Yes!! Just yesterday, as I prepped my next book launch plan, I had the realization that new releases are about building current reader relationships and book sales are about new reader discovery. It changes the metrics, and refocused which marketing channels I use and for what purpose.
Boy did you get to the heart of the issue. Discoverability is so hard for most authors right now no matter how you are publishing, and I think it’s sucking the fun out of everything and changing reading relationships.
This is an interesting article, thanks for writing it! Social media has helped create that wide-open access to authors and I feel like they probably also feel pressure to create content and have a big following. I love everything you wrote about because it brings an underlying feeling to the forefront.
I have several thoughts on this. First off, I'm blaming social media for demanding that authors post all the time. When the business is literally eating you alive, you don’t have much else to say but man, do my numbers suck canal water backwards.
We're supposed to be camera ready at all times, answer questions, engage readers. Frankly after a decade, it's exhausting.
So are the lines blurry? Yes. But is it fair to blame authors for posting what's in their hearts and not forming stronger boundaries when we're told we have to show up all the time, rain or shine?
Then, there's this line.
"Reading starts feeling transactional."
Maybe because it is, at least in terms of ARCs. Always has been. Authors are hoping readers will fall in love and gush over their book babies. Readers are hoping to fall in love with a story and be swept away and reading without buying. So they make the exchange. Neither is wrong. But it is a barter system transaction.
I don't do ARCs anymore because I have had ARCs pirated. Exclusive newsletter stories too. All used to train AI without my consent. So I champion authors for drawing the line.
They are right to set boundaries. The readers that take ARCs are agreeing to those boundaries. They are crossing into marketing team member territory. And like it or not, pressure comes with the territory.
If a reader wants a sacred, friction-free read to enjoy, they can borrow from the library or buy.
I understand your frustration, and I don't disagree that authors are allowed to discuss the realities of the industry. My issue isn't transparency itself—it's when that transparency is presented in a way that creates an emotional obligation for readers.
Readers only owe authors one thing: to access books legally. Beyond that, how they choose to engage is entirely up to them. Libraries purchase books and subscriptions, readers buy books, and many support authors in a variety of ways. Those are all valid forms of support.
Readers are not publishing professionals. They are not marketers, publicists, retailers, or business managers. The success or failure of an author's career should not be placed on their shoulders. For most readers, books are an escape, a hobby, and a source of enjoyment. They should be free to engage with stories without feeling responsible for an author's sales numbers, page reads, rankings, or business decisions.
When authors repeatedly focus on page reads being down, ARC participation dropping, or having to give to many away, royalty amounts, or the costs of running their business, it can cross into what I call "pity marketing." Whether intentional or not, it can make readers feel responsible for an author's financial success. That shifts the relationship from one built on shared enjoyment of books to one that feels transactional.
If you use your socials for reader engagement then talking your business plan with the same Socials blur the lines
This wasn't the norm in the reading community prior to the early 2020s. The lines between author, influencer, and reader have become increasingly blurred through social media. In my previous Substack posts, I discuss how some influencers have developed a sense of entitlement to readers' time, money, attention, and advocacy, and how the current ecosystem can reinforce those expectations.
Authors absolutely have the right to be transparent. But it should not be leveraged against reader.
Readers have the right to decide whether they want to engage with that transparency. My concern is not the sharing of information—it's when that information is framed in a way that pressures readers to feel responsible for outcomes that ultimately belong to the author and their business.
Having run my indie publishing business for fifteen years, I see the shift in the landscape differently.
The lines between "friends" and "fans" didn't blur by accident. Authors didn't just decide to start oversharing or venting. They've been trained to emote for clicks, likes, and shares by an algorithm. They're doing what they've been taught gets them traction on platforms.
Readers and authors are (mostly) on the same side. I give my readers the respect of making up their own minds and don't self-censor.
Treating readers as fragile entities who will feel emotionally leveraged the moment they see behind the curtain does them a disservice. The reality is that the indie ecosystem functions on mutual adult choices. Authors choose what to share about their livelihood. Readers choose how, where, and if they want to spend their time and money.
