The Hugo Awards: The Money Angle

I wanted to write something about the Hugo awards, but I don’t really know enough about them to contribute meaningfully to the discussion one way or another. I have never been to Worldcon, and as a self-published author who flies well below the radar I don’t expect to see any of my book up there anytime soon, nor do feel bad about that. I’m just here to write and entertain.

Personally I dislike both the extreme right, and extreme left getting involved in this debate. North American directional politics, fed by the twenty-four hours “news” channels and the pundit blogs, is capable of very little other than bringing rage and ruin to everything it touches right now. I hate to think that in the midst of the massive boom in genre fiction that this ugliness could turn people off, and possibly even stunt the growth of SF/F.

What interests me most about the whole debate is that none of the articles that I have read about the whole Kerfuffle, most of which are very good, none cover the economic aspect of winning an award.

I would not buy a book simply because it was a Hugo award winner. However, if I was on the fence about a book and saw that it won an award, that would make me more likely to buy it. An award is an indication of quality, at the very least.

Perhaps more importantly winning (or even being short-listed) an award acts as additional exposure acts for both the work and the author. It will not push a niche intellectual work to bestseller status, to be sure, but I am confident that winning an award, especially a prestigious award, will expose a book to new readers and elevate sales in almost all cases.

Many authors are ego driven enough to value the award above the sales that it generates. Some writers, however, are far more motivated by sales figures and really don’t care how they get them. Attaching “Hugo” to their name and book will get those extra sales and so they have an economic motive, regardless of what ideology they might be espousing to justify their actions.

So while there is an ideological battle here, which is very sad, there is also the simple fact that by gaming the system the Sad Puppies have gained publicity and increased sales. The people who are outraged by their actions are not in their intended readership and I suspect that they, or their publishers, know it. The very nature of their very public campaign, and the amount of publicity it generates for their works, win or lose, demonstrates that at least some of them are motivated by sales as well as ideology.

Making money is not a bad thing, of course, but while winning an award increases sales, battles like this can damage how people view the award, which degrades the value of the endorsement that the award represents.

Unfortunately, it is a hard problem to fix. Every system can be gamed, and as George RR Martin brilliantly stated changing the rules to stop this behaviour only feeds into the narrative of a liberal conspiracy at the Hugos promoted by the Sad Puppies. Incidentally this will get like minded people to buy more of their books as well. Readers will often support writers they feel are being persecuted, as I found out when this happened. After I complained, readers picked up on the attack and sales increased.

Which means that there is also a possible economic motive behind complaining about being persecuted, which can get people on your side and sell more books… 😦

P.S: I don’t like identity politics, but people who form factions to promote their works based on not being part of a certain clique are only engaging in reactionary identity politics.

Advertisements

4 comments on “The Hugo Awards: The Money Angle

  1. Cora Buhlert says:

    Excellent post, C.P.D. And you’re right, the economic motivations are frequently ignored, though Kameron Hurley, who won two Hugos last year, did discuss the sales boost her novels got from the Hugo winner banner on the cover.

    I also hear you on the fact that this is a very US-centric debate, the political dimensions of which leave many non-Americans baffled.

    BTW, a pal of mine has set up a survey about the Hugos specifically aimed at Non-US fans and readers to get their POV. The link is here, if you’re interested: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hOmiJkkVsVrQkdW_CJh-a8Un_SVM8NggCcbQT8p1bW8/viewform

  2. grimkrieg says:

    Thanks Cora!

    The comment that really struck me was Larry Correia complaining about how people at a Con shunned him and using it as an excuse for doing this. I cannot think of a writer who does not have people who want to see them humbled. Even people like myself, who very few have heard of, have to contend with negativity. It seems to be part of being a writer.

    • Cora Buhlert says:

      Personally, I suspect that a lot of people simply didn’t know who Correia was at the time, since he wasn’t all that well known outside his enthusiastic fanbase. I remember that I had to look up who he was, when he was nominated for the Campbell Award.

      But even if he was shunned, it happens to all of us and it truly seems to be part of being a writer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s