Macmillan comes to terms with Amazon

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Amazon was using loss leader pricing on many bestsellers. This can work for them because books are only 10 percent of their business, and they can use bargain books to drive often affluent readers into buying more profitable items.

Amazon's competition had far less ability to make up for losses on bestsellers. Agency would have helped them.

Every big seller of books uses loss leader pricing (Amazon, Walmart, Big W (in Australia), probably B&N).

And I wasn't talking about loss leading. I was talking about the publishers supporting the big B&M book sellers while helping to kill off the independents. Then helping Amazon while helping to kill off the big B&M sellers.

Now that the big B&M sellers are dead or on the ropes, the publishers are looking for the next iteration of the strategy that has worked so well for them in the past, and are finding...nothing...

So, they have to live with Amazon.

And that's the karma.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I not only do not want to support the big publishing houses, I want them to fail if their business model includes perpetual control of the Intellectual property of their respective authors.

In order for the long-term control of intellectual property to become a big issue for an author, he or she needs to have been quite unusual in terms of short term success. Not all of those authors are affluent, but, by and large, they don't need our sympathy.

Also, if terms are more favorable to the author in long-term control of copyright rights, they will be less favorable in others. I think if you look at the publishers who have intellectual property terms more to your liking, you will find that they pay low -- or no -- advances. This represents a shifting of the risk the book will fail from the publisher to the author. That isn't positive to authors.

But, being a reader and not an author, my main reason for cheering on big publishers is that they make books better. Right now I am reading an oral history book, published by Cambridge University Press, on the dramatic story of the people of Quemoy Island, whose lives were forever changed when invaded by the mainland Chinese in 1949 and subject to a near-totalitarian military occupation:

http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Islan.../dp/0521726409

I expect to finish it because of the subject matter, but I don't think I have ever found a big five history title this turgid.

The author thanks his academic publisher for pushing him to stress the larger significance of the story. In actuality, this approach nearly ruins the book, with vague summary sentences invoking geopolitical significance on almost every page. The word geopolitical must appear hundreds of times, sometimes more than once in a sentence. This is the kind of story-telling interruption that an insistent Random House Penguin editor would almost surely have prevented.

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In order for the long-term control of intellectual property to become a big issue for an author, he or she needs to have been quite unusual in terms of short term success. Not all of those authors are affluent, but, by and large, they don't need our sympathy.

While there may be instances where this is true, there are many cases where the publisher's firm grasp of the copyrights is preventing non-major authors from being able to publish ebooks of their backlist, seeing how the publisher is uninterested in doing so.

This is directly harming the authors involved. While they may not mind if the publisher publishes the ebooks, by not publishing the ebooks, and preventing the author from doing so, the publisher is harming the authors.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But, being a reader and not an author, my main reason for cheering on big publishers is that they make books better.

While many people do complain about the publishers, I find that very few don't acknowledge the value that the publishers bring to the table, when the publishers actually provide those services.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In order for the long-term control of intellectual property to become a big issue for an author, he or she needs to have been quite unusual in terms of short term success. Not all of those authors are affluent, but, by and large, they don't need our sympathy.

Steve. Perhaps I have not properly grasped your point, but I fail to see how long term control of intellectual property should not be a huge issue for any author. Anecdotally, there are many authors who have negotiated the reversion of the rights to their own "backlist" titles who are now making good money from them through Amazon or like services. JA Konrath is a good example. Now that there is no need for a book to ever be "out of print", long-term intellectual property rights are even more important. I think the large publishers have now realised this, and I suspect that authors seeking reversions of their rights in the future will be finding it difficult or impossible to be accommodated.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Also, if terms are more favorable to the author in long-term control of copyright rights, they will be less favorable in others. I think if you look at the publishers who have intellectual property terms more to your liking, you will find that they pay low -- or no -- advances. This represents a shifting of the risk the book will fail from the publisher to the author. That isn't positive to authors.

To me the system of advances seems to be something which has operated to the benefit of the publishers at the expense of the authors, except of course for those few "blockbuster" authors. Publishers seem to make a lot of money in that margin between a book becoming profitable and the book earning-out. I suspect that few advances give real value to an author for the almost total loss of their rights which is usually involved.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But, being a reader and not an author, my main reason for cheering on big publishers is that they make books better. Right now I am reading an oral history book, published by Cambridge University Press, on the dramatic story of the people of Quemoy Island, whose lives were forever changed when invaded by the mainland Chinese in 1949 and subject to a near-totalitarian military occupation:

http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Islan.../dp/0521726409

I expect to finish it because of the subject matter, but I don't think I have ever found a big five history title this turgid.

The author thanks his academic publisher for pushing him to stress the larger significance of the story. In actuality, this approach nearly ruins the book, with vague summary sentences invoking geopolitical significance on almost every page. The word geopolitical must appear hundreds of times, sometimes more than once in a sentence. This is the kind of story-telling interruption that an insistent Random House Penguin editor would almost surely have prevented.

