Schism: the growing gulf between publishers and authors

[fjtorres]

From Teleread, a summary of an ongoing exchange between the Kensington Publishing CEO and a variety of authors that highlights the growing divergence in world view between tradpub-supporters and authors.

http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/discu...s-and-writers/

An interesting thing happened a few days ago. An author posted the details of her publishing contract, including exactly how much (or more aptly, I gather, how little) she was making from her traditionally-published book. She was forced to take it down for “contract disclosure reasons” shortly afterward, and it had already expired from Google’s cache by the time I went looking for it, so I don’t know the specifics.

When Passive Guy at The Passive Voice linked said article, the discussion became the most active he’d ever seen on his blog—298 comments at this point, and probably more by the time you read this. Part of this is probably because Steven Zacharius, CEO of Kensington Books, started commenting and engaging with authors in the discussion. (He had previously written a column on Huffington Post about “the myth and the reality” of self-publishing advising writers not to quit their day job yet; self-publishing writer Laura Kaye responded and a link in the comments led him to Passive Voice.) And from the way the discussion went, as well as the one on Kaye’s blog, it’s pretty clear that traditional publishing house execs and house-published/self-publishing authors have some way to go yet before they see eye to eye—if indeed they ever will.

Traditional publishers and midlist authors have very different value systems and expectations and the changing economics of modern publishing are exposing the previously hidden stresses.

"Interesting" times are upon us.

(Lots more at the sources, approaching novella length.)

[Nicolas Wilson]

I just saw that last night. It's an interesting discussion. One of the links in there, about the expectation of editorial feedback, was interesting too. I've been meaning to look at the other links in it in detail.

[latepaul]

I've read about this case from various links to other stories. I have to wonder if this is a "growing gulf" or simply that the existing gulf is coming out into the open.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I've read about this case from various links to other stories. I have to wonder if this is a "growing gulf" or simply that the existing gulf is coming out into the open.

It's probably always been there. When people have more options, they tend to no longer find acceptable what they previously had. After the black death, labor became more expensive. This shifted power to the peasants, and led to a great deal of unrest. The tensions were already there, but once the peasants had more leverage, they were less inclined to accept the old relationship they had with the nobility.

[morriss003]

The traditional publishing model is broken, but that doesn't mean there will be a quick end to the publishing houses, only that a new model will slowly develop. I would not be surprised if publishing houses and self publishing did some kind of merge.

[crossi]

The publishers should offer services on a a la carte basis. You want editing you pay so much per hour. You want a cover they have artists on commision. You want help with legal matters they have lawyers available. You pay up front for the services you want. No different than hiring a contractor to improve your house. You pay them and ownership of house or book stays yours. instead of only offering services to a select few they could expand their business to provide services to as many authors that are willing to pay. They might need to hire many times their current number of employees.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I've read about this case from various links to other stories. I have to wonder if this is a "growing gulf" or simply that the existing gulf is coming out into the open.

It has alwsys existed but in recent years as the economic pressure has increased on the publishers they have responded by squeezing the authors with rights grabs, non-compete clauses, Hollywood accounting, self-dealing... and authors are starting to realize they no longer have to take it. So they are talking. And the more authors talk, the more authors realize that getting blacklisted by the publishers is no longer the end of the world. There is life in publishing outside manhattan.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by crossi

The publishers should offer services on a a la carte basis. You want editing you pay so much per hour. You want a cover they have artists on commision. You want help with legal matters they have lawyers available. You pay up front for the services you want. No different than hiring a contractor to improve your house. You pay them and ownership of house or book stays yours. instead of only offering services to a select few they could expand their business to provide services to as many authors that are willing to pay. They might need to hire many times their current number of employees.

Well now that right there is a non-starter. They have downsized to the bare minimum to increase their profits and stock price by slashing salaries & benefits. They are not interested in going back to having a large staff in-house to do all of these things. And if they can't have complete control & ownership of the book, which gives THEM money/control for 35 years rather than the author, then why bother.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

They are not interested in going back to having a large staff in-house to do all of these things. And if they can't have complete control & ownership of the book, which gives THEM money/control for 35 years rather than the author, then why bother.

Conversely, if going with a traditional publisher contract doesn't guarantee a print edition, or meaningful marketting, or quality representative covers, or collaborative editing, or enough upfront cash to justify the risk of not getting any meaningful support, why would the author bother?

Check this one:
http://studiotendra.com/2014/01/23/e...except-except/

What would a fair contract look like?

Fixed term, for five to seven years. If you want more, you can renew the contract for another five to seven years once the first term is up. Or, you can just pay for the privilege of a longer term. Up front.
Absolutely no non-compete clauses. If you don’t want a writer to publish other writing elsewhere, pay them enough money so they don’t feel the need to. If you can’t afford to pay that much then you have no right to complain let alone to demand non-competition.
No options or rights of first refusal. Stand or fall based on your standard of work and the strength of your relationship to the author.
The copyright always, always, stays with the author.
Both parties should have the right to unilaterally end the contract and all of the obligations it entails should there be a major change in the circumstances of the other party. E.g. the publisher should be able to end the contract if the writer is sectioned or jailed. The author should be able to end the contract if the publisher gets sold or declared bankrupt.
(The bankruptcy bit is a bit complex, admittedly, but having language in the contract that covers the scenario is always going to help the author more than harm.)
A fair publishing contract is one between peers, where the rights of the two parties are in balance.
Even if the naysayers are right and self-published titles are always objectively worse than traditionally published titles, at least with a self-publisher you can count on the publisher treating the author with respect.

