Social Media Half-Life

When it comes to social media, Twitter is my go-to platform. It is simple and easy to use.

I do not like Facebook. I have encountered far more nasty people on Facebook, than I have on Twitter. So that is a huge turn off right there.

Secondarily, though, I just don’t care for the presentation of Facebook. It comes off as clunky and a bit antiquated to my mind. Not as bad as GoodReads, which is the absolute worst IMO, but clunky nonetheless.

Nevertheless, I do maintain a presence on Facebook. Mostly because it is a giant among social media platforms. The same reason why I have my books on Amazon, even though I don’t like the company.

The other day, I got thinking about the effectiveness of all the tweeting and FB posting that I do. Is it worth my time? Am I getting any bang for my buck? Buck, in this case, being time investment.

Tooling around the great World Wide Web, looking for an answer, I found the website of ScottGraffius.com — and made the discovery of social media half-life. Read the article: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/social-2023.html

In case you’re wondering what this half-life thing is, here’s a definition:

Half-life is the time it takes for a piece of content to receive half of the total number of engagements that it will ever receive.

For social media posts this is the time it takes for the post to receive half of the attention it is ever going to get.

Tweets get buried pretty quickly in the newsfeed. 

So it is not surprising to me that half of all potential readers will see my tweet within 24 minutes after I’ve posted it. And 50 minutes later — that tweet is gone from the newsfeed.

Which means, that my once a day appearance on Twitter is probably a waste of time. My tweets have all vanished by the time I leave the site for the day.

Of course, they are there should anyone look at my personal Twitter page. And people obviously do go there, because my pinned tweet is re-tweeted. Nevertheless, unless picked up by someone else, after 50 minutes that retweet is gone.

So if you do not have a large number of people retweeting your tweet throughout the day — it is gone within 50 minutes after you’ve posted it.

Facebook has a longer half-life: 1.75 hours for a post. However, there are some who think FB nukes your post from the newsfeed after 2 hours. Which means an FB post may only have a 2 hour lifespan, instead of 3.5.

Of course, the post will still be on your profile or page should anyone go there — but how many do? That, my friends, is a good question.

From the little that I’ve talked with folks about their FB habits, I’d say nearly everyone just looks at their newsfeed.

Also on FB is the “problem” that I get very few, if any, shares. A like is fine, but a share will extend the post’s lifespan. No shares and I’d say posting is next to worthless.

So what can we take away from this half-life info?

I haven’t come to any definite conclusions. However, initially, I think I have to agree with the gurus that using social media to sell books is pretty much a waste of time. The ROI is way too low.

It wasn’t always that way for me. Twitter did result in sales. But, alas, no more. Nothing but crickets for the past couple of years.

As an experiment, this past Sunday I tweeted every 24 minutes for half the day a book I had on sale for 99¢. And on FB, I posted every 1.75 hours for the same book for half the day.

The result? I sold one, that is 1, copy. All that time investment (4 or 5 hours), and I made 35¢. I’d say it wasn’t worth it.

I do have 2 auto-tweet platforms that I use. But they won’t tweet more than every hour. Which might work. I may give it a test run.

But is all of this time investment worth what will probably be a minuscule ROI? 

Once set up, the auto-tweeters will run on their own. But I do have to set them up and periodically change the books. And hopefully avoid Twitter shutting me down for spamming.

Yesterday, Monday, I conducted another half-day test on a full-price book. The result? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No sales.

So I probably have my answer. Tweeting and FB posting don’t drive sales. Or any significant amount of sales.

Now something to think about is this: a YouTube post has a half-life of 8.8 days. And the average half-life of a blogpost is 2 years.

There are those who argue that blogging is dead. Perhaps it is. But if it is, there are millions of folks who haven’t gotten the news.

So what if I combined blogging with vlogging? That might end up being the best combo. It is something to think about.

And maybe the best of all possible worlds is building an active fan base on my mailing list. But that’s a thought for another post.

