Write-in campaign claims that no readers were harmed by the agency model

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Konrath and Eisler deal blow by blow with Turow's ramblings.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com.au/201...ott-turow.html

Authors that have milked the current system for all it is worth would certainly be loyal to the publishing companies they are affiliated with.

Clay Shirkey covered that: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem for which they are the solution." Any organization, including "author" organizations, that was created to fix a problem and has *also* managed to create career opportunities, money, or social esteem, will fight to keep the problem around.

Author guilds were created to advocate for authors when publishers were being problematic at them, and to speak to the media on behalf of authors, and investigate and lobby for better business laws.

Authors no longer need publishers at all... they can self-pub. (For some authors, a publisher is either the preferred or outright better choice--but it's no longer the only choice.) Authors can talk to the media themselves, or bypass "the media" altogether and have a blog where they talk to their fannish public. They can still use legal advocacy, but that, too, is available without a large organization these days; they can do basic legal research online and seek specific help more nimbly themselves than through a large organization.

It's not that they no longer need guilds, but the focus and purpose of those guilds is under threat of drastic change, just like every other aspect of the big publishing supply chains.

[sabredog]

Excellent link, thanks.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Clay Shirkey covered that: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem for which they are the solution." Any organization, including "author" organizations, that was created to fix a problem and has *also* managed to create career opportunities, money, or social esteem, will fight to keep the problem around.

Author guilds were created to advocate for authors when publishers were being problematic at them, and to speak to the media on behalf of authors, and investigate and lobby for better business laws.

Authors no longer need publishers at all... they can self-pub. (For some authors, a publisher is either the preferred or outright better choice--but it's no longer the only choice.) Authors can talk to the media themselves, or bypass "the media" altogether and have a blog where they talk to their fannish public. They can still use legal advocacy, but that, too, is available without a large organization these days; they can do basic legal research online and seek specific help more nimbly themselves than through a large organization.

It's not that they no longer need guilds, but the focus and purpose of those guilds is under threat of drastic change, just like every other aspect of the big publishing supply chains.

Excellent!

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Clay Shirkey covered that: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem for which they are the solution." Any organization, including "author" organizations, that was created to fix a problem and has *also* managed to create career opportunities, money, or social esteem, will fight to keep the problem around.

Author guilds were created to advocate for authors when publishers were being problematic at them, and to speak to the media on behalf of authors, and investigate and lobby for better business laws.

Authors no longer need publishers at all... they can self-pub. (For some authors, a publisher is either the preferred or outright better choice--but it's no longer the only choice.) Authors can talk to the media themselves, or bypass "the media" altogether and have a blog where they talk to their fannish public. They can still use legal advocacy, but that, too, is available without a large organization these days; they can do basic legal research online and seek specific help more nimbly themselves than through a large organization.

It's not that they no longer need guilds, but the focus and purpose of those guilds is under threat of drastic change, just like every other aspect of the big publishing supply chains.

FIrst of all, Mr. Shirkey is simply wrong in suggesting that publishers are somehow obsolete already, but let that pass.IMO, authors certainly need and will benefit from an organization that advocates on their behalf and through whom they can take collective action . THE INTERNET!!! did not abolish the need for such an organization.

Your problem is that you disagree his analysis on agency pricing and Amazon. That's different. Focus on that.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

FIrst of all, Mr. Shirkey is simply wrong in suggesting that publishers are somehow obsolete already,

They're not obsolete, but what they have to offer authors as opposed with what authors can easily arrange for themselves has drastically changed. Many publishers' reactions seem to be "let's either make those things less easy for authors to get on their own, or downplay their value" rather than "let's figure out what we bring that's valuable."

but let that pass.IMO, authors certainly need and will benefit from an organization that advocates on their behalf and through whom they can take collective action . THE INTERNET!!! did not abolish the need for such an organization.

Your problem is that you disagree his analysis on agency pricing and Amazon. That's different. Focus on that.

The internet didn't abolish the need for author organizations, but it changed how they'll be effective. Guilds that are fighting to hold on to system that made them necessary, rather than fighting to advocate for the needs of their members in the face of new technology, are fighting to sustain problems, not fix them.

What authors need now? IP lawyers to check their contracts. Bookkeeping specialists who can tell them how to manage accounts at several different vendors and how to cope with paying for many specialized contractors. Business analysts to help them sort out pricing options. Marketing experts to tell them which trends are hot and which ones are fading. Social Media experts to tell them the best places & methods to promote their careers. They can no longer count on traditional agencies or publishers to support them in those areas.

What authors *don't* need now is an organization that puts them in touch with agents & publishers in other countries; they have Facebook for that. They don't need an organization that tells them they should be happy with 3% royalty payments because they're getting so many readers. (Funny, when the darknet people say that readers are more important than payments, that's supposedly a bad thing. When heads of literary agencies say it, it's being supportive of authors' careers.) They don't need "bestseller lists" that ignore anything not printed by the truckload so they fail to notice what's *actually* selling best.