Hard to see any of the glass tower manhattan mafia agreeing to those kinds of contractual terms when their expressed preferences run more towards the RandomHouse Hydra contracts.

http://www.sfwa.org/2013/02/second-c...hydra-imprint/

I recently saw the deal terms for Random House's Hydra imprint. A summary:

- It's a life-of-copyright contract that includes both primary and subsidiary rights.

- There's no advance. Net proceeds (defined as net income plus subrights income less the deductions detailed below) are split 50/50 between author and publisher.

- Deductions for ebook edition: "one-time out of pocket title set up costs" (editing, cover art, design, etc.), plus a "sales, marketing, and publicity fee" of 10% of net sales revenue.

- Deductions for print edition, if there is one: "actual direct out-of-pocket paper, printing and binding costs," plus 6% of gross sales revenue to cover freight and warehousing costs.

Note that authors are not being asked to pay any costs upfront (despite that scary "out of pocket" term). Hydra "advances" those.

However, the costs are deducted from sales and licensing income, and reduce the amount of the author-publisher split. This is reminiscent of what's known as Hollywood accounting, where net proceeds are made to disappear by charging expenses against profit. Authors going into a deal like this can't be certain of what they will earn on a per-book basis--while the publisher is assured that its expenses will be recouped at the point of sale.

They (slightly) changed the terms later, under a netstorm of criticism, but that they went live with them to start with illustrates the mindset that thinks such terms would be "fair".

That is a pretty broad divide right there.

[supermighty]

Originally Posted by morriss003

The traditional publishing model is broken, but that doesn't mean there will be a quick end to the publishing houses, only that a new model will slowly develop. I would not be surprised if publishing houses and self publishing did some kind of merge.

This is amazing. If I were a traditional publisher I would embrace self publishing. You would be able to foster relationships with authors. Those who self publish can use a web-based self services system to sell through an imprint, but they get most of the profit. And when their books start to sell well, or an editor notices a good quality self published book, you can elevate the author to the next level. Something beyond self services.

It's like having a farm team from which to pick players for the Majors. It's all about building relationships.

[charmian]

I wonder if this growing schism might be impacted by the decline of shelf space in bookstores (http://www.idealog.com/blog/future-b...re-publishing/), and whether authors are more inclined to protest in the genres where a majority of the sales are online? The 75-25 niches that Shatzkin mentions. However, it's hard to measure the shelf-space, whether it is changing, and how fast this may be happening.

I suppose we'll find this out if we see B&N attempting to strong-arm publishers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by charmian

I wonder if this growing schism might be impacted by the decline of shelf space in bookstores (http://www.idealog.com/blog/future-b...re-publishing/), and whether authors are more inclined to protest in the genres where a majority of the sales are online? The 75-25 niches that Shatzkin mentions. However, it's hard to measure the shelf-space, whether it is changing, and how fast this may be happening.

I suppose we'll find this out if we see B&N attempting to strong-arm publishers.

You are right on both counts; there already has neen a massive reduction in US shelf space from the peak around the turn of the century. (I vaguely remember seeing something like 50% from the Borders and B&N closures plus reduction in B&N shelf space in the ones staying open.)
And B&N already went to war with S&S over their "pay to stock" terms. It lasted almost a year and many authors had their sales depressed because of it.

Here's one report on how nasty it got:
http://williamkentkrueger.com/blog/?...ce=twitterfeed

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by charmian

I suppose we'll find this out if we see B&N attempting to strong-arm publishers.

Oh goody.

An arm wrestling contest where both contestants have wet noodle arms.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Oh goody.

An arm wrestling contest where both contestants have wet noodle arms.

They're weak, but they have stamina!
The match lasted something like 10 months.

[fjtorres]

Btw, here's further evidence of the increasing divergence:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygr...ok-publishing/

We are headed for more mergers and acquisitions and divestments as the publishers of old die, grow, or mutate.

As the way people consume media changes, book publishers are realizing they are content creation and rights management companies and not just book publishers. Many of them are now playing in the app market, educational technology market and other areas they likely wouldn’t have dreamed of a decade ago. To that end, book publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt recently capitalized by going public in November. The company is seen as more of an educational company and less as a book publisher by Wall Street. In fact, one-time trade publisher Wiley has almost completely transformed itself into an education and technology company partially through a series of divestments and acquisitions.

In 2012, there was a mini-wave of consolidation among book publishing technology vendors. It was only a preview of what was to come — and what is still to come.

A lot of publishers are finding there is more value in owning the copyrights to stories and franchises than in licensing somebody else's to print and sell.
For example, Philip K. Dick never made much money off his stories while alive but Hollywood has made millions upon millions adapting his works long afterwards. Which is why publishers hoard rights and try to avoid reversion like the plague. A story might only sell afew thousand books but if it catches the eye of a Lifetime producer...
Another example is VAMPIRE DIARIES. Or for that matter, HARRY POTTER. The books make good money, but the movies...!

Right now, as far as the BPHs are concerned, publishing new books is the least profitable of their efforts. The real money is exploiting the copyrights they own.