Night Shade Books (on the ropes)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by gbm

25% of "net" is not what I would call a better deal. "Net" is whatever the accounting dept says is "net".

Now if that was 25% of retail for ebooks then it would be better.

bernie

The Digital Reader Blog has a detailed look at who those folk are:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...es-a-full-wtf/

I dunno but something really smells. Anytime Author Solutions pops up in report, I think of Hydra and the Start guys have a cozy history with them.

[gbm]

Originally Posted by gbm

25% of "net" is not what I would call a better deal. "Net" is whatever the accounting dept says is "net".

Now if that was 25% of retail for ebooks then it would be better.

bernie

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Digital Reader Blog has a detailed look at who those folk are:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...es-a-full-wtf/

I dunno but something really smells. Anytime Author Solutions pops up in report, I think of Hydra and the Start guys have a cozy history with them.

This is still the best explanation of "net" IE "Hollywood Accounting" that I have ever read.

Hollywood accounting is not limited to movies. An example is the Warner Bros. television series Babylon 5 created by J. Michael Straczynski. Straczynski, who wrote 90% of the episodes in addition to producing the show, would receive a generous cut of profits if not for Hollywood accounting. The series, which was profitable in each of its five seasons from 1993–1998, has garnered more than US$1 billion for Warner Bros., most recently US$500 million in DVD sales alone. But in the last profit statement given to Straczynski, Warner Bros. claimed the property was $80 million in debt. "Basically," says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."

bernie

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gbm

25% of "net" is not what I would call a better deal. "Net" is whatever the accounting dept says is "net".

Now if that was 25% of retail for ebooks then it would be better.

"Net receipts" (which is what's on offer) is not the same as "net profits." Net receipts should mean, whatever they get from the seller, the author gets 25%. So if the book sells for $10, and Amazon takes $3.50, publisher receives $6.50 and author gets $1.625.

If Amazon's running a sale and the book is $5 this week, author gets a bit more than 80 cents. Possibly lower than the author would like, but an understandable split of intake. No weird Hollywood accounting; the percentage is just calculated from "what the publisher receives" not "what the publisher put on the pricetag."

Net profits is the warning label. (Or "net," with no mention of what kind of net.) That's where the publisher gets $6.50 per book from Amazon, calculates the $1.625 for the author... and then subtracts the cost of the cover art, the cost of creating banner ads (whether or not they run the ads anywhere, much less any profits they bring in), the cost of the editor's time, the cost of accounting required to keep track of the sales... as soon as the author's share has grown big enough to cover all of those, the author starts earning royalties.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

"Net receipts" (which is what's on offer) is not the same as "net profits." Net receipts should mean, whatever they get from the seller, the author gets 25%. So if the book sells for $10, and Amazon takes $3.50, publisher receives $6.50 and author gets $1.625.

If Amazon's running a sale and the book is $5 this week, author gets a bit more than 80 cents. Possibly lower than the author would like, but an understandable split of intake. No weird Hollywood accounting; the percentage is just calculated from "what the publisher receives" not "what the publisher put on the pricetag."

Net profits is the warning label. (Or "net," with no mention of what kind of net.) That's where the publisher gets $6.50 per book from Amazon, calculates the $1.625 for the author... and then subtracts the cost of the cover art, the cost of creating banner ads (whether or not they run the ads anywhere, much less any profits they bring in), the cost of the editor's time, the cost of accounting required to keep track of the sales... as soon as the author's share has grown big enough to cover all of those, the author starts earning royalties.

The problem with "net receipts" as Harlequin authors have found is that they form company "B" and sell books to them for 80 cents and company "B" sells them for the normal $10. They only have to pay royalties on net receipts of 80 cents a book.

Greg

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gweeks

The problem with "net receipts" as Harlequin authors have found is that they form company "B" and sell books to them for 80 cents and company "B" sells them for the normal $10. They only have to pay royalties on net receipts of 80 cents a book.

Greg

Yes, well... yeah, an author would need very clear language about what counts as the source for the net receipts, and I doubt the current contracts have that. But the concept of payments based on net receipts isn't inherently exploitative.