarious that their scrotums are tied in knots by a flick half of them haven’t even watched, they’re only giving the film more publicity. Which is great. Because it’s a brilliant film that is in part brilliant because of the amazing female roles, incredible female heroes and no damsels in distress bullshit. At one point, Max wordlessly defers to Theron’s character, Furiosa, when it’s clear she has the skills he doesn’t. I know! Hang onto your penises, fellas. Furiosa also defers to him when his skillset is greater, and others defer to each other and none of it has anything to do with gender. It’s about warriors working together and surviving the apocalypse. This film takes the Bechdel Test and shoves it right up its vagina, and that’s great! You could (satirically) question whether two male characters ever talk about something other than a female, given what the film is fundamentally about. But no spoilers here. We need more films where there are equal roles fulfilled by everybody in the cast and where that cast isn’t all men. Is there a feminist agenda? No. Is there a feminist message? Maybe. At one point, a woman screams, “Then who broke the world!?” and it’s easy to read a lot into that. But so what? We need films with a feminist focus. We need films that challenge the rampaging cockforest of Hollywood and prove that the all-male extravaganza is a choice, not a necessity. Because, above all else and without any reference to politics, this is first and foremost a fucking superb film, packed with amazing heroes and blistering action and everything else I’ve talked about above. And, as my pal @The_Ausmerican said, every time someone watches Fury Road, an MRA loses his erection. That only adds to the reasons to watch.
Driving home, I just wanted to ram all the other road users out of my way, spray my teeth chrome and blow shit up. Seriously, go and watch this film. It entirely lives up to the hype.
.
Social Media and Book Marketing – Advice from Robert Hoge
Robert Hoge is a good friend of mine, a top bloke and a great writer. We were having a conversation with other friends a little while ago and the subject of social media engagement and book promotion came up. Rob is very savvy about that stuff and he promised to put his thoughts on the subject together. When he did, I found I agreed with him pretty much 100%. So, as I know a lot of writers read my blog, I asked if I could steal his thoughts and spread them out for everyone to consume, like a mass picnic of Rob’s brainmeats. He said yes. I told you he was a top bloke. So here you go:
Robert Hoge’s Social Media and Book Marketing Advice
There are a few simple tips for authors trying to get the best from their social media presence.
There are some good guides out there. I like “Your First 1000 Copies” by Tim Grahl but there’s a lot of stuff available on the web for free. Much of this is geared towards non-fiction writing but with some creativity it can be applied to fiction just as easily. You just need to have something to say.
Tip 1
Have something to say. The most important thing you can do – whatever the channel – is create content that is engaging and adds value. The biggest commitment you’re asking from potential readers is not a commitment of dollars; it’s a commitment of time and attention. Reward their attention with smart, funny, engaging content that adds value to their lives and does more than just ask them to buy your book because it’s cheaper now.
Offer value by talking about stuff that relates to your work but isn’t your work. Establish a relationship with people on social media by consistently being interesting and adding value to their experience. Be real. When the time is right ask them to buy (read) your work. You’re creative people. Be creative.
Tip 2
Be on Facebook. A lot of readers are on Facebook, as are publishers, reviewers and bookstores. If you want to market yourself to readers through social media, you should have some presence there. When you follow the advice in tip one, the network effects are tremendous.
Understand the Facebook algorithm, then stop worrying about it. The Facebook algorithm helps determine who sees what. For fan (non-personal) pages it initially only serves new content to about one-fifth or less of the people who’ve liked the page. Everyone blames the Facebook algorithm for a post only having eight likes but it’s not to blame. Boring posts are to blame. If you post interesting and engaging content that generates likes, comments and shares, Facebook will reward the post by serving it to more readers. Ask questions, post video, post images. Every time someone comments on your post, like it and reply because Facebook recognises that as engagement.
Tip 3
Be on Twitter. Twitter is a great place to converse and its network effects can sometimes be much greater than Facebook’s. All the points in tip one still apply, plus you get to hone your writing skills by making Tweets sing in 140 characters.
Generally though, Twitter is worse at serving content to all your followers than Facebook. Why is that? Well, Twitter is an ephemeral medium and whether you have 20, 200 or 20,000 followers they’re unlikely to all be online at the same time you post your tweet. Often less than 10% of your followers will see an individual tweet.
Check out www.analytics.twitter.com to start looking at some details of your tweets and what engagement they get. A post on your Facebook fan page remains there for potential new readers to see for quite a while. A tweet will be gone pretty quickly.
Tip 4
If you enjoy other channels, go wild. If you’re great at photos, hang out on Instagram. If you love reviewing, engage an audience on Goodreads. Just be engaging and add value in a way that’s interesting.
I’d discourage you from posting the same content on multiple channels all the time. To me it shows you’re not interested in engaging in a way that suits a particular channel. And if a reader who likes you on Facebook or Twitter decides to checks you out on Instagram hoping to see new content and just sees the same old stuff, do you think they’ll be more or less inclined to follow you on that new channel? By all means, do it sometimes (maybe one post in 10) but doing it all the time is a turn-off. Instead work out how you can leverage different opportunities across channels to serve each other.
Random point 1
Mobile, mobile, mobile. More and more web content is being served to mobile devices. Facebook knows this and Google knows this and they’re already starting to reward websites that are optimized for mobile. Make sure your website and content is optimized for mobile delivery. Google it. [I’m in the process of updating this website to a mobile friendly format right now. It’s really important these days! – Alan]
Random point 2
Don’t market solely on price drops. This is a really common social media error. If a reader can afford to spend $2.99 on a book, they can probably afford to spend $4.99. When you market solely on price you forget the other thing you’re asking the reader to give you – their time. The value of your work is not in its price. Mention a price drop, by all means, but find something else to talk about too. Why should a potential reader think your 93,000 word novel can hold their attention, when your 18 word tweet barely can?
Random point 3
A lot of writers spend a lot of time on social media talking to other writers about writing (ahem). It’s fine networking and chatting with mates. But don’t confuse that with marketing your books. Readers don’t care. It doesn’t count as reader engagement.
Random point 4
My personal experience is that engaging with potential readers one-on-one, in-person or over email is a really powerful tool. It’s not time effective but for me it has been really rewarding and it has helped convert fans to influencers. Just be careful how you invest your time.
*****
Robert Hoge has managed social media for the Queensland Government and Virgin Australia. Mostly though he uses it to talk to people about writing, disability and whatever else takes his fancy. He’s written a memoir, Ugly, about growing up disabled and different. You can find him on Twitter and on Facebook.
.