Want I do know is this: Twitter and Facebook take up at least a couple hours of my day — and I am only on each platform once a day! For all that activity what are my sales? Zilch. Nada. Zip. Zero.

The one advantage, and probably the best advantage, lies not in selling — but in all of the good people I’ve met. And it’s pretty difficult to put a price tag on them.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

CW Hawes is a playwright, award-winning poet, and a fictioneer, with a bestselling novel. He’s also an armchair philosopher, political theorist, social commentator, and traveler. He loves a good cup of tea and agrees that everything’s better with pizza.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider buying me a cup of tea. Thanks! PayPal.me/CWHawes

 

Justinia Wright Private Investigator Mysteries on Amazon!

Magnolia Bluff Crime Chronicles on Amazon!

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest

Eight Years An Indie Author-Publisher

It is difficult to believe I published my first four books eight years ago. November 8, 2014.

It’s been a wild ride. I’ve watched excellent writers get discouraged and quit. I’ve watched mediocre writers become millionaires. I’ve watched good writers continue to endure, hoping for a break.

For myself, I have come to the realization this gig is basically a hobby. I’m not going to get rich and probably won’t be able to buy that Rolls Royce I’ve always wanted.

I can’t write fast enough to put out a book a month. And that’s pretty much a necessity, if you want to hit the big time and stay there in the indie world. 

I don’t have the money to launch massive ad campaigns, nor the know-how to fudge the system to get those coveted bestseller rankings. 

I don’t care to write in the genres that are hot, where the books simply fly off the shelves. They aren’t my cup of tea. I don’t like to read them, and therefore probably wouldn’t do a good job writing them even if I chose to do so. Then again, quality has nothing to do with marketing.

Given the above, I have been asked, “So why continue? Don’t you have anything better to do?”

The answer to the last question is NO. I do have other things that I can do — but nothing, for me, is better than telling stories.

The first question, why continue, is actually one I have been asking myself of late. Writing and publishing a book it is a lot of work, and it does cost money. Sometimes more than I make from the book.

So why do it?

I do it because I love storytelling.

I’ve always wanted to be a writer. I loved reading as a kid and I wanted to create stories and hopefully give others something of the enjoyment I had received from books.

When I was young, I didn’t write stories like many writers say they did. I told myself stories and sometimes acted them out in my play. Maybe that is why I have always been drawn to acting and drama. It’s probably why I focus on dialogue in my writing and tend to skimp on the description.

Whether vocal or written, storytelling is still storytelling. We tell stories to make us laugh, to make us cry, to encourage us, to give us hope, to allay our fears, and to realize our dreams. 

Storytelling does all that for not only the storyteller but also his audience.

So while I am not making much money at this gig, I am getting paid in something other than money.

Whenever I read a good review or tweet about one of my books I know that I have touched someone’s heart. I have given someone a bit of joy to help them make it through their day. And that makes me just a little bit richer.

But the indie publishing scene is changing. Many authors have decided to take even more control of their work. They are moving away from Amazon.

There is an increase in the number of writers moving away from being exclusive with Amazon, in order to offer their books to readers through a multitude of vendors.

A growing number of writers are focusing on selling from their websites and to the members of their Patreon channels.

Others are using Kickstarter to bring in needed funds and to reach new readers.

I myself I am moving more and more away from Amazon. I no longer directly search for books on Amazon. Because when I do — half of my search results are sponsored ads. And most have nothing to do with what I am searching for.

Now I search for books using Google. Although ads are on the increase with Google. If the ad situation on Google gets to be too much, I will have to start using my Brave browser instead.

As more and more authors realize the odds of readers finding their book among the 7+ million books on Amazon, they are going to start to search for other options, other avenues to get their books in front of potential readers.

And I am right there with them. Amazon hasn’t treated me badly. Quite the contrary. However, when I search for my own books and can’t find them in the first three pages of search results — then I know no one will find them doing a general search.