If an author or many authors behave badly the solution is simple. Unfollow. Protect your peace. But expecting small business owners to muzzle their real-world struggles to preserve a friction-free consumer fantasy isn't boundary-setting—it's asking a double-burdened workforce to carry an emotional load that doesn't belong to them.
I think you're arguing against a position I never actually took.
At no point did I say readers are fragile, incapable of making choices, or unable to handle transparency. Readers are perfectly capable of deciding what information they consume and how they engage with authors.
My point is that transparency and expectation are not the same thing.
Authors are free to share as much or as little of their business realities as they choose. What concerns me is the growing expectation that readers should then feel responsible for solving those problems—whether that's through increased purchases, page reads, reviews, ARC participation, social media promotion, or emotional support.
Readers are not publishing professionals. They aren’t your business partners. They are your customer. They are not marketers, publicists, retailers, or business consultants. They are readers. Reading is entertainment, escape, and enjoyment. The success or failure of an author's career should not be placed on their shoulders.
I also disagree that this is simply about authors sharing their lives. Increasingly, readers are being asked to provide free labor while being reminded to respect author boundaries and protect author spaces. Respect should be mutual.
I work with many successful indie authors, including NYT and USA Today bestselling authors, who have adapted to the changing landscape without making readers feel responsible for their business outcomes. They share what they want, maintain healthy boundaries, and allow readers to simply enjoy books.
Ultimately, authors are free to run their businesses however they choose. Readers are equally free to decide what kind of relationship they want with authors. While you may be comfortable with the current level of transparency and access, many readers are not. Increasingly, I hear from readers who feel exhausted by being asked to constantly buy, review, share, promote, defend, and advocate. They want to read books, not feel like members of an author's street team.
My criticism isn't transparency. It's the increasing transactional nature of the author-reader relationship and the expectation that readers should carry part of the burden of an author's business. If readers are telling us they're uncomfortable with that shift, I think it's worth listening.
Yes!! Just yesterday, as I prepped my next book launch plan, I had the realization that new releases are about building current reader relationships and book sales are about new reader discovery. It changes the metrics, and refocused which marketing channels I use and for what purpose.
Boy did you get to the heart of the issue. Discoverability is so hard for most authors right now no matter how you are publishing, and I think it’s sucking the fun out of everything and changing reading relationships.
This is an interesting article, thanks for writing it! Social media has helped create that wide-open access to authors and I feel like they probably also feel pressure to create content and have a big following. I love everything you wrote about because it brings an underlying feeling to the forefront.
I have several thoughts on this. First off, I'm blaming social media for demanding that authors post all the time. When the business is literally eating you alive, you don’t have much else to say but man, do my numbers suck canal water backwards.
We're supposed to be camera ready at all times, answer questions, engage readers. Frankly after a decade, it's exhausting.
So are the lines blurry? Yes. But is it fair to blame authors for posting what's in their hearts and not forming stronger boundaries when we're told we have to show up all the time, rain or shine?
Then, there's this line.
"Reading starts feeling transactional."
Maybe because it is, at least in terms of ARCs. Always has been. Authors are hoping readers will fall in love and gush over their book babies. Readers are hoping to fall in love with a story and be swept away and reading without buying. So they make the exchange. Neither is wrong. But it is a barter system transaction.
I don't do ARCs anymore because I have had ARCs pirated. Exclusive newsletter stories too. All used to train AI without my consent. So I champion authors for drawing the line.
They are right to set boundaries. The readers that take ARCs are agreeing to those boundaries. They are crossing into marketing team member territory. And like it or not, pressure comes with the territory.
If a reader wants a sacred, friction-free read to enjoy, they can borrow from the library or buy.
I understand your frustration, and I don't disagree that authors are allowed to discuss the realities of the industry. My issue isn't transparency itself—it's when that transparency is presented in a way that creates an emotional obligation for readers.