I suspect very few people doubt the value of a good, experienced editor. And the large publishers have some very good ones. But there are also very good freelance editors. And, of course, the large publishers are not without their own mediocre or even terrible editors.

Your statement above is little more than speculation that an editor employed by a Big Publishing house would have done a better job than the one employed by the particular academic publishing house. If this is the case, then no doubt a good freelance editor would also have done a better job.

The large publishers do in many cases provide services which often lead to a better book. However, these services come at enormous cost, generally far in excess of their value. The only authors who really come out ahead are the ones who sell so few of their books that the cost of even these services is not recouped, or, of course, the "blockbuster" writers. All other authors would be far better paying for these services themselves.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Phogg

... I want them to fail if their business model includes perpetual control of the Intellecrtual property of their respective authors.
.

Which it is.
But I have to tell you that they aren't going to fail. Their frontlist market share will erode over time but as long as new authors keep signing with them they will have enough new content to combine with the eternal backlist to stay in business as they steadily downsize into IP asset management companies.

Macmillan's new stated policy of putting their midlister backlist on subscriptions services guarantees they'll never revert any titles. Individually each title will likely deliver very small revenue in that hands-off promotion-free environment but since it will cost them nothing to generate those trickles it will be pure profit.

Think of their new model as a stock portfolio where the established name authors' "bestsellers" are Wall Street stocks and the midlisters' books are penny stock. The big boys books will stay on sale at bookstores forever and rarely if ever show up on subscription sites except maybe on rotation while the "penny stock" titles get dumped onto the subscription sites. Think of it as their "solution" to the tsunami of swell issue. It kills two birds with a stone: it keeps the backlist titles generating profits (and in their grasp) forever and keeps them from "crowding out" the frontlist.

The next step in what Sargent describes is still a few years off but the next logical move is to pull the midlist backlist from ebookstores once Scribd/Oyster/whatever take off and can guarantee enough revenue to satisfy the reversion clauses. At that point the ebook business will look a lot like the TV business, where current season shows are sold on iTunes, XBOX, Prime, etc and carried on Hulu plus but once the new season ends they show up on Netflix and DVD sets.

It is a clever model that should keep the corporate publishers afloat indefinitely.

Or as long as they find dreamers willing to sign their contracts.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

Anecdotally, there are many authors who have negotiated the reversion of the rights to their own "backlist" titles who are now making good money from them through Amazon or like services.

Plenty of indie authors are making good incomes off reverted tradpub titles and "plenty" isn't dozens, it is thousands. And many many more are making modest sums off titles that generated nothing, which is still a heck of a lot better than zero.

One thing to keep in mind is that most corporate publishing contracts come with "deep discount" clauses that pay minimal-to-zero royalties on books sold at fractions of the list price. Originally meant to cover sales of remaindered pbooks it has more recently been applied to pbook sales through Costco, B&N, and Amazon and even more recently, to ebooks on promo sales.

It is no secret thst the current per-read payouts at Scribd and Oyster are non-sustainable over the long haul but if the titles are bought under deep discount contract terms they could them at 30-40% of list or lower, which *would* be viable for them and still deliver substantial returns for the publisher. The authors? 25% of net... off a $3 net? That would be about $0.75.

Hey, they signed the contract.
Besides, that is in line with traditional mmpb payouts anyway.

http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2014/1...ou-should.html

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

Your statement above is little more than speculation that an editor employed by a Big Publishing house would have done a better job than the one employed by the particular academic publishing house.

When it comes to what makes for a great book, it will indeed always be a matter of opinion. But, while unproven, I think there's lots of evidence, found in any big library, that Random House titles are typically better written than narratives on the same topic from top academic publishers.

Originally Posted by darryl

If this is the case, then no doubt a good freelance editor would also have done a better job.

I find considerable doubt. The big publisher editor has power to insist on changes because the author is under contract. While authors takes a financial hit when refusing structural edits, regardless of what type of editor is being dissed, the publishing company editor has more power.

There may be titles where the big publisher editor used his or her greater power to ruin a potential classic. But most I'm seeing go the other way.

I realize that my evidence, such as it is, focuses on narrative nonfiction. I'm less sure that there's the same dynamic with fiction.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

When it comes to what makes for a great book, it will indeed always be a matter of opinion. But, while unproven, I think there's lots of evidence, found in any big library, that Random House titles are typically better written than narratives on the same topic from top academic publishers.



I find considerable doubt. The big publisher editor has power to insist on changes because the author is under contract. While authors takes a financial hit when refusing structural edits, regardless of what type of editor is being dissed, the publishing company editor has more power.

There may be titles where the big publisher editor used his or her greater power to ruin a potential classic. But most I'm seeing go the other way.