There's plenty of room for individuals & organizations to have careers supporting authors--but they need to be supporting author's in today's world, not in the business world of twenty years ago.

[stonetools]

What authors *don't* need now is an organization that puts them in touch with agents & publishers in other countries; they have Facebook for that. They don't need an organization that tells them they should be happy with 3% royalty payments because they're getting so many readers. (Funny, when the darknet people say that readers are more important than payments, that's supposedly a bad thing. When heads of literary agencies say it, it's being supportive of authors' careers.) They don't need "bestseller lists" that ignore anything not printed by the truckload so they fail to notice what's *actually* selling best.

There's plenty of room for individuals & organizations to have careers supporting authors--but they need to be supporting author's in today's world, not

That's some list of straw men you have there. What does the Author's Guild have to do with any of that? Scott Turow's "crime" on this forum is that hesides with the publishers in seeing Amazon regain monopsonistic control of ebook market as a threat. He is right to do so, IMO. With Amazon in control, everyone upstream of Amazon will have to negotiate with a buyer of their product that can say, "Either you sell to me on my terms or you get locked out of 80-90 per cent of the market."
Well, authors are upstream of Amazon and they will feel the squeeze just the same, whether they are BPH authors or those plucky little independents you like so much. Those indies are even more at Amazon's mercy than the BPH authors, since Amazon can bury their rankings with a mere nudge of their ranking algorithms.
IMO, Scott Thurow (who is not merely the head of the Author's Guild but an attorney), knows a lot more about the cold , hard reality of business negotiations than folks here are so enamored of the wonderful possibilities of THE INTERNETT!!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

That's some list of straw men you have there. What does the Author's Guild have to do with any of that?

Author's guild, nothing specifically. However, their support doesn't seem to be for "authors" but for "authors who do business the way we like it." Where's the author's guild support for authors getting 2.4% of list price royalties from Harlequin? Where's their support for authors not willing to sign with any of the rights-grabbing large publishers?

Scott Turow's "crime" on this forum is that hesides with the publishers in seeing Amazon regain monopsonistic control of ebook market as a threat. He is right to do so, IMO. With Amazon in control, everyone upstream of Amazon will have to negotiate with a buyer of their product that can say, "Either you sell to me on my terms or you get locked out of 80-90 per cent of the market."

Yes... so where's the support for other stores, rather than support for the suppliers? If publishers don't like Amazon's approach to business, they can support other stores whose approaches they do like.

I don't see how "single pricing method" translates to "support for diversity in the marketplace."

IMO, Scott Thurow (who is not merely the head of the Author's Guild but an attorney), knows a lot more about the cold , hard reality of business negotiations than folks here are so enamored of the wonderful possibilities of THE INTERNETT!!

Turow said that "Amazon was using e-book discounting to destroy bookselling" -- by which he apparently meant "selling physical books," because the number of books being sold at all has skyrocketed since Amazon got into the ebook game. Like Eisler, I'm fascinated at how Amazon can "destroy" bookselling by selling millions of books.

Turow seems to think that Amazon--a store, which sells books--is somehow more dangerous to authors than the publishers who threaten, lie to, and play creative accounting games to scam authors out of royalties.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Turow said that "Amazon was using e-book discounting to destroy the old way of bookselling" -- by which he apparently meant "selling physical books," because the number of books being sold at all has skyrocketed since Amazon got into the ebook game. Like Eisler, I'm fascinated at how Amazon can "destroy" bookselling by selling millions of books.

Turow is siding with the BPH's for a single reason. He is terrified about what his book sales will be as book production moves further into digital format. Having made his living for so long supporting those who paid his income, it is quite easy to see why the mere thought of change does terrify him. Just because he is president of the Authors Guild does not mean the majority of that guilds membership support his stance.

The BPH's and their supporters love to blame Amazon as it is convenient to do so. After all they do not blame themselves for their inability to change.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sabredog

The BPH's and their supporters love to blame Amazon as it is convenient to do so. After all they do not blame themselves for their inability to change.

And of course, they don't blame the millions of people who find Amazon more convenient and less expensive. Nor the complex and wasteful distributor-retailer chain that *makes* Amazon more convenient and less expensive. It's all Amazon's fault for having a different (and more successful) business model, not their fault for failing to spot the holes in their own model.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Turow is siding with the BPH's for a single reason. He is terrified about what his book sales will be as book production moves further into digital format. Having made his living for so long supporting those who paid his income, it is quite easy to see why the mere thought of change does terrify him. Just because he is president of the Authors Guild does not mean the majority of that guilds membership support his stance.

The BPH's and their supporters love to blame Amazon as it is convenient to do so. After all they do not blame themselves for their inability to change.

Ehem, I have no insight in to Turow's accounts but I do believe he is in no way in risk of joining the ranks outside the Unemployment Office. He is a practising partner in a major Chicago law firm, has written several bestsellers, some made into movies and I could be wrong here but being president of the Authors' Guild might very well be a non-salaried position.