People don’t like to click and they don’t like to scroll. They want what they’re looking for right there in front of their face without having to bother scrolling or clicking. And if my book isn’t on page 1 of the search results — for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist.

I am not sure what the new year will bring. I am not going to give up writing. But traditional publishing and the standard indie route (which isn’t all that different from traditional publishing) is simply too crowded. It takes money and savvy marketing to get a break and I have neither the cash nor the skills.

So I will be looking for new avenues to try to get my books before the eyes of potential readers. What they are, I don’t know. At least not yet. NFTs? Maybe. Kickstarter? Maybe. Push hard to collect fans on my mailing list? Maybe. YouTube? Maybe.

If you like my books, please spread the word. Because word-of-mouth is the best advertising. Thanks!

For now, you can find all of my books on Amazon.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

CW Hawes is a playwright, award-winning poet, and a fictioneer, with a bestselling novel. He’s also an armchair philosopher, political theorist, social commentator, and traveler. He loves a good cup of tea and agrees that everything’s better with pizza.

 

If you enjoyed this post, please consider buying me a cup of tea. Thanks! PayPal.me/CWHawes

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest

Men’s Fiction Revisited

A knowledge and understanding of history gives a person a depth of perception that is noticeably missing from those who are only savvy with current events.

There was a time when men had fiction that catered to them, catered to the things that men find interesting. Today, though, this isn’t so much the case. Yes, a man can find contemporary novels and stories written with a male audience in mind. However, in my experience, they are few and far between.

Some time ago I outlined what Men’s Fiction might contain. I’d like to revisit the concept of Men’s Fiction and why I think it is of vital importance that a BISAC category for Men’s Fiction is created — and soon.

A cursory search of the internet will reveal the concern in the publishing industry over the statistics showing a decline in book buying and reading in the States.

Personally, I’m not convinced the stats portray an accurate picture. As the now defunct Author Earnings website repeatedly demonstrated, book buying is quite healthy. 

The reason for the discrepancy lies in the fact that most indie authors don’t use ISBNs, which is how the book industry keeps track of inventory. Thus all those books with no ISBNs are never counted. They are invisible to the bean counters sitting in the treasure rooms of the corporate publishing houses.

What the stats actually reveal is a decline in purchases of traditionally published books.

As for those surveys showing a decline in reading and that men aren’t reading fiction, I’ve previously discussed male reading habits. One of which is that men tend not to be social and demonstrative in their reading. Which means men simply may not be accurately represented in the survey results.

I know men who read, and men who don’t. I know women who read, and women who don’t. I know men and women who never touch fiction. And those who only read fiction.

The simple fact of the matter is that the surveys may not be accurate.

Another factor which is likely to throw a spanner into those stats on book buying are the folks who basically buy used books and only used books. As a case in point, I rarely buy a new book from a corporate publishing house. Yet, I do buy a lot of traditionally published books — virtually all used. New books are just too dang expensive.

In addition, today the frugal book buyer is having a field day with all the free books that are now available on the internet — and I’m talking about the freely available public domain books one can find on Project Gutenberg, Project Gutenberg Australia, Faded Page, and archive.org. As a further case in point, I have downloaded books and magazines by the hundreds from these sites. All for free. After all, I’m retired and living on a fixed income.

Personally, I think reading is alive and well — and I think the male reader is nowhere near needing life support.

However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems. Which is why I think the book industry and indie authors need to be careful not to exclude the male half of the population. The book industry and indie authors need to make sure that there is fiction boys and men will actually read, not stuff the industry hopes they’ll read.

Male readers prefer, for the most part, the genres of adventure, humor, horror, and science fiction. They also tend to shy away from books that are focused on relationships (such as romance).

The male reader also has a strong preference for main characters who are men, men he can relate to, and for male writers. This may be due in part to the current stereotype that reading fiction is something only women do. And thus boys especially need the male writer and male main character to avoid being seen as a “sissy”.