I realize that my evidence, such as it is, focuses on narrative nonfiction. I'm less sure that there's the same dynamic with fiction.

I think that Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books are the poster child for what happens when the editorial loop gets short circuited. The first book is one of the better books that I've read, fast paced and interesting. I suspect that it is not a coincidence that the quality of the books started to go downhill after Jordan married his editor. (note, I know that Jordan isn't his real name, I use it because that's the name most will recognize).

It's really not all that unusual to see the quality of work of some very, very talented people go downhill once they have more editorial say.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's really not all that unusual to see the quality of work of some very, very talented people go downhill once they have more editorial say.

Or rather they are not all that talented to begin with and only create a good book with the help of an editor. Is that not called "Tom Clancy desease"? I do not understand what the fuss is about there - I rather would have liked if the heavily edited books in the beginning would have been left with greater freedom for Tom Clancy to write as he did in the end. But it has to appeal to the masses, otherwise it is a useless book for the publisher, right? The publishers are not interested in creating good books, only interested in books that will sell to the most possible readers at the highest possible cost.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The publishers are not interested in creating good books, only interested in books that will sell to the most possible readers at the highest possible cost.

Actually, that's 'highest possible price'.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Or rather they are not all that talented to begin with and only create a good book with the help of an editor. Is that not called "Tom Clancy desease"? I do not understand what the fuss is about there - I rather would have liked if the heavily edited books in the beginning would have been left with greater freedom for Tom Clancy to write as he did in the end. But it has to appeal to the masses, otherwise it is a useless book for the publisher, right? The publishers are not interested in creating good books, only interested in books that will sell to the most possible readers at the highest possible cost.

For the most part, good books are popular. I thought that Clancy's early books were much better than his later books, even if we are just talking about the ones that he actually wrote rather than "co-wrote". IMPO, The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were two of his better books.

It's interesting to read what some writers say about the back and forth with their editor. There is a lot more of it than many here are willing to acknowledge. Heck, even writers such as Larry Correia and Michael J. Sullivan, both of whom made their start as independents, talk about how much their writing is improved by having an editor. I know it doesn't fit the narrative, but creative writing involves a lot of write, edit, re-write, re-edit.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by murg

Actually, that's 'highest possible price'.

Yes, I meant highest cost to the customer. For ebooks the money that the publisher gets into their pocket per sale is lower in agency than it was in wholesale, even though the books got more expensive for the reader. Lose-lose for end-customer and publisher. The only one that benefits financially is the ebook store that is forced to make a profit when they could have discounted before.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

For the most part, good books are popular. I thought that Clancy's early books were much better than his later books, even if we are just talking about the ones that he actually wrote rather than "co-wrote". IMPO, The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were two of his better books.

It's interesting to read what some writers say about the back and forth with their editor. There is a lot more of it than many here are willing to acknowledge. Heck, even writers such as Larry Correia and Michael J. Sullivan, both of whom made their start as independents, talk about how much their writing is improved by having an editor. I know it doesn't fit the narrative, but creative writing involves a lot of write, edit, re-write, re-edit.

That depends on how you define popular - there certainly can be very obscure sub-genres that a traditional publisher won't even consider. For a very small percentage of all readers that read that particular sub-genre, it can be a popular book even if it is not mainstream popular.

And I agree, an editor with enough power over the writer changes how the book reads like. And if that is how the writer is supposed to feel like, then please don't allow them ever to have too much freedom later on.

As for Tom Clancy, I am not sure if The Bear And The Dragon counts as a book he wrote all himself (no co-writing) and more freedom from editing, but that is a very nice book as well, IMPO. The ones with Jack Ryan, Jr. I have not read yet - those would be the ones he didn't write alone, right?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

For the most part, good books are popular. I thought that Clancy's early books were much better than his later books, even if we are just talking about the ones that he actually wrote rather than "co-wrote". IMPO, The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were two of his better books.

It's interesting to read what some writers say about the back and forth with their editor. There is a lot more of it than many here are willing to acknowledge. Heck, even writers such as Larry Correia and Michael J. Sullivan, both of whom made their start as independents, talk about how much their writing is improved by having an editor. I know it doesn't fit the narrative, but creative writing involves a lot of write, edit, re-write, re-edit.

It seems to be mostly common ground in this discussion that editors are a good thing. But the large publishers do not have a monopoly on editors nor on all of the good editors. Authors need not sign-away their rights almost in perpetuity to have their work edited.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

It seems to be mostly common ground in this discussion that editors are a good thing. But the large publishers do not have a monopoly on editors nor on all of the good editors. Authors need not sign-away their rights almost in perpetuity to have their work edited.

Generally, authors need not sign-away their right at all, certainly not in perpetuity. A lot of the issue with the ebook rights to the older books is a combination of ambiguity in the contracts and the lack of return for converting the older books, most of whom don't exist in electronic form and lack of interest in actually doing so.