If you don't have a hard copy available somehow then I won't buy it, no matter what the content and no matter how well it is received. Who knows how many of us exist - but providing a POD option can only help (provided its not too much extra work for you).
I think that is funny when I hear that knowing when you're buying my print book it will cost as much as 4 to 10 times as much as you are paying for a PDF. I don't mind with making more money from what you want, I just want to save you a few buck if I can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A PDF isn't the same product as a book with the same content. Buying a PDF isn't a saving (for me) its buying something I don't want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can tell you how I did it with Fistful of Denarii. It was my first self-publication, and to this day, it still sells copies. Every product is different, and the market is different now than it was then. That said:
1. Identify your design objective. Everything should serve that objective. If you notice your art budget getting large for what is basically a class book, you're probably wasting money. But who wants to buy a bestiary with little or no art? Figure out what you want to gain the most: exposure, positive reputation, sales (short-term), long-tailed sales, inventory building. Each specific goal has a slightly different path. For me, Fistful of Denarii was about absolute excellence, with the idea of slowly building up a reputation for solid design. Everything, from the stripped down layout to the quality, licensed cover art, served that objective. Definitely, I priced and marketed with the idea of getting as many copies out there as possible, rather than an immediate financial windfall.
2. Stock art. Since it's a more game mechanical book, hiring lots of custom art is a waste of money. I went looking for stuff that was attractive, but cheap, and roughly unified in style (black and white line art, mostly, with some greyscale stuff getting the pass). The more generic your product, the more you can use stock art. On the other hand, visionary products with their own look and feel will require more custom art.
3. Don't pay very much for art. It would be my preference to pay artists a nice wage. However, the reality is that if I don't expect to make a large profit, I shouldn't be paying large commissions. Hiring less expensive artists means things take longer and the artists require more guidance, but it should be a win-win situation. The artist gets a paying gig on their resume and "exposure" and a little something for their time, and you get decent artwork for cheap. Note that at low pay rates, I would consider it a poor practice to ask for many rights; at such rates, I am paying for the right to use and reuse that art in one book and subsequent editions and anthologies. Similarly, editors can be hired who have a lot of experience in technical writing or who have day jobs, but who would regard editing an RPG book as a worthwhile lark. Pay tends to reflect effort, but the FIRST and foremost thing it reflects is value. Different jobs pay different amounts.
4. Protect your reputation. That means that your first product should be of the highest possible quality. Don't rush. Don't accept stock art or commission art that doesn't meet your standards; be patient, and keep looking, as the right art can more useful than the best art. Maintain a high degree of respect for your freelancers and your fellow publishers.
5. Talk about your product. Don't be obnoxious about bringing it up in peripheral discussions, but generally speaking, every time you or someone else says the name of your product in a relevant context, that's potentially 1d3 sales.
6. Don't be self-conscious about participating in the middle market. Between the amateur zone and the commercial zone is this zone of good, professional effort. It is a vital part of any creative industry, funneling talent upwards into professional roles, and cushioning professionals who lose lucrative income streams. If you can be successful on your own terms, don't let anyone deride you because they don't like your production values or your price point or your sales figures or whatever.
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
I've just posted to my blog my initial thoughts on cover design and costs in relation to the profitability of a product. Tomorrow I'm going to take a look at a product's breakeven point and how cover art affects it.
If you are interested, here is a link to the article that includes a shocking revelation about the cumulative cost of covers!
The question is, every time you spend $100 or whatever for a cover, do you believe you are getting at least ten (or whatever) more sales? I think for a successful product, this seems like a no-brainer for me. If I can make 200 sales with a boring cover or no cover, I ought to be able to make 220 with an awesome cover. That is not to say that every product needs full color, full page artwork for the cover; there is a lot to be said for a minimal approach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Backing up Creighton, both Raging Swan and Abandoned Arts benefit from having a highly recognizable cover because of their minimalist design.
I don't really feel comfortable disclosing Radiance House's sales figures (Dario is the money guy, not me!) but here are some things we've found:
#1 — People adore our fiction. Like, seriously. People love those tales of adventure and fantasy that really paint a mental picture of how your product is supposed to fit in their campaign setting. Its why Paizo writes blurbs at the start of each of their Core Rulebook chapters. If you have any talent for fictional writing, use it and watch as it takes up the same amount of space as a full-paged illustration, but at no additional cost to you.
