Free Online Fiction—Good and Bad?

Some interesting comments recently about online short fiction from F&SF editor Gordon Van Gelder and novelist/ famous blogger John Scalzi. As the Publisher of an online magazine myself, I think they’re both missing a few subtlties.

Van Gelder, in an interview on Tor.com, says:

…essentially publishers are using short fiction as a loss-leader for selling books. Perfectly good marketing, but not perfectly good publishing. Tor.com could not sustain itself doing that. It has to live off the profits it generates from the sales of Tor books. I couldn’t do that with F&SF.

Strange Horizons gets by… I’m pretty sure they work off donations. … Scifiction… paid great rates, real money behind it. … Unfortunately I think they did more harm than good because it conditioned a lot of people to think that all online fiction should be free.

The great irony, as Van Gelder is aware, is this interview appearing on Tor.com. They are the poster-child for free online short fiction used as a loss-leader to sell books–given away, even though it’s losing the publisher money, to attract attention to those authors’ novels. That’s why every short story I’ve seen on Tor.com has been by a Tor novel author–Tor.com isn’t a magazine, they’re just one big web ad for Tor books. (At least they sure look that way to me–see the Comments for an assertion to the contrary.)

But the real reason online fiction has to be free in order to attract wide attention is the universal attitude among online people that content must be free, and that conversely any content that’s not free isn’t worth the hassle of paying for it. This attitude extends to all types of content–sports articles, online gaming, pretty much everything online except porn.

Van Gelder praises the subscription-based business model of Baen’s Universe, but I don’t know a single person among my short fiction colleagues who’s ever bought an issue of Baen’s Universe or IGMS. Yet they read Strange Horizons all the time, and listen to the free audio fiction from Escape Pod (the only SF/F magazine in recent memory successful at expanding the reader-base). The subscription-based model looks nice on paper, but I don’t think it will expand the audience into casual readers when those casual readers aren’t interested in paying.

That’s why the very first decision when I started Beneath Ceaseless Skies was that the content must be 100% free. Trying to draw readers to a new magazine, one with the unique niche of literary adventure fantasy, would’ve been impossible if they had to pay. The only current business model for that is the one Strange Horizons pioneered–a non-profit funded by donations. So that’s what I did. Strange Horizons has gotten by. Hopefully they will continue to, and BCS will too.

Scalzi replies:

Why did I write a story for Tor.com? …because they asked me to write a story, paid me a multiple of what I’d get for the story in most other SF markets (including his), and allowed me to submit my story electronically. …

The problem I have with print people blaming the Internet for their troubles is that …(it) allows them to ignore — and indeed, actively avoid — taking responsibility for their own acts that have contributed and are contributing to their current bad times.

I agree with him on the latter. Many of the most famous SF/F magazines still publish in the B&W format of the 50s, and that isn’t going to attract new readers. I also think they’ve lost some reader interest because of their generalist approach–publishing many different subtypes of SF/F rather than specializing.

But as for the former–where does Scalzi think that much higher pay rate he got for his Tor.com story came from? How is F&SF, or any online market that likewise doesn’t have Tor Books’ profits from book sales, supposed to match it?

As a writer, I don’t blame him one bit for taking a high offer from the company that happens to publish his novels. But as an online publisher, trying to compete with Tor.com for great stories even though my magazine already pays pro rate, I worry. If many big publishing houses start publishing original short fiction online at a loss just to promote their books, their huge financial resources may pull the best young novelist authors and their great short fiction away from the online magazines that are trying to draw reader interest and expand the audience.

Which I think would be a sad day. Which is more important for the future of the genre–expanding the reader-base for short fiction or selling a few more novels? Maybe I’m a hopeless short fiction fool, but I know my answer.

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Free Online Fiction—Good and Bad?”

  1. John Scalzi Says:

    “That’s why every short story I’ve seen on Tor.com has been by a Tor novel author–Tor.com isn’t a magazine, they’re just one big web ad for Tor books.”

    Authors with short fiction appearing at Tor.com, not published by Tor Books:

    Greg van Eekhout (Spectra Books)
    Joel Priddy (AdHouse Books)
    Ray Fawkes (short story writer)
    Rachel Swirsky (short story writer)
    Geoff Ryman (Small Beer Press)
    Andi Watson (SLG Publishing)

    And so on.

    Now, it’s entirely possible that *you* only see the short stories by Tor authors. It does not mean that others are not being published there.

    “where does Scalzi think that much higher pay rate he got for his Tor.com story came from? How is F&SF, or any online market that likewise doesn’t have Tor Books’ profits from book sales, supposed to match it?”

    I’ll quote Tor.com editor Pablo Defendini: “the fact is that Tor.com is quite separate from Tor Books on an operational level, and—without going into specifics—isn’t tied into Tor Books’ bottom line. Suffice it to say that Tor.com does not live or die based on sales of Tor Books. The idea behind Tor.com isn’t to be a loss-leading marketing shill for Tor Books, it’s for the site to be financially self-sufficient, and an outlet for fans of the genre, as well as a resource for all publishers.”

    If you’re going to make assertions or presume to lecture a writer on where his pay comes from, please make sure the facts match up. Tor.com does publish writers not associated with Tor Books; it’s also intended to be a for profit business, although Macmillin appears to be taking the long view and is allowing some time for the site to build (much like magazine publishers understand it often takes years of investment before a magazine goes into the black).

    So the answer to the question of where do I think the money is coming from is: From a well-funded start-up magazine with what appears to be a reasonably intelligent plan for growth, and a planned path to profitability.

    As for how F&SF or any other publisher is supposed to match it: Possibly by *also* having a good amount of funding, a reasonably intelligent plan for growth and a planned path to profitability. I’m not entirely sure why I or any writer should have to make allowances for low pay because a publisher’s business plan doesn’t happen bake in a decent amount of payment for its intended writers.

    And I for one generally don’t; one of the primary reasons I don’t write a lot of short fiction is that it doesn’t pay well enough to bother. I write non-fiction instead, which pays significantly more, which my mortgage appreciates.

  2. scott Says:

    I’m not entirely sure why I or any writer should have to make allowances for low pay because a publisher’s business plan doesn’t happen bake in a decent amount of payment for its intended writers.

    Nor should you–as I said, I don’t blame you one bit for taking their pay. And you absolutely should do whatever your mortgage appreciates. :)

    I just worry where this confluence might lead. Despite Mr. Defendini’s assertions and the natural time-frame required for any magazine’s growth, I don’t see how Tor.com can be truly, fully separate from Tor Books. If they end up that way, as a self-sustaining magazine, that will be great–and it will offer a model for others to follow. It definitely will be interesting to see.

  3. Sean Wallace Says:

    Scott, John is right. For-profit magazine business models generally take the long-term view, and lose money for the first few years, as part of a five-year business plan. It’s what I’m used to, and Fantasy Magazine’s annual expenses have been allocated as such, until next year. Right now the focus is on building audience, for the first two or three years, and then introducing firm revenue streams later on. That’s part of a business model. Tor.com shouldn’t catch flak for taking a serious business approach.

  4. scott Says:

    Sure, if they are a magazine and not just promotions. Actually, either way it still works as a business plan, regardless of whether it’s one for a magazine or one for a publisher. The next four and a half years may tell.