Gender issues aside for the moment, if we want boys to read — we writers have to give them something they will actually read. They aren’t going to read books about androgynous main characters. Or books where the main characters are female. They just aren’t. If we want to capture those young male readers, we need to give them boys and men they will respect and we need to give them storylines boys are interested in. It’s as simple as that.

This year I’ve been exploring and reading the fiction of the old pulp magazines. I’ve discovered writers such as H. Bedford-Jones, Talbot Mundy, Erle Stanley Gardner, Max Brand, Seabury Quinn, Alison V. Harding (almost certainly the pen name for Lamont Buchanan), and Hugh B. Cave. I’ve gotten reacquainted with Carl Jacobi, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Frank Belknap Long, and E. Hoffman Price.

The above writers (save for Harding) all made their living from writing fiction — and writing fiction for men. In fact, Blue Book magazine at one point proudly declared that their stories were “for men, by men”. Pretty doggone clear who their audience was!

So what have I gleaned from my reading of pulp era fiction?

The main character is always a man. He’s strong, smart, and very capable. He is a man of good morals, and is polite and considerate, unless unduly provoked. Then he is liable to deck his antagonist. Or he may deal him a witty barb that figuratively knocks him out. The pulp fiction hero is what every man would probably like to be. There are no angst driven heroes in pulp fiction. There are no heroes who are physically or mentally challenged. We’re thinking Jack Reacher types here.

There’s frequently a love interest. The woman is, surprisingly, given all the stereotypes, a strong personality who can go toe to toe with the hero. She is a woman who is strong and capable. A woman the hero can and does admire — that’s why he falls in love with her.

However, men have a need to be a knight in shining armor; a protector of those who are not as physically strong as they are. And they also have a need to pursue their love interest. If the woman is easy to get, then she really isn’t of interest as a mate. 

So even though the woman with whom the hero is in love can drink, swear, and dispatch a dozen bad guys, she will need to be pursued and at some point she will need rescuing. And rescue her he will. The rescue is the ultimate display of his love for her and also proves to her she wasn’t wrong in her choice of him for her mate.

Pulp fiction is often laced with humor. Men love a good laugh, and pulp fiction provided it. Laughter helped to ease the tensions of a hard day at the office or on the assembly line.

Action. Almost all of the stories are filled with action. Pulp fiction heroes are men of action. They aren’t navel gazers.

Adventure. Pulp fiction stories and novels are mostly tales of adventure — regardless of the genre. Men live for adventure. There’s a bit of the wandering spirit in all of us guys.

What I found in reading pulp fiction surprisingly corroborates the research Kate Summers presented in her article “Adult Reading Habits and Preferences in Relation to Gender Differences”.

Which to my mind means the pulp writers and magazine editors knew their readership and gave them what they wanted. Strong men. Strong women. Humor. And plenty of action and adventure.

The corporate publishing industry is dominated by women. And evidence shows they have little interest in catering to the reading preferences of men. Which is a shame, as they are leaving a huge revenue source untapped.

Which leaves us with the men writers who are independent author-publishers. What does pulp fiction teach us men who are indie authors? I think it means, if we want to tap into an audience that is starving for good stuff to read, that we write Men’s Fiction. 

Fiction with strong, intelligent, and wholesome male leads. Fiction with women who are the equal of the hero, but are also all woman. Not the kickass heroine who is too often a man in drag. Fiction with plenty of action and adventure.

Pulp fiction was commercial fiction. It was written and published to make a buck. It was meant to be disposable, casual reading. It was pure entertainment. Pulp fiction was not meant to be great literature, but then Shakespeare wasn’t intentionally writing great literature either.

We men who are indie authors, could also do a world of good by writing fiction for boys. Because if boys learn to love reading, then we writers have them for life. 

Kate Summers concluded her essay noting that while gender equality is important, when it comes to reading, and especially reading for leisure, it might be better if we just gave men and women what they want to read. I’m sure glad a woman wrote that.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest