the ask@AAR: Traditional Publishing vs. Self-Publishing in Romance–What are your thoughts?
It’s damn difficult to get numbers on what percentage of romance novels are self-published or traditionally published. One site, looking at Kindle sales only, posits these numbers:
Self-published: 49%
Small/medium publishers: 11%
Amazon: 9%
Big 5/Harlequin: 30%
Whether these numbers are exact or not, it’s clear self-publishing is HUGE and that the days when traditional publishers dominated are long gone. (Although most library purchases still skew to traditionally published work.) What’s less clear is what that’s meant for romance readers.
Over the past year we’ve given many a DIK to self-pubbed books–obviously there are many fabulous authors eschewing, at least some of the time, traditional publishing. That said, we hear from readers that there are also a boatload of self-pubbed books that are error-ridden and plot-thin. We suspect that, like most everything in life, self-publishing has its highs and its lows. Just like traditional publishing. (We really do not have a favorite here!)
What has your experience been? Do you read mostly self-pubbed novels, mostly traditionally pubbed stories, or a combination of the two? How do you think self-publishing has changed romance reading?
I’m curious about the impact of recent RWA issues on this topic (traditional vs self-publishing). I’m not in the industry in any way – just a reader here – but wondering what role RWA has played (or not played) in helping authors (either to get published, or maybe even more importantly, to more successfully market themselves). How much does RWA membership or winning a RITA affect whether or not bookstores (physical or digital) or libraries carry a particular author or title? Should AAR readers be having a conversation about any of this with local bookstores or libraries? In the past, I’ve felt like I’ve been blown off when I’ve asked if anyone doing purchasing is following sites like AAR. Is it possible that this incident might create an opportunity for different types of books to be seen on store shevles or in library catalogs?
Those are great questions. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out vis-a-vis sales.
“Is it possible that this incident might create an opportunity for different types of books to be seen on store shevles or in library catalogs?”
I can’t speak to anything regarding RWA, but I have talked to some librarians when marketing work written under a different name- and I’ve picked out some trends. Namely, librarians often make purchasing decisions based on what I’ve heard them call “the literature.” I’m not privy to the exact nature of said literature, but to me, it sounds like a catalogue of some kind where they can see and order the newest books.
As for librarians following AAR, I can’t say, but I’ve been told collection development seeks book titles outside of the official “literature” only as a last resort or if the library has a strong orientation toward patron driven acquisitions. I’ve had a few librarians tell me, “Yeah, we don’t really look at blogs or Amazon reviews in our purchasing decisions.” They want reviews from the industry sources (Kirkus, etc.). Although I’m sure there must be exceptions to this.
Plus, every library system is different. Some are centralized while others are cooperatives. Some make purchases based on committee decisions and other times a librarian has the power to make a purchase on a whim. The “on a whim” comment is not to be disparaging to librarians at all, by the way. I am just reporting on some of my experiences in the field. For example, I have cold called libraries in my job outside of erotica and was shocked at how some librarians would say, “Oh, yeah. That sounds cool. I’ll buy a copy.” And make a sale while still on the phone! It doesn’t happen too often, but I’ve definitely had it happen- to self-published titles, believe it or not. (Not “Nan De Plume” works, so don’t bother looking to verify this claim.)
As a reader, you may actually have quite a bit of say in what titles your library purchases. Many library systems invite patron purchase requests for works published within the last year or two. I’ve done this with obscure indie books, romance novels, and college press titles. And a lot of times, just my single request gets a librarian reply of “Thanks! I didn’t know about that title. I’ll put it on my ordering list.” I’ve had better luck with paperbacks than e-books in this department though, so just a heads up.
I hope this helps!
I’ve been having similar questions, nblibgirl, and since I follow a number of authors who have been quite vocal on their negative experiences with RWA, they indicate that membership is a boost with respect to marketing. I love the idea of having conversations with our local libraries. I think too any organization or site involved in romance writing should right now be brainstorming ways to further promote inclusivity, diversity, and egalitarianism in 2020, as this story is so much more than just RWA internal politics. Other writer guilds outside of romance are following, and I saw a couple of days ago academics posting on social media about the story as well as a feature article in the New York Times. It’s definitely a story attracting plenty of attention.
I too am following this story as it unfolds to see not just the fallout to RWA but what steps romance authors take and whether even a separate organization emerges this year.
Continuing with nblibgirl’s excellent suggestion of communicating with libraries, I just wanted to mention how interlibrary loan can be used to help circulate obscure/diverse/unusual/indie/you-name-it titles. Even though every library system is a little different, a lot of them allow patrons to borrow materials from other libraries via interlibrary loan- sometimes for free if the system is heavily taxpayer funded. (I use this service all the time, and it’s fantastic!)
So why am I bringing this up? Well, if each one of us in Romancelandia requests a new title that isn’t getting the mainstream recognition it deserves, it is likely to be catalogued in a statewide system or WorldCat. Then, once a librarian creates an entry for the book, other librarians in other systems can see it and may be more willing to make a purchase. Creating a new entry for an indie title can be a lot of extra work that librarians understandably don’t want to take on if they don’t have to (librarians have a lot of work to do!). But once it’s in the catalog, they just have to make a note that says “Yes, we have it.” (Or whatever their program says.) Then, after a bunch of people request the title in different systems, visibility and access increase. Plus, it helps create a bigger pool for eventually sharing the title with other libraries via ILL.
Obviously, I’m talking rather small scale here. But every little bit helps!
I’ve been a reader most of my life. Having turned to Indie heavily earlier in this last decade, I eventually burnt out with more missis than hits, and I found quality control very loose. Not just that, it seemed nearly every contemporary romance was essentially the same erotica version of alpha male. I love a sexy read, but I need story and character building first, to make the sex scenes hotter. Early sex in a book, without any build up of desire or want of a character, became problematic to me with most Indie – I just wasn’t feeling it when a sex scene was done in three paragraphs; and yet three -six pages of a sex scene in an Avon romance after a slow burn build, made me need to lock myself in the bathroom. So readers groups helped with trying new genres, mixing up contemporary with historical romance, queer romance, fantasy romance, YA, paranormal romance – and I found myself leaning mostly towards traditional publishing once again, which is my preference. With a big caveat: I have followed a handful of wonderfully talented indie writers this year, some of them hybrid, and I probably wouldn’t have tried them, if it wasn’t for reviews and recommendations by trusted blogs, book groups and trusted friend recommendations with similar reading tastes.
I’ve been a reader most of my life. Having turned to Indie heavily earlier in this last decade, I eventually burnt out with more missis than hits, and I found quality control very loose. Not just that, it seemed nearly every contemporary romance was essentially the same version of alpha male. So readers groups helped with trying new genres, mixing up contemporary with historical romance, queer romance, fantasy romance, YA, paranormal romance – and I found myself leaning mostly towards traditional publishing once again, which is my preference. With a big caveat: I have followed a handful of wonderfully talented indie writers this year, some of them hybrid, and I probably wouldn’t have tried them, if it wasn’t for reviews and recommendations by trusted blogs, book groups and friend recommendations.
If not for self publishing I would probably have abandoned the romance genre long ago. That’s not to say that I never read anything from a traditional publisher (in fact I never take any notice of the publisher, I just go with whatever sounds interesting, and KU is awesome for risk-free experimentation). But I was fed up with the same stories being told over and over again, I imagine because editors vetoed anything the least bit out of the ordinary, thinking it wouldn’t sell.
Also, in my opinion there are plenty of celebrated, traditionally published romance authors whose books may be professionally proofread, but they are not immune from plodding prose, wooden or redundant dialogue, infuriating historical inaccuracy and utter predictability of plotting. If it has a stupid punning title (usually containing the word ‘duke’) and the Australian ebook price is at least $10, I’m happy to not even waste my time reading the blurb.
I like what you said about KU being “awesome for risk-free experimentation.” KU tends to get a bad rap, and not for completely unwarranted reasons, but I think it has greatly increased author visibility and reader access. I imagine the program is especially helpful for people who don’t live in a great library system, such as in a small town where titles are limited and interlibrary loan cost patrons extra money.
There’s a big debate whether KU cuts into author sales, but as a heavy library user, I think the whole “try before you buy” or “try and then never buy” methods of reading are totally legit. At least with KU, the author gets about half a penny a page per borrow, which doesn’t happen at the library. Theoretically, a library could buy one copy of a book and have it circulate for years without earning the author another penny after the initial sale. So, KU can be a perk for self-published authors, especially if libraries won’t buy paperback copies of their titles.