Readers only owe authors one thing: to access books legally. Beyond that, how they choose to engage is entirely up to them. Libraries purchase books and subscriptions, readers buy books, and many support authors in a variety of ways. Those are all valid forms of support.
Readers are not publishing professionals. They are not marketers, publicists, retailers, or business managers. The success or failure of an author's career should not be placed on their shoulders. For most readers, books are an escape, a hobby, and a source of enjoyment. They should be free to engage with stories without feeling responsible for an author's sales numbers, page reads, rankings, or business decisions.
When authors repeatedly focus on page reads being down, ARC participation dropping, or having to give to many away, royalty amounts, or the costs of running their business, it can cross into what I call "pity marketing." Whether intentional or not, it can make readers feel responsible for an author's financial success. That shifts the relationship from one built on shared enjoyment of books to one that feels transactional.
If you use your socials for reader engagement then talking your business plan with the same Socials blur the lines
This wasn't the norm in the reading community prior to the early 2020s. The lines between author, influencer, and reader have become increasingly blurred through social media. In my previous Substack posts, I discuss how some influencers have developed a sense of entitlement to readers' time, money, attention, and advocacy, and how the current ecosystem can reinforce those expectations.
Authors absolutely have the right to be transparent. But it should not be leveraged against reader.
Readers have the right to decide whether they want to engage with that transparency. My concern is not the sharing of information—it's when that information is framed in a way that pressures readers to feel responsible for outcomes that ultimately belong to the author and their business.
Having run my indie publishing business for fifteen years, I see the shift in the landscape differently.
The lines between "friends" and "fans" didn't blur by accident. Authors didn't just decide to start oversharing or venting. They've been trained to emote for clicks, likes, and shares by an algorithm. They're doing what they've been taught gets them traction on platforms.
Readers and authors are (mostly) on the same side. I give my readers the respect of making up their own minds and don't self-censor.
Treating readers as fragile entities who will feel emotionally leveraged the moment they see behind the curtain does them a disservice. The reality is that the indie ecosystem functions on mutual adult choices. Authors choose what to share about their livelihood. Readers choose how, where, and if they want to spend their time and money.
If an author or many authors behave badly the solution is simple. Unfollow. Protect your peace. But expecting small business owners to muzzle their real-world struggles to preserve a friction-free consumer fantasy isn't boundary-setting—it's asking a double-burdened workforce to carry an emotional load that doesn't belong to them.
I think you're arguing against a position I never actually took.
At no point did I say readers are fragile, incapable of making choices, or unable to handle transparency. Readers are perfectly capable of deciding what information they consume and how they engage with authors.
My point is that transparency and expectation are not the same thing.
Authors are free to share as much or as little of their business realities as they choose. What concerns me is the growing expectation that readers should then feel responsible for solving those problems—whether that's through increased purchases, page reads, reviews, ARC participation, social media promotion, or emotional support.
Readers are not publishing professionals. They aren’t your business partners. They are your customer. They are not marketers, publicists, retailers, or business consultants. They are readers. Reading is entertainment, escape, and enjoyment. The success or failure of an author's career should not be placed on their shoulders.
I also disagree that this is simply about authors sharing their lives. Increasingly, readers are being asked to provide free labor while being reminded to respect author boundaries and protect author spaces. Respect should be mutual.
I work with many successful indie authors, including NYT and USA Today bestselling authors, who have adapted to the changing landscape without making readers feel responsible for their business outcomes. They share what they want, maintain healthy boundaries, and allow readers to simply enjoy books.
Ultimately, authors are free to run their businesses however they choose. Readers are equally free to decide what kind of relationship they want with authors. While you may be comfortable with the current level of transparency and access, many readers are not. Increasingly, I hear from readers who feel exhausted by being asked to constantly buy, review, share, promote, defend, and advocate. They want to read books, not feel like members of an author's street team.
My criticism isn't transparency. It's the increasing transactional nature of the author-reader relationship and the expectation that readers should carry part of the burden of an author's business. If readers are telling us they're uncomfortable with that shift, I think it's worth listening.