Congratulations on the Esquire article. I'll bet that is blowing up your subscribers numbers!
I'm a crypto skeptic myself, and I am guessing that most of this was probably written and researched before the crypto crash. Has the dumpster fire that the crypto market has become over the past few weeks dampened your enthusiasm for this at all?
Congratulations on the Esquire article. I'll bet that is blowing up your subscribers numbers!
I'm a crypto skeptic myself, and I am guessing that most of this was probably written and researched before the crypto crash. Has the dumpster fire that the crypto market has become over the past few weeks dampened your enthusiasm for this at all?
I do notice and appreciate some notes of caution in your article. I would question the concept that this really represents a new way to monetize a book. It really sounds more like putting the public in the position to act like a publisher. The author collects money from the sale of NFTs (like an advance) and then gives up a portion of their revenue (royalties). It does not sound any different from a typical publisher's contract.
As with traditional publishing, the only money actually entering the system still comes from readers. The investors money is not new money, it is an investment made in the hope of sharing in revenue from readers, which is just what a publisher does. The difference is that these investors don't provide any services for their cut. They do nothing to help the book become more successful.
As with a publisher, the author may make a little more money if the book is unsuccessful and they never earn out their advance. But if the book is successful, they will make less money because they are sharing their revenue with their investors.
The only think that the investors bring to the table is startup capital, and, like all VCs, they will want a big cut of the action. You use them if you have to. But if you can self-finance, you can make far more if your venture is successful and you don't have to give most of it to the VC.
But with VCs, they do at least bring some management expertise and business connection that can help business growth. I don't see what NFT investors can bring to the table to make a book more successful.
And since the success rate of books is so abysmal, I'm not sure how this looks like a wise investment, once the novelty and the speculative mania surrounding it has worn off.
Yes, in a lot of ways youтАЩre spot on. ItтАЩs getting investors to invest in your project instead of publishing houses. The difference is that, unlike with publishing houses, the author retains a percentage ownership. And the value for investors is owning a percentage of the IP, not in trying to earn money from readers. So for example: If you are Reece Witherspoon, you might want to invest in a book because you plan to make a movie out of it, increasing the value of your investment. Ultimately the goal of investors is to raise the value of the investment, not to earn royalties on book sales.
This is all entirely hypothetical though. Not one book has actually been funded this way!
Okay, but isn't the value of the investment based entirely on the ability of the book to generate revenue? Isn't that the basis of the value of any investment? Book sales are only one of the potential revenue streams for a book, of course. Movie rights are another. Merchandizing is a third. But my point is, NFTs don't introduce a new revenue stream for a book. They are simply acting as a contractual mechanism governing how the proceeds of those existing revenue streams get distributed.
Maybe that supports new types of contractual arrangement or new means of distributing risks and rewards. I don't see that personally, but maybe it is the case, and maybe that could be beneficial to writers in some way I don't yet understand. My point is simply that they are not bringing in new money. The are simply changing how the existing money moves around.
Yes true. The idea here is that owning the IP is of value. You could earn money from streams (book reads) at the library, if it gets made into a movie, if there is merchandise, if there is a theme park, if there is fanfiction, etc. The same way the IP generates revenue now. Only the author still owns (hopefully a majority of) it and maintains creative control of their work.
Congratulations on the Esquire article. I'll bet that is blowing up your subscribers numbers!
I'm a crypto skeptic myself, and I am guessing that most of this was probably written and researched before the crypto crash. Has the dumpster fire that the crypto market has become over the past few weeks dampened your enthusiasm for this at all?
I do notice and appreciate some notes of caution in your article. I would question the concept that this really represents a new way to monetize a book. It really sounds more like putting the public in the position to act like a publisher. The author collects money from the sale of NFTs (like an advance) and then gives up a portion of their revenue (royalties). It does not sound any different from a typical publisher's contract.
As with traditional publishing, the only money actually entering the system still comes from readers. The investors money is not new money, it is an investment made in the hope of sharing in revenue from readers, which is just what a publisher does. The difference is that these investors don't provide any services for their cut. They do nothing to help the book become more successful.
As with a publisher, the author may make a little more money if the book is unsuccessful and they never earn out their advance. But if the book is successful, they will make less money because they are sharing their revenue with their investors.
The only think that the investors bring to the table is startup capital, and, like all VCs, they will want a big cut of the action. You use them if you have to. But if you can self-finance, you can make far more if your venture is successful and you don't have to give most of it to the VC.
But with VCs, they do at least bring some management expertise and business connection that can help business growth. I don't see what NFT investors can bring to the table to make a book more successful.
And since the success rate of books is so abysmal, I'm not sure how this looks like a wise investment, once the novelty and the speculative mania surrounding it has worn off.
Yes, in a lot of ways youтАЩre spot on. ItтАЩs getting investors to invest in your project instead of publishing houses. The difference is that, unlike with publishing houses, the author retains a percentage ownership. And the value for investors is owning a percentage of the IP, not in trying to earn money from readers. So for example: If you are Reece Witherspoon, you might want to invest in a book because you plan to make a movie out of it, increasing the value of your investment. Ultimately the goal of investors is to raise the value of the investment, not to earn royalties on book sales.
This is all entirely hypothetical though. Not one book has actually been funded this way!
Okay, but isn't the value of the investment based entirely on the ability of the book to generate revenue? Isn't that the basis of the value of any investment? Book sales are only one of the potential revenue streams for a book, of course. Movie rights are another. Merchandizing is a third. But my point is, NFTs don't introduce a new revenue stream for a book. They are simply acting as a contractual mechanism governing how the proceeds of those existing revenue streams get distributed.
Maybe that supports new types of contractual arrangement or new means of distributing risks and rewards. I don't see that personally, but maybe it is the case, and maybe that could be beneficial to writers in some way I don't yet understand. My point is simply that they are not bringing in new money. The are simply changing how the existing money moves around.
Yes true. The idea here is that owning the IP is of value. You could earn money from streams (book reads) at the library, if it gets made into a movie, if there is merchandise, if there is a theme park, if there is fanfiction, etc. The same way the IP generates revenue now. Only the author still owns (hopefully a majority of) it and maintains creative control of their work.