“If it has a stupid punning title (usually containing the word ‘duke’)…” Yeah, another drawback of traditional publishing is that authors don’t get the final say in titles. They could write something awesome and have the marketing department drive away potential customers by slapping a trite title on it.
“…and the Australian ebook price is at least $10, I’m happy to not even waste my time reading the blurb.” I totally agree! I realize there is a lot of criticism that readers want books for free or close to it, but how many consumers can afford (or even want to) take a chance on stories they’ve never read before at $10+ a piece? When you consider how avid most romance readers are, it would be unaffordable. Thank goodness for libraries and KU. Because, as you have pointed out through your comment, a lot of us will just skip reading something entirely than forking out a lot of money for it. Incidentally, I’m the same with movies. If the library doesn’t have it, I don’t watch it. Likewise, if the library doesn’t have a book I want to read, I read something else. (Can’t you tell that writers and the movie industry just adore me? ;))
Like many romance readers, I cannot afford to buy all the books I want to read, so library circulation is really important to me. And while I think self-publishing has been very good for the genre in general (better stories, more diverse authors and characters), there is an infrastructure bias that seems to keep many self-published books out of libraries (most are available only as ebooks and audio books for download). Also, out of many independent bookstores.
I worry it is setting up a divide: libraries carry items primarily that are available in physical form (paper books and CDs) while people who can afford $7 or $15 per month get “unlimited” romance reading at KU or Audible’s “Escape” subscription. That used to be libraries (unlimited reading every month). What could libraries do with monthly subscription fees of $7 or $15 per month? I’ve paid for both KU and Audible’s romance packages for short bursts, because it is the most cost effective way to get access to some authors’ work. But I resent all that money going into Amazon’s pockets.
Maybe we should require Amazon to make these services available through libraries, e.g. I pay the monthly fee through the library, thereby making the title available to some number of other library patrons too?
Thanks for your comments about libraries. You are definitely correct about there being an infrastructure bias against self-published books. In a way, I can understand why. Without gatekeepers, there are usually zero quality controls. And I say this as a proud self-published author!
Some libraries will buy independently published paperbacks provided a patron makes a sincere request (as opposed to say, the author’s cousin through marriage who suspiciously has the same last name…) But other libraries will not purchase self-published work because of physical quality issues. I.e. How well do independently published books physically hold up during (hopefully) heavy circulation?
As for e-books in libraries, part of the divide you described is due to punitive measures enacted by traditional publishers, not just Amazon. I have heard many librarians lament how the Big 5 publishers will only give them one metered license per e-book copy- for $60+. The publishers’ thinking is that if they allowed too many e-books into library systems too cheaply, they would never make another sale. After all, an e-book could be in a catalog forever with no risk of damage or loss. They do not take into account that libraries can actually help increase sales from consumers who like to try before they buy- or otherwise not buy at all.
On that note, a number of public library systems are now boycotting Macmillan digital products because of their new library e-book embargo where they will only allow one e-book per system and charge an extortionate price for any others- regardless of the size of the library system in question.
Although it would be nice if KDP titles became available through libraries, I do not believe in legally forcing them to do so. As for monthly fees through the library, I asked a librarian a similar question about this. She said there are too many legal obstacles to make it happen any time soon, unfortunately.
For what it’s worth, I’ve noticed that library systems tend to be a lot kinder toward small presses than self-publishers. But this isn’t much help to the latter category.
Oh! And here’s something cool about editing when it comes to self-publishing through KDP. If I *do* run across a mistake after I have published, whether a tiny typo or an embarrassing blunder, I can make the changes and re-upload the document. The changes usually go live within 24 hours. A traditional publisher can’t do this, especially if they have a warehouse full of books. True, uploading changes doesn’t affect e-book or paperback copies a person already purchased, but the next books ordered will contain the corrections.
NDP: Are you sure an update doesn’t affect already-purchased copies? A few times over the years (though not recently) I’ve had Kindle books re-download without any prompting from me.
Hmm… That’s a good point. I’ve heard of that happening with traditionally published books, but I’m not sure if that’s the case with KDP titles. I know some readers have complained that they bought an original edition of something only to have Amazon replace it without their consent to the new version. But all the cases I’ve heard of that happening have been with traditionally published books and magazines.
One thing nobody has mentioned is the costs involved for self-published authors, which may be one reason for the wildly varied quality. It can easily cost $3000-$5000 for editing (both content and copyediting), proofreading, a professionally designed cover and the art for it, And that’s before any promotion and advertising.
You can skip all of this and just go directly from typing “The end” to putting the ebook up for sale, but that really isn’t a good idea.
“You can skip all of this and just go directly from typing ‘The end’ to putting the ebook up for sale, but that really isn’t a good idea.”
Guilty as charged! But in my defense, I’d like to say that writing erotica or erotic romance is totally different from writing romance. The quality expectations for an erotica short story, for example, are significantly lower than say, a Regency HR. This isn’t to say there aren’t discerning erotica readers. But on the whole, I’d say erotica is the one self-publishing genre where you can absolutely get away with self-editing and generic cover design and still have sales without complaints. In fact, if you ever see an Amazon review of a self-published erotica title that says, “This needed to be edited. It had way too many typos,” you *know* the author didn’t proofread. (Either that, or she was trying to write in a language she wasn’t fluent in as a cash grab. It happens.) Because as one erotica author once said, “Who is that special person who is going to leave a review on Amazon to tell you what she thought of the sex story you wrote?”
Of course, here at AAR, we are all discerning readers who probably would leave reviews- if not on Amazon, here in the comments sections. :)
It matters not to me how romantic fiction is published as it’s the quality of the story (and its writing and editing) and genre/sub-genre that matter to me. With my non-fiction reading, I will pay the price for a hardback if I really can’t wait for the paperback and generally avoid e-books in NF when I know that a book will have a lot of supporting charts, tables, photos, reproductions of art, etc. that don’t read well on an e-reader or tablet I rely on AAR and a few other places (now and then) to give me honest and thorough reviews in romantic fiction because that’s more likely to influence my choices outside of my auto-buy authors.
I read mostly traditionally pubbed stories. I only read self-published books if they have really good reviews. Yes, it could be said that self-publishing has changed romance reading. First, in our tastes –I think we are now more open to diversity. And, secondly, in our wallets –self-pub novels tend to have lower the prices. Therefore we, the consumers expect an e-book to be cheap, something that the big publishing houses cannot usually allow.
Your comment about reviews brings up a really good point. Another drawback of self-publishing is getting reviews. A lot of avenues are closed to reviewing self-published books, which I can understand because of quantity issues. (I.e. There are just too many self-published books out there to review all of them.) And some review places like Kirkus charge self-published authors for reviews. Yeah, most of us are going to say “no thank you” to that. Then there are Amazon and Goodreads reviews, which are often highly unreliable because of their subjectivity. (Well, all reviews are subjective on some level. I meant more than say, a professional critic who is willing to analyze what works about a story and what doesn’t.) And self-published erotica hardly ever gets reviews or stars, because how many people are willing to admit they read it?
As for the price of self-published e=books as opposed to traditionally published e-books and paperbacks, it’s no accident that most stories on Amazon cost about $2.99. This is because an author on KDP must charge between $2.99 and $9.99 in order to get a 70% royalty. Otherwise, it drops down to 35%. I believe this is done to create some consistency in pricing.
Some people, including Joe Biel, the head of Microcosm Publishing, have criticized low e-book prices for creating a “race to the bottom” and creating a culture where e-books are seen as having little value. While I can understand his point from a business perspective, from a reader viewpoint, cheap e-books have been a godsend for many. I mean, how many avid readers, especially those who breeze through romances and erotica at a rapid-fire pace, can actually afford to buy e-books at $15+ a pop? I remember someone who worked for a publishing house who said, “You don’t know the culture of the Big 5. They would outlaw *libraries* if they could.” (Don’t get me started on MacMillan’s library e-book embargo.)
One benefit of the self-publishing option for me as a reader is that many authors are able to finish series or do spinoffs of their traditionally published works even after their publisher is no longer interested. I wish more authors would choose to do this. I don’t know what constraints traditional publishing contracts may place on an author’s ability to use characters in a later self-published work. But absent those constraints, I wish authors would tie up loose ends through self-publishing.
