Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
At this point the (emerging) debate (in the UK and elsewhere) isn't about book prices but about treatment of tradpub authors. Consumers have advocates and allies but in many cases the people who should be watching out for authors' interests have been acting to their detriment.
The entire publishing industry has been obsessed with reader spend for five years now and has done nothing as money flows everywhere *except* to the authors, often on purpose. (When RH had their big windfall a couple years back and dished out bonuses to everybody from the CEO to the janitorial crew, the author didn't even get a mention. Reading the self-congratulatory letter it appears as if the books that generated the windfall came from the CEO and not an author.)
People are finally noticing the tiny (and declining) advances, the obscure and delayed reporting, the onerous clauses and increased demands... And above all, the low royalties.
There is nothing new in the SOCIETY OF AUTHORS statements nor in the report that triggered it; it is all well-trod ground for anybody who has been paying attention to the emergence of indie publishing. Instead of pondering whether a book is well priced, how about pondering why a publisher needs a lifetime of copyright control of an authors work, or why as much as two thirds of a book's price goes to people who neither wrote it nor sell it.
People who say they don't mind high prices because they want to encourage the author to keep writing ought to take a closer look at where their money goes because 87% of their money goes anywhere except the author and in many cases paypal-ing the author a dollar or a pound would do more for them than buying their book.
I'm reminded of the scene in Dark Knight Rises:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3CLc0IGstk
There truly is a storm coming. |
Rather obviously, rather than take an advocacy fluff piece as the gospel, one should do a bit more research to get a clearer picture.
I think that many here are under a fundamental misunderstanding. Publishers make money by picking books that people want to read, helping the author to polish the book, then making sure that people know about the book. They have set expenses per book published, regardless of if the book sells a thousand or a million. The figure that I read was $50K.
By focusing exclusively on the first time hits, while ignoring the misses and established best sellers, everyone thinks that the publishers are screwing over the authors. Sure, first time authors who have a hit don't see a big percentage. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that successful authors are able to negotiate better contracts. Obviously, authors who get a big advance and then flop make out like bandits. Rather obviously, authors like Tom Clancy, JK Rowlings, Robert Jordan and the like, made a lot less on their first big hit, than they did on subsequent books. Tom Clancy published "Hunt for Red October" with a small specialized publishing firm (The Naval Institute Press) for $5000. His next Jack Ryan book, was published by Putnam most likely for considerably more than $5000.
As a whole, the publishing is middle of the pack profitable, compared to other S&P 500 companies, and that is before depreciation! Actual profits are somewhat lower.
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...actually-make/
Ultimately, if an author thinks they are being shorted by the publisher, then either find another publisher or just self publish! No one is putting a gun to their head. I suspect that many authors would find doing so quite a revelation. They may find that putting out a book every couple of years that wins awards and praise in the literary world, but doesn't sell many books, doesn't put nearly as much money in their pocket as they think it should.