#2 – Keeping your image in the forefront is key. This is something Dario and I struggle with because neither of us have the time or resources to get something out consistently (mostly because we love print products, see below), but every time someone bumps Pact Magic Unbound to the top of the forums post with a question or comment, we always net a few sales out of it. This goes back to what Liz Courts was saying about having more products so people see your name. I try to reply to all questions quickly on the forums, not only because it helps establish customer loyalty and name recognition, but also because it nets me another precious few seconds where the world can see us before Mr. Stephens and Mr. Savage's customers inadvertently bump us back into the slumbering abyss. :-)
#3 — Make as much of your content OGL as possible. Dario and I cling to our characters, artwork, and fictional pieces, but other then that everything else is OGL. You want other people in your sandbox because ultimately anything they do is going to be free publicity for you (such as the fan reaction whenever Paizo reprints a 3PP monster in an Adventure Path). You also want to get your stuff up onto the d20PFSRD.org website if possible. I spent a weekend asking John Reyst to teach me how to do the work so I could make sure that Pact Magic Unbound got up onto the website myself. We sold a good number of copies of Pact Magic Unbound through their store as a result, ranking fairly high on their sales chart just because we made our material available for preview. People are much more willing to buy from you if they can see what your product will offer them, believe it or not. Its the same concept as trying on clothes before you buy them.
|
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
The question is, every time you spend $100 or whatever for a cover, do you believe you are getting at least ten (or whatever) more sales? I think for a successful product, this seems like a no-brainer for me. If I can make 200 sales with a boring cover or no cover, I ought to be able to make 220 with an awesome cover. That is not to say that every product needs full color, full page artwork for the cover; there is a lot to be said for a minimal approach.
You are absolutely right that a cover will draw in more customers. But, will it draw in enough to make it worthwhile? Here are some maths: Let's say a cover costs $100 and it draws in 20 extra customers. Given most of Raging Swan's products are short 10-page PDFs that retail at $1.99 that's not going to come anywhere close to justifying the expense. (Of course, with a product retailing at $10.99 it's a completely different story).
I've just added another blog post that shows the maths in slightly more detail to show what I'm on about. You can find it here.
Thanks for your input, Creighton.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#3 and #1. +1000. Roleplaying is not just math. Now the numbers are important, yes, but so are good fiction and content. To me, they are more worth than a pretty picture. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE it if I can show great interior art for Monsters or NPCs to my players. And yes, sometimes artworks make me want to get a product. But the contrary, if done right, could also be the case. I know I got Retribution back in the day BECAUSE it had no cover artwork - and still looked professional and not like something an amateur had cobbled together. And yes, back then, that was the only RSP-book out there... Time flies...
A couple of things: 1) Covers are important especially if you plan to sell in game store shelves. Covers sell books, just like a nice dress does make a woman look more attractive. Not necessary, but it does help.
2) I like OGL material to be open, but some times that is tough when you have unique IP (intellectual property) attached to a setting. The game mechanics of work is normally OGL content, but what makes them normally cool is the stuff that isn't open. Just look at the monsters WOTC kept as IP for this example.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is, every time you spend $100 or whatever for a cover, do you believe you are getting at least ten (or whatever) more sales? I think for a successful product, this seems like a no-brainer for me. If I can make 200 sales with a boring cover or no cover, I ought to be able to make 220 with an awesome cover. That is not to say that every product needs full color, full page artwork for the cover; there is a lot to be said for a minimal approach.You are absolutely right that a cover will draw in more customers. But, will it draw in enough to make it worthwhile? Here are some maths: Let's say a cover costs $100 and it draws in 20 extra customers. Given most of Raging Swan's products are short 10-page PDFs that retail at $1.99 that's not going to come anywhere close to justifying the expense. (Of course, with a product retailing at $10.99 it's a completely different story).
I've just added another blog post that shows the maths in slightly more detail to show what I'm on about. You can find it here.
The thing is... Raging Swan has brilliant cover art.