I am reluctant to try a self-published author cold without a recommendation or a really intriguing premise.. But conversely, I find many traditionally published romances these days have very worn-out tropes that don’t interest me. I appreciate sites like AAR that bring interesting works to my attention. Once I find a good author, I don’t care how they’re published. I am more likely to review books on Amazon from self- or small publishers because I figure I can make more of a difference for them.
“I wish authors would tie up loose ends through self-publishing.” From what I’ve heard, contracts can be a big obstacle here. Carina Press, for example, did a Q&A session a couple of years ago that addressed the topic of “option clauses” among other things. The video is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Xumber9uY.
Carina Press is supportive of hybrid authors, but anything they publish means they get the rights to the characters and the “world” that the author creates. Now, I’m not sure if that means they get first dibs on any stories starring those characters but that authors can self-publish any work they are not interested in, or if the author is never allowed to use those characters outside of Carina Press, even if the publisher is not interested in a proposal for a follow-up story. (I’d have to rewatch the video; it’s been a while.) Hope this helps answer some questions!
The small number of self=published authors I know personally are incredibly meticulous and I’d say their books are more free of errors in spelling and grammar than many of the traditionally published books I’ve read. That said they’re probably in the minority; we’ve mentioned the KU “farms” in various comment threads and the subject comes up on Twitter a fair bit, and I suspect those titles may less … well prepared.
In terms of content, I’d agree that self-publishing has opened up opportunities for authors to write what they want to write without someone telling them “it’ll never sell”, and that it’s been a real boon to introducing more diversity to readers, and as a result more trad. publishers are picking up those authors.
As others here have said, I don’t normally make my reading choices based on who has published a particualr book – I’ll be looking at the author and, if they’re new to me, seeing what others have said about them.
Wow! I feel like this topic was written for me. Great comments, everyone!
Here are some notes from my perspective as a self-publisher:
What everyone here has said about the freedom to publish more diverse, unconventional stories is true- and fantastic. The removal of gatekeepers? Excellent. Some people, like me, became writers not only because we love the act and craft of writing, but because we love the idea of being our own bosses and get bristly when told what to do. Writing is one of the few fields still out there that doesn’t require any licenses or approval from higher ups, especially now that pretty much anybody can publish just about anything.
As for visibility, I think it’s important to mention the growing number of hybrid authors out there who use their traditionally published work to leverage their self-published projects. For example, Harlequin Intrigue and Carina Press author Nico Rosso also self-publishes erotica through Amazon. His self-published work is visible because someone could read his traditionally published work and say, “Oh, I wonder what else he has written?” If it weren’t for self-publishing, he may not have a venue for his erotic work. Because of self-publishing, trad publishers have had to play nicer with their authors than they used to. (I.e. they can’t as easily get away with option clauses that bind you to one publishing house exclusively like in the past.) Plus, he still has the benefits of publishing through Harlequin.
Editing and cover design are definitely drawbacks of self-publishing. That is one of the shameless cash-grab reasons why I got into the erotica racket. (Not that I don’t have respect for the genre!) As the saying goes in our field, “As long as you can write at a sixth grade level and reasonably proofread, you’ll be fine. Remember, your audience is reading one-handed.” None of this is to say I do a slap dash job, but the literary expectations are often lower in the field so no outside editing is required. I just have to be extra careful not to accidentally have the hero whip out his “duck” when I’m typing. Because I do not want to go there…
Big publishers do most of the price-fixing of ebooks. I have almost 300 ebooks on an eReaderIQ price watch, waiting for them to come down to a price I’m willing to pay, and they are almost all from big publishers.
Big publishers may, on average, do a better job of copy-editing than self-publishers, but there is a lot of variation. My long essay about a decade of error tracking that I posted on the old AAR message boards a few years ago (now archived at http://www.ccrsdodona.org/markmuse/reading/rightword.html) includes a table of error rates broken out by publisher, and nobody was error-free. Self-published books have a similar spread in error rates.
Books from big publishers are easier to find out about than self-published books, but a lot of publishers these days don’t seem to do a very good job of promoting many of their books. I may be missing publicity because I don’t participate in ANY (anti-)social media (which I shun as too dominated by toxicity, as exemplified by the firestorm about AAR a couple months ago and by all the toxic toots from the dinosaur rear end). I keep a running list of forthcoming books that I plan to buy, but I find out about a lot more books from AAR reviews, Amazon & Kobo release info, and BookBub and eReaderIQ notifications.
