[custom_toc]
Every week or so, some platform, service, or product does something subjectively objectionable to the independent author community.

Calls to boycott often follow.

The trouble is, boycotts are harmful to authors and our potential readers.

“Cut Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face”

That phrase dates to at least the late 18th century. It illustrates a self-destructive over-reaction to a problem.

Cutting a person out of your life because they’re anathema to your values and morals is an ethical decision, and often demonstrative evidence of one’s own character. That’s a “can I sleep at night or not” kind of decision, often necessary.

That’s not what this article is about.

I’m addressing the conundrum authors and other creators face when personal ethics come into conflict with our responsibility to make sure our works reach as many people as possible.

Elaborating on the Author’s Responsibility

Art, including fiction, is a collaborative endeavor.

A creative work isn’t “art” until it’s experienced through the subjective lens of someone other than the creator of that work.

The author (I’ll use “author(s)” as shorthand for all creators) can, through craft, attempt to influence the experience of the reader, but only influence, not dictate.

We cannot predict the effect or impact our work will have on a reader. Often, authors are surprised or humbled when they learn their works had unexpected positive impact, sometimes far removed from the author’s intention.

This has happened to me several times over the years. If you’re an author and you haven’t experienced this yet… you will…

…if your work has the opportunity to reach all the people it should.

That is the author’s responsibility: do whatever we can to make sure our works reach the people those works are for.

Limiting Distribution is Counter to the Author’s Responsibility

Choosing to remove our works from a particular sales or distribution platform because that platform (or that platform’s CEO, or Board of Directors, or whatever) has taken a position to which we’re ethically opposed almost certainly hurts our readers, and ourselves, and is shirking our responsibility to those readers.

Doing so cuts off our nose to spite our face.

Be Where the Reader Is

Let’s look at a few specific examples.

Amazon, Of Course

Amazon controls over 60% of the e-book marketplace.

There are many reasons to despise Amazon (labor practices, political donations, the behavior of its founder / ex-CEO, and so on), but you simply cannot reach most of your potential readers if your works are not available in e-book format on Amazon.

Similarly, if your e-books are available on Amazon but enrolled in KDP Select, meaning they’re only available on Amazon and preferentially so to people who pay $11.99 per month to access the Kindle Unlimited subscription program, you are excluding many, many potential readers, all over the planet.

For that matter, if your books (e-book or print) are only available through Amazon, you’re denying millions of people the opportunity to discover them. See also: audio books only available on Audible.

You may despise Amazon. As a person, you may choose to never buy a single thing from Amazon.

As an author?

You must make your books available on Amazon in e-book and in print, or you’re shirking your responsibility by denying potential readers the opportunity to experience your works.

The readers… many, many, many readers… are looking for their books on Amazon.

You’ve got to be where the readers are.

Spotify

I’m not just an author; I became a performing musician almost twenty years before my first book was published.

Many musicians rail against Spotify and the other streaming platforms for paying only fractions of a penny every time a song is played.

I’m not one of those people.

I certainly wish the royalty rate was higher, but that money is still a revenue stream that didn’t exist before, and that I didn’t have to do much of anything to access.

Complaining about it is, to reference yet another old idiom, like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

And yet, a few years ago, I pulled all my music from Spotify — the single best source of revenue I had for my music — in protest of their giving a huge payday to a podcaster who often featured, unchallenged, guests with science-denying anti-vaccination agendas.

Eventually, though? I realized my action was performative, at best. It made no difference to Spotify; I was the shadow of a reflection of a blip on their radar.

At the same time, it limited my ability to potentially reach about thirty percent of all streaming music listeners who might otherwise appreciate what I have to offer.

I was shirking my responsibility to be where the listeners are.

My music is back on Spotify, because I don’t want anyone who should hear it to miss that chance.

Substack

I don’t like Substack, mostly due to their disingenuous business practices and their willingness to give hate groups a platform, but also because it’s another content silo designed to keep people there… and they take a huge chunk of a writer’s revenue.

However! Much like Patreon seems to mean any member-supported creator’s community, “Substack” is becoming synonymous with “e-mail newsletter.”

I’m very likely developing a literary zine, and its primary format and delivery method will be e-mail. If I don’t use Substack as the distribution and monetization platform, will I be denying a substantial fraction of the potential market?

Maybe. It’s certainly something I need to consider as I weigh all the different options.

No Dams on Any Streams

If it’s not clear by now, you must make your creative works available everywhere possible, because every platform, marketplace, and subscription service counts among their users people who want to experience the things you make… they just don’t know it yet.

As a creator, this is also the most responsible thing you can do for yourself.

You may have heard it said that many streams (of income) make a river (of wealth).

Revenue can, and should, flow into your river of fortune from every platform, marketplace, and subscription service available.

When a new one pops up… say yes. So long as, of course, that distribution source doesn’t insist you cut off any others, or makes it difficult to use any others, or cost you money.

Unless you’re independently wealthy or have another source of substantial and consistent disposable income, you must take every opportunity to earn from your creations.

The reason should be self-evident: just like every human being, writers, musicians, and other creators deserve a stable existence. Indeed, despite the “suffering for my art” myth, creativity suffers in times of stress.

You not only deserve to get paid for your creative endeavors, in order to bring more art to the world and to the people who can benefit from it, you must.

Consider Carefully Before You Boycott

If a boycott denies potential readers access to your works, that is counter to your first responsibility as an artist: bring your work to as many people who need it as possible.

Make sure you’re doing the right thing for your readers.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts. Leave a comment, with my thanks!

~

Did you read this and decide you like the cut of my jib? Are you interested in directly benefiting from my quarter century of online indie publishing experience? Click to learn more about my services for writers, authors, and other creators!

Never miss a Scribtotum article! Join the Multiversalists community of readers, writers, friends, and fans at the free level. You’ll also get your choice of one of three of my e-books!  Or (and!), subscribe to the RSS feed by copying www.mattselznick.com/scribtotum/feed/ into InoReader, Feedly, Vivaldi, or your favorite feed reader app.