You've just found a way to get that art much more cheaply by using design as your 'art'.
The little Swan logo, the white on black, the framing... it looks intriguing and tempting in a way that not all cover art does.
That said, I became a Raging Swan buyer because of the free preview pieces. I like the way they were directly tied to for-purchase releases (free setting material for an adventure that I would go on to buy, free first section of a larger dungeon). It shows confidence in your stuff and lets me, as a consumer, feel like I'm making an informed choice.
|
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks so much ShadowcatX and Geraint for your kind words. To be truthful, I've never thought of my cover designs as art, but I'm more than happy to take the compliment.
I realised very early on that I couldn't afford to do covers well and so I opted out and decided to do something different. This thread has been incredibly useful to me as I've learnt some great things from it. Thanks, chaps!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After talking to Creighton today, I've sent up a stock art pack to OBS, and am currently waiting on the product's activation for new publishers.
The conversations here have been very interesting, especially the part about OGC. Back in the early days of the OGL, I was a big proponent of open content, and I'm still very much a supporter of that movement. The majority of my releases (whether through SGG, Misfit Studios, or Chritina Stiles Presents) will be 100% OGC text. That being said, I also want publishers interested in the material to have access to the art I used to present it, in case they want to use both in their material, so I'm doing the stock art pack with licensing--though I also admit I'm hoping sales of the art will help offset some (if not all) of my art costs. It's an experiment. We'll see what happens.
The art I'm opening for license is by Jacob Blackmon, and was used in Bite Me! Wereblooded by Ben McFarland (100% OGC text), and I've been very happy with his work. Peter Bradley of Troll Lord Games has some pieces in that pdf, but those don't belong to me, so they aren't in the pack.
Note that I just got the color pieces in on the busts today, so they aren't currently in the pdf, but I will get that updated.
Let me know your thoughts.
Christina
Good question...
I'm probably missing something obvious, but what is OBS?
Sorry, that's One Bookshelf--owners of RPGNow.com and Drivethrurpg.com, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OneBookShelf, I believe.
(The guys who run DriveThruRPG, RPGNow, etc.)
Edit: And I walk away from my computer for a short time... Ninja SLICE!
|
Thanks so much ShadowcatX and Geraint for your kind words. To be truthful, I've never thought of my cover designs as art, but I'm more than happy to take the compliment.
I realised very early on that I couldn't afford to do covers well and so I opted out and decided to do something different. This thread has been incredibly useful to me as I've learnt some great things from it. Thanks, chaps!
I think that the minimalistic covers actually make people a bit interested, at the very least interested enough to give your free products a try...and then their quality is likely to get them to come back for more.
2) I like OGL material to be open, but some times that is tough when you have unique IP (intellectual property) attached to a setting. The game mechanics of work is normally OGL content, but what makes them normally cool is the stuff that isn't open. Just look at the monsters WOTC kept as IP for this example.
I would consider what WotC did with certain monsters an example of what not to do. There was plenty of cool stuff that wasn't open. Why they would fairly arbitrarily designate certain stat blocks and creature names PI is beyond me; "dragons" have always sold the most books for them anyway, and they don't own that in the slightest.
I can understand the thing with the displacer beast; my best guess is that under their settlement over "Black Destroyer" they are not allowed to license the creature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) I like OGL material to be open, but some times that is tough when you have unique IP (intellectual property) attached to a setting. The game mechanics of work is normally OGL content, but what makes them normally cool is the stuff that isn't open. Just look at the monsters WOTC kept as IP for this example.I would consider what WotC did with certain monsters an example of what not to do. There was plenty of cool stuff that wasn't open. Why they would fairly arbitrarily designate certain stat blocks and creature names PI is beyond me; "dragons" have always sold the most books for them anyway, and they don't own that in the slightest.
I can understand the thing with the displacer beast; my best guess is that under their settlement over "Black Destroyer" they are not allowed to license the creature.
What they did is hold back a few of the most iconic of the "created for D&D" monsters. Which I don't blame them for.
What they did is hold back a few of the most iconic of the "created for D&D" monsters. Which I don't blame them for.