Traditional publishers don’t market like they used to. It’s like the old saying, “A bank is a great place to borrow money if you can prove you don’t need it.” Likewise, Big 5 publishers don’t pay attention to their small fries authors and divert their advertising to known winners like Stephen King, James Patterson, etc,
Generally, I’m in favor of any process that gets more books into the hands of readers. Since I’m exclusively an audio listener, things like typos are less of an issue. Indie books have much more freedom to deal with subject matter and they have much less oversight by editors, if any at all. Unless the author is good at editing their own work, beta readers are simply not enough. Professional publishing offers those services and more to writers, but they also offer less variety to readers. And I’m all about the reader.
I pay exactly no attention to who published any book I choose to purchase. I go by blurb, recs from trusted friends, and solid reviews both by professional reviewers and by fellow listeners. I particularly want opinions on narrators, so I turn to audio sites first and foremost.
I do think self-pub has changed publishing in general, not just in romance. Once controversial topics can now be found with relative ease, long epic series are far more commonplace than they were 20 years ago, books with diverse characters are far more common, and LGBT+ novels have experienced a boom.
And I think people are reading more, too. I always toted books with me everywhere I went; riding the bus, breaks at work, during commercials, car rides as a kid, in bed, in the bath, at the pool…you name it. But there were few others who did that, at least around me. Now, people read and listen everywhere since they carry their phones and tablets everywhere they go anyway. Oprah made reading cool again, and it seems to me that readers have been coming out of the woodwork ever since. There’s a wider audience for books now, and therefore a need for a greater variety of books.
Don’t have a preference, as long as I can lay my hands on the book in some format!
Unless I’m reading something from the Harlequin line (Harlequin Presents, Dare, etc.), I’m usually unaware as to the publishing status of a book—although generally speaking, as you noted, the spelling, grammar, proofreading, copy editing, etc., can be slap-dash (one day we’ll have to have a round-up of some of our favorite romance novel gaffs).
I meant to say that self-published books seem to be more slap-dash on the editing & proofing side than books from major publishers. I see in a lot of authors in their acknowledgement pages thanking their Beta/Facebook readers, but that is no replacement for a vigorous copy edit.
I agree with the above comments on some dubious writing quality that especially seems to plague self-published books. Also, without the heft and support of a publisher to publicize indie authors, I find it a little more challenging to find self-published authors. On the other hand, I absolutely agree that marginalized and underrepresented authors can go around conventional publishing and get their voices out there, and in recent years there has been a boon in own-voice authors. Self-published books also often seem more creative and take more risks, and much of the time, that has been a benefit.
Overall though, I don’t make reading decisions on publishing methods and still read reviews from trusted sources before deciding whether a book is worth my time and money.
I agree with JCG that traditional publishers tend to keep it safe. Perhaps the best thing about the option to self-publish is that it’s removed a lot of barriers for authors who write diverse books, or things that might not have been considered marketable – and it’s proven that these things are very marketable indeed. It’s given authors the power to write what they want and publish the way they want, and has given readers much greater variety to choose from.
The downside is that there’s a lot of stuff of questionable quality out there. Some authors take self-pubbing seriously, and take the time to write well, get quality editing, and have professional (or at least professional-looking) design. Others are not as meticulous, and we get books that are sloppily executed and poorly edited (if at all). And of course, there are those who are gaming the Amazon system by padding their books with previews and other content, or who engage in other questionable practices.
I’d like to think that in the long run, quality will win out. I’m not sure that’s where we are at the moment.
Perhaps traditional publishing might still reach more people or, it might be easier to find those books in different formats.
There are some self published books I’d like to read but or the paperback is a lot more expensive or the ebook format is only available with certain conditions (on kindle unlimited only, for instance, which I don’t have).
For me it depends on the story and the author and how easy or not it can be for my personal case to purchase it/get it at the library, etc.
My observations.
Traditional publishers usually stick to safer plots/issues/characters, there’s more variety on the self-published side.
Traditional publishers usually ensure a minimum quality level regarding the packaging; spelling, grammar and such. Maybe also how the story flows. This does not mean they don’t publish bad books (i.e. books that I do not like).
I still go for the books that seem interesting, either by the blurb or reviews, regardless of the book source. But I might be skipping on self-published books more often even so, due to the more varying quality level, also because there are more of them.