Ministry Statistics!
Apr. 24th, 2003 10:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusA friend of mine was bemoaning the fact that she had rather few reviews. We tossed around theories why that would be, because she is a wonderful writer.
Welllll. I haven't worked in corporate America for 15 years for nothing.
I did some research. Hard, cold numbers.
There were three factors I could measure on chaptered stories:
1 - Exposure rate, or how many people clicked on the story in the first place.
2 - Reader loyalty, or how many of those who clicked on the story in the first place came back for the later chapters.
3 - Review rate, or what percentage of those who read a particular chapter reviewed.
Results:
Review rates for books are a consistent 2-3%. Whether it's Cassandra Claire or Joe Blow. There is a considerable jump in review rates for humour (one-shot) stories (to 50% of the readers responding), but for chaptered stories it's consistant from one writer to the next.
Exposure rates vary, but are in the four figures for first books, and five figures for trilogies. The increase for trilogies is exponential. The more books you write, the more exposure you have. I checked this with really lousy (but prolific) writers, and acclaimed writers. It's consistent. The difference may be 10,000 (for an average writer) and 40,000 (for an acclaimed writer) initial 'clicks.' But the jump is still pronounced.
Reader loyalty is where you see the difference. It seems to be the only figure that sets one writer apart from another. One writer may have only 10% of the people who click on their story returning. Another will have 35%. The average is about 20% people coming back.
Once again, the trilogy rule holds true. As soon as there are two or three books, reader loyalty jumpsexponentially. And here the quality of the writer seems to be irrelevant. Even a very average author with only 13% reader loyalty in their first book will see a jump to 42% if they produce three.
Cassandra Claire had a 17% reader loyalty for Draco Dormiens. Her reader loyalty for Draco Veritas is 45%.
Barb had a very high reader loyalty to start 35%, which jumped to 40% for her second book, and 46% for her third.
There you have it folks. I see now why Tor Books demands trilogies from fantasy writers.
Welllll. I haven't worked in corporate America for 15 years for nothing.
I did some research. Hard, cold numbers.
There were three factors I could measure on chaptered stories:
1 - Exposure rate, or how many people clicked on the story in the first place.
2 - Reader loyalty, or how many of those who clicked on the story in the first place came back for the later chapters.
3 - Review rate, or what percentage of those who read a particular chapter reviewed.
Results:
Review rates for books are a consistent 2-3%. Whether it's Cassandra Claire or Joe Blow. There is a considerable jump in review rates for humour (one-shot) stories (to 50% of the readers responding), but for chaptered stories it's consistant from one writer to the next.
Exposure rates vary, but are in the four figures for first books, and five figures for trilogies. The increase for trilogies is exponential. The more books you write, the more exposure you have. I checked this with really lousy (but prolific) writers, and acclaimed writers. It's consistent. The difference may be 10,000 (for an average writer) and 40,000 (for an acclaimed writer) initial 'clicks.' But the jump is still pronounced.
Reader loyalty is where you see the difference. It seems to be the only figure that sets one writer apart from another. One writer may have only 10% of the people who click on their story returning. Another will have 35%. The average is about 20% people coming back.
Once again, the trilogy rule holds true. As soon as there are two or three books, reader loyalty jumps
Cassandra Claire had a 17% reader loyalty for Draco Dormiens. Her reader loyalty for Draco Veritas is 45%.
Barb had a very high reader loyalty to start 35%, which jumped to 40% for her second book, and 46% for her third.
There you have it folks. I see now why Tor Books demands trilogies from fantasy writers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 10:35 am (UTC)Also, the no. of comments at a single site isn't really an effective measure of feedback, as it doesn't take into account the no. of sites/message lists that the story might be posted at, the option of private e-mail feedback, and that the quality of feedback might be really low, like 'u rawk! Ur story waz kewl!11'
I'm sure we've all had the experience of seeing really, really bad stories get glowing reviews, which is just bewildering. That's the next phenomenon that I'd like you to investigate ... ;)
brodie
Good thoughtful counterpoint!
Date: 2003-04-25 02:00 pm (UTC)I used Fiction Alley for my rough numbers. I do know how their counter works.
I posted chapters 1-3 on the same day. People clicked on chapter one, and that was counted, while their clicks through chapters two and three were not.
However, when I posted subsequent chapters, people who had already read the previous chapters click directly into that chapter. So the reader loyalty is not who finished the story, but a much tougher measure: who waited with bated breath for each chapter to come out.
Also, the no. of comments at a single site isn't really an effective measure of feedback..
These are percentages taken at a very high-traffic archive. Because most stories are posted in multiple places, it would be reasonable to count the traffic from a different posting (such as ff.net or a yahoo group) seperately. Also, if we counted the author's other postings as response for 'one' story, the numbers would suddenly slant in the direction of those who 'wall-paper' their stories everywhere. While some feedback may go to the author's email, the way Fiction Alley is set up, it is far more convenient to use their system than to scroll to the top of the page and email the author. So it is a fairly controlled environment (as these things go).
Even when an author has added a link at the bottom of their story to a personal Yahoo group or email (Barb has done this), the drop in reviews is only 1%.
that the quality of feedback might be really low, like 'u rawk! Ur story waz kewl!11'
Since quality is purely subjective, I can't really measure it. For myself, while I prefer intelligent reviews, I perk up at the stupid ones, too. ;)
Actually, this is all good news. It seems that it's not poor writing that is being rewarded, but rather that any story can expect a certain amount of attention. Certain types of stories, light humour fics, tend to encourage more reviews. This may mostly be due to the mood the reader is in by the time they finish the story. A thought-provoking character death story that touches on the morality of the wizarding world may leave the reader awed, but they may need time to process what's been said an might not review at all.
My intention is present a slightly more realistic attitude towards reviews. Everyone gets about the percentage (for long chaptered stories), but the number goes up with the more exposure you have. The critical mass for exposure is hit when you are a solid writer with an established record for finishing your stories. Which is a darn good reason for people to read your stories -- if they like them, there's likely to be more for them to read. Yum.
The real measure is the loyalty rate. That does seem to be higher for the better writers from the get-go.
Interesting points, thank you, Brodi.
~Icarus