HarperCollins returns to Full Agency pricing

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by murg

The cost/effort of self publishing is minimal at best, even accounting for marketing.

It can be minimal, but many of the more successful self-published authors are spending thousands of dollars per title. Developmental editing can run big bucks (thousands), copyediting in the hundreds or more depending on length, covers free to thousands depending on artwork used, formatting can be free but can also have a cost, ISBN fees, distribution (Amazon & other retailers are free besides their percent of sales, but getting on OverDrive can cost), print formatting if doing on demand printing (free to $$?), translation costs for other language editions (and editing in those languages), audiobook costs depending on how you do it. That's all before marketing costs which from what I hear are rising.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I disagree on cheap editing. Editing and covers are actually fairly expensive and have gone up substantially in the last 7 years. Even if you do your own cover, you are probably going to pay 70 to 100 dollars for various pieces of stock art--and that is at the low end.

While copy editing can be had for around 200 to 300 dollars, that isn't all that cheap for some budgets and it doesn't include storyline editing which is often more like 300 to 600. Marketing is becoming extremely expensive for self-published authors--check the prices at bookbub one of the most popular places to take an ad out these days. Some one-day ads are over 1000 dollars. I think the cheapest is 300 or so for a one-day ad. Book sites that used to take a percentage of the haul (Based on amazon numbers sold) now price such that they take nearly 80 to 100 percent of what they guess the profit to be. The author gets "visibility" and hopes for "sell-through" on a series.

Marketing USED to be cheaper because many sites relied on at least some income as an Amazon (or other) associate. But the cost of ads has skyrocketed, especially on a site that has the ability to drive sales. You can buy 5 and 10 dollar ads, but your results are usually zero. (Many ad sites spend too much time trying to reach AUTHORS rather than readers.)

Some of the low-cost advantages of being indie have receded as the cottage industry serving us writers has expanded and grown.

That said, we don't have employee costs such as paying out for healthcare or 401k or pensions or whatever benefits a large company might offer.


(These are not complaints. Just pointing out some of the costs of indie publishing.)

I would consider every one of the costs you listed to be relatively cheap.
In the last three years I have participated in crowd funding the production of three books for two different authors raising funding for projects that ran a bit higher than what you listed.

If authors I like are writing more books in a series or shared universe I like I am willing to pony up part of the costs. To pull this off a writer needs to build a fan base (hitting conventions and book signings will help) but it is doable without having to have a cash reserve for those costs.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Very well then, I will explain it for you.



Buried within that, there is indeed mention of advances. This was not, however, a rant about advances, this was a rant about less sales and fewer blockbuster hits.
Brought as supporting evidence is the fact that authors who once would have taken a 5-figure advance and been happy (because they finally got published) are now commanding 7-figure advances -- if they accept at all.

The takeaway is that publishers are finding it harder to get ahold of blockbuster hits, and more expensive as well.
No duh it's still worth it for them -- why would you think anyone would argue otherwise?
However, as fjtorres went to lengths to explain, BWMs are headed in a downward direction. </clue-by-four>

You might disagree with the conclusions that he drew, but please, if you do so, at least, well, do so -- rather tahn speak to a point which wasn't made...


This paragraph right here? :

That was meant to be taken as a whole. </clue-by-four>

A lot of self contradictory statements in there. It's pretty hard for a publisher to give an author a 7 figure advance if they never got a change to bid on it. Once again, an author only gets an advance _if_ they sign with a publisher. There is no such thing as an advance for a book that is being published by the author. A publisher only gives an author an advance that they think will earn out. A publisher giving an author a 7 figure advance means that they think that the author's royalties for a book will be 7 figures. This is a good thing for the publishers, not a bad thing.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Correct.
But their own suppliers, the authors, need to manage *their* brands and *they* need to worry about the number of readers.

BAEN only releases eArcs with established series from top selling authors (Weber, Ringo, Drake, Correia), not newcomers. What they do with newcomers is slot their titles in monthly bundles with the high profile titles go get them readers that way.

...
.

How odd, I just bought an ARC for a brand new series by Correia. Baen is actually pretty diverse with their ARCs.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I would consider every one of the costs you listed to be relatively cheap.
In the last three years I have participated in crowd funding the production of three books for two different authors raising funding for projects that ran a bit higher than what you listed.

If authors I like are writing more books in a series or shared universe I like I am willing to pony up part of the costs. To pull this off a writer needs to build a fan base (hitting conventions and book signings will help) but it is doable without having to have a cash reserve for those costs.

Those are the low-end of the range. I think it's great you are supportive (thank you for that!), but an author starting out will have to front some costs. They may be able to do some crowdfunding, but a lot of the initial money will come from relatives/friends/savings if they are unknown. And whether something is expensive is completely relative. Some authors trying self-publishing don't have much of an income stream--and that can mean that 500 to 1000 dollars is simply too much. I do editing on the side and believe me, for some authors 100 dollars is doable, but 300 has them near tears and 500 seems completely out of the question. Some authors or those who want to publish are in their twilight years--they aren't going to be able to work a job to earn that extra 1000 to get them going. And that isn't even considering trying to market the book.