2) I like OGL material to be open, but some times that is tough when you have unique IP (intellectual property) attached to a setting. The game mechanics of work is normally OGL content, but what makes them normally cool is the stuff that isn't open. Just look at the monsters WOTC kept as IP for this example.I would consider what WotC did with certain monsters an example of what not to do. There was plenty of cool stuff that wasn't open. Why they would fairly arbitrarily designate certain stat blocks and creature names PI is beyond me; "dragons" have always sold the most books for them anyway, and they don't own that in the slightest.
I can understand the thing with the displacer beast; my best guess is that under their settlement over "Black Destroyer" they are not allowed to license the creature.
And what are those monsters?
- The creature from "Black Destroyer" (and later Voyage of the Space Beagle), used without permission- A creature based on a plastic child's toy made in Hong Kong
- Creatures inspired by the cover art for Lumley's "The Burrowers Beneath"
- A race whose name was taken from a George R.R. Martin novel
- A caterpillar with paralyzing tentacles
- The beholder
Apart from the beholder and the caterpillar, I would suggest that rather than representing the most iconic, created for D&D monsters, they represent some of the most derivative.
Many of the most recognized D&D critters (green slime, drow, gnolls) are in fact OGC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What they did is hold back a few of the most iconic of the "created for D&D" monsters. Which I don't blame them for.
Yeah, I always find it odd when people look at the dozen or so monsters WotC didn't make open content (whilst allowing so much of their IP for other companies to play with via a free license) and treat that as indicative of the corporate culture.
They may have regretted it and they may have changed tack later. Nonetheless, WotC were extremely generous with their IP. That's the most distinguishing feature of the monsters they could have fought over (irrespective of whether they would have won any legal challenge or not).
Apart from the beholder and the caterpillar, I would suggest that rather than representing the most iconic, created for D&D monsters, they represent some of the most derivative.
There's an awful lot more to mind flayers than what they look like. It was no doubt part inspiration, part adaptation and part invention but they were nonetheless very clearly created for D&D.
It's not a big stretch to think they left those monsters out of the SRD because their IP status was uncertain to WotC.
Just wanted to thank all the contributors in this thread again - and particularly Creighton for his two blog posts with additional numbers, very informative, plus I got a great lead on excellent stock art by William McAusland! ;-)
Thanks all!
I would have to agree with this. And I can point out Rappan Athuk as an example. Yes, its been around for years, and was recently updated. But look at the cover. Red, or black. No art whatsoever on the cover.
What sells the book? Reputation.
What built the reputation? Content.By Pathfinder standards, Rappan Athuk looks terrible. No full color art, no glossy pages, very few half-naked heroes fighting monsters.
Just a good (great?) dungeon crawl that will keep you occupied for years.I also agree that when starting out, you need to grab peoples attention, but you need to do it with good content, not with "the art style of the month". Build your brand on being very good at what you do, not with how flashy you look.
Substance will always outlast style.
Skeeter I respect you and all, but Rappan Athuk is an anomoly. It's a legacy product that has already been in print (but with poor availability) for a long time. It dates from an era when 3PP was basically nonexistent. That product relies on its nostalgia factor.
A better comparison would be Razor Coast. It doesn't have any of the legacy that a new 3PP cannot lean on. That product has lots and lots of glitz and sold well.
You want to be taken seriously. Crap artwork doesn't encourage that. While there exist overriding factors that may sell a product regardless, poor artwork is a huge handicap.
Agree 100%
Awesome, top quality artwork, on the other hand can be a great benefit.
Combine fantastic, well written content AND top quality artwork and you have someting special
Look all you need to do is get Wayne Reynolds artwork and Wolfgang Baur writing and you should be able to do OK. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I am curious as to which is better, bad art work or no art work. I think the answer is probably no artwork.
My answer to that is what is better when you are interested in going out on a date with someone which is better: a bad image or no image?
|
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to thank all the contributors in this thread again - and particularly Creighton for his two blog posts with additional numbers, very informative, plus I got a great lead on excellent stock art by William McAusland! ;-)
Thanks all!
That's no problem - glad to help!
Nuts. I *knew* I should have worked out a commission plan with him first...
;-)
Nuts. I *knew* I should have worked out a commission plan with him first...
Aye, you should have, 'cause I am about to spend $109 on a bundle with these babies! ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
William McAusland is a wonderful artist. Spend away! I plan to join you on that when I have some spoils to spare!
Aye, you should have, 'cause I am about to spend $109 on a bundle with these babies! ;-)Nuts. I *knew* I should have worked out a commission plan with him first...
Yep I'll be doing something similar - thanks for the links guys!!!
There's an awful lot more to mind flayers than what they look like. It was no doubt part inspiration, part adaptation and part invention but they were nonetheless very clearly created for D&D.
Apart from the beholder and the caterpillar, I would suggest that rather than representing the most iconic, created for D&D monsters, they represent some of the most derivative.
Looking at what they actually are: short Cthulhus in smoking jackets, right down to the mind-shattering telepathy. I think they're a great monster, and I think they are something distinctive to D&D... but they are clearly as derivative of the Cthulhu Mythos as elves are derivative of Anderson, Brooks, and Tolkien.
I didn't mean to make you sad.
That would be Poul Anderson and Terry Brooks.
Looking at what they actually are: short Cthulhus in smoking jackets, right down to the mind-shattering telepathy. I think they're a great monster, and I think they are something distinctive to D&D... but they are clearly as derivative of the Cthulhu Mythos as elves are derivative of Anderson, Brooks, and Tolkien.There's an awful lot more to mind flayers than what they look like. It was no doubt part inspiration, part adaptation and part invention but they were nonetheless very clearly created for D&D.
Apart from the beholder and the caterpillar, I would suggest that rather than representing the most iconic, created for D&D monsters, they represent some of the most derivative.
Sure, they're clearly Cthulhu-influenced. However, telepathic squid men isn't what's closed content (there's plenty of those around in other systems) - consider the time travelling stuff, being born from tadpoles burrowing up into people's brains, etcetera... There's a heap of lore thats been added on top of the obvious over the years. That (and the name) is what's been protected by declaring them closed content.
i can't think of a more "iconic, created for D&D" monster, to be frank. I don't think a prerequisite for that should be that it had no external inspiration. No doubt just about everything has some outside-the-game influence.
Yep I'll be doing something similar - thanks for the links guys!!!Aye, you should have, 'cause I am about to spend $109 on a bundle with these babies! ;-)Nuts. I *knew* I should have worked out a commission plan with him first...
Those are pretty snazzy ;-)
I'd consider Beholders in the same league as mind flayers and it doesnt surprise me they were also declared closed content. (If it were me, I'd also include things like Lurkers Above, Mimics, probably a bunch more...)
My main point is that I dont think having some other source of inspiration reduces a monsters 'iconicness'. Nor does it imply it wasnt 'created for D&D' if some elements were drawn from a pre-existing source. I'd contrast mind flayers and their cthulhuesque derivation to something like halflings which were basically direct imports.
Sure, they're clearly Cthulhu-influenced. However, telepathic squid men isn't what's closed content (there's plenty of those around in other systems) - consider the time travelling stuff, being born from tadpoles burrowing up into people's brains, etcetera... There's a heap of lore thats been added on top of the obvious over the years. That (and the name) is what's been protected by declaring them closed content.
They were closed content before the time travel stuff came about (Lords of Madness).
i can't think of a more "iconic, created for D&D" monster, to be frank.
Gnoll
ThoulRust monster
Gelatinous cube
Drow
(Of those, the rust monster is another plastic toy monster, and the name "drow" comes from existing mythology, but virtually all other details were created for D&D)
I don't think a prerequisite for that should be that it had no external inspiration. No doubt just about everything has some outside-the-game influence.
The thing is, we were talking about the justification for things being closed content. The commonly cited reason is that they represent WotC's most original IP. I think in certain cases it is because they are the opposite. The beholder does seem to be genuinely unique to D&D.
I would not suggest for one second that things should have no external inspiration. What I question is the soundness of the idea that you can base something on outside inspiration, then legally protect your creation from externally inspiring anything else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean to make you sad.Its ok. I just hate that mythology gets no credit for anything any more. Elves were around long before Tolkien. (And I'm not sure who you meant by Anderson or Brooks.)
It makes me sad most folks don't know Poul Anderson.