Again, not complaints, but the reality is that while the costs are not as high as some other ventures, it is still out of reach for some. There's also a learning curve with all of this--how to upload, do I want bookmarks, will I market in person or will I do it online...do I want print and is it worth the cost and so on.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

A lot of self contradictory statements in there. It's pretty hard for a publisher to give an author a 7 figure advance if they never got a change to bid on it. Once again, an author only gets an advance _if_ they sign with a publisher. There is no such thing as an advance for a book that is being published by the author. A publisher only gives an author an advance that they think will earn out. A publisher giving an author a 7 figure advance means that they think that the author's royalties for a book will be 7 figures. This is a good thing for the publishers, not a bad thing.

Again, you aren't saying anything meaningful about the points raised... which is about par the course.

Again -- no one said publishers consider paying a 7-figure advance to be bad, it is simply that they are no longer able to snap up those books on the cheap -- which is less "good" than before (and which is not the same thing as "bad").

Again, fjtorres has already answered the point you attempted to make:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The new seven figure contracts are going to authors who established themselves on their oen, outside the tradpub establishment. These are newcomers who have effectively short circuited the entire traditional gatekeeping process and jumped right to the top tier.

When it comes go content acquisition, the process at the BPHs is a zero-sum game. Money that goes to one manuscript doesn't go to another. Given the disparity of contracts given to newcomers commonly run in the low 4-figure and occasionally as high as mid five figures, each author getting a million dollar contract is soaking up enough money to acquire a hundred manuscripts. A seven million dollar contract can easily mean a thousand other manuscripts go unfunded. And if those thousand manuscripts don't get published by the BPHs they will either go to other "lesser" tradpubs or go to the Indie side. Either way, the BPH footprint declines.

The issue isn't whether the BPH makes money of the million dollar contracts (they obviously expect to do so) but that as the size of their new release catalog goes down, their lose the chance to catch the next Nora Roberts or the next Patterson (or the next Wild or Wilder) on the cheap.

In 2014, the randy penguin was expected to publish over 14,000 titles, of which maybe a hundred became bestsellers. Very few of which actually got million dollar advances. If by 2018 the price for *potential* bestsellers runs in the million dollar range, of even in the mid 6 figure range, randy penguin is *not* going to be publishing 14,000 titles. They might not be publishing 7000. The other 7000 BPH-quality titles will be forced to find alternate wYs to market.

Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue. It isn't working, and I for one am about ready to just stop paying attention to your latest wild distractions.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

How odd, I just bought an ARC for a brand new series by Correia. Baen is actually pretty diverse with their ARCs.

How odd, I thought that is kind of the perfect confirmation, actually... on account of this example is of a well-established author with a well-established name.

What does it being a new series have anything to do with the author's brand?

Generally, if I like an author, I expect to like their latest series as well.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

How odd, I thought that is kind of the perfect confirmation, actually... on account of this example is of a well-established author with a well-established name.

What does it being a new series have anything to do with the author's brand?

Generally, if I like an author, I expect to like their latest series as well.

The statement was "BAEN only releases eArcs with established series from top selling authors " . A new series is not an established series. Not exactly perfect confirmation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Again, you aren't saying anything meaningful about the points raised... which is about par the course.

Again -- no one said publishers consider paying a 7-figure advance to be bad, it is simply that they are no longer able to snap up those books on the cheap -- which is less "good" than before (and which is not the same thing as "bad").

Again, fjtorres has already answered the point you attempted to make:





Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue. It isn't working, and I for one am about ready to just stop paying attention to your latest wild distractions.

It's not obfuscation to point out the flaw in a statement. You seem to want to ignore those little logic holes and insist that everyone else does also. If the basic assumption for an statement is flawed, then you can't just sweep it under the rug and pretend that the statement is sound.

Publishers have never picked up books by established authors on the cheap, so why should it be bad when they still can't? Publishers pay advances based on what the book will make. This is only bad if the book doesn't cover the advance. If he was presenting evidence that more books were not covering their advances, then the big publishers would have a problem. But that doesn't seem to be his argument. Sorry, fjtorres has not addressed that point.

[eschwartz]

You know what, I give up on you.

[crossi]

Also just because you get a contract with a BPH that doesn't mean you won't be spending your own money trying to get publicity for your books. From what I've heard for most new authors the BPHs do almost nothing for you. If you want publicity you'll have to do it yourself. Not the Nora Roberts of course, those get ads in major magazines.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You know what, I give up on you.

I see, can't even bring yourself to acknowledge I had a point even when it's exact quote is pointed out to you.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I see, can't even bring yourself to acknowledge I had a point even when it's exact quote is pointed out to you.

No, I just don't feel like going to extreme lengths once again to explain how and why you are wrong. Sorry.

Feel free to believe I have no answer to you. I myself feel free to believe I already answered you in the first place, and moreso have a track record of having answers to your claims (well, not just me...).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely. Baen, for example, have sold high-priced ARCs ("Advance Reader Copy") version of their ebooks for years, based on the principle that there are always people who are willing to pay more (a lot more, in Baen's case) to read the book "now", rather than waiting a few months for the lower-priced edition. Hardbacks are just the same.

That is a different version. An ARC is not the same as the release version.

The release version eBook is the same regardless of any other container and regardless of the current pBook version. Each different pBook version has it's own price. It's only the eBook that has changing prices which (IMHO) is very wrong. The eBook should be priced reasonably from the start.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tompe

As all here know this is not the case.

I'm not saying the hardcover container is worth the price charged, but it's what the publishers charge for that container.