The State of US publishing in 2013

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

There's no such thing as a "traditional publisher," that's a term invented by a rip-off house in Frederick, Maryland. The proper term is "commercial publisher."
...
The authors who really benefit most from independent publishing are those who built up a name with the commercial publishers, then went indie with their backlist. They have the name recognition, which builds demand, so when they do go indie they already have the audience.
...

Well, except for even that to be feasible the author must have retained or recovered the rights to those backlist books.

Many are in a situation where the rip-off publisher will not release the book, reprint them nor publish them as ebooks.

And make no bones about it, given the current state of publishing virtually all of the BPH's are playing the Rip-Off Publisher role. And they have been for a while, no different than the music publishers were before they were exposed and done-in by the home recording and digital revolution.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, except for even that to be feasible the author must have retained or recovered the rights to those backlist books.

Many are in a situation where the rip-off publisher will not release the book, reprint them nor publish them as ebooks.

And make no bones about it, given the current state of publishing virtually all of the BPH's are playing the Rip-Off Publisher role. And they have been for a while, no different than the music publishers were before they were exposed and done-in by the home recording and digital revolution.

Actually, most of the older contracts have reversion clauses and they're working for the authors. Newer ones are having issues, especially since "out of print" has no real meaning with ebooks.

As for "rip-off publishers," BPH contracts are getting worse, but they're nothing like the one in Frederick that I'm not mentioning by name.

[mcrow]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

There's no such thing as a "traditional publisher," that's a term invented by a rip-off house in Frederick, Maryland. The proper term is "commercial publisher."

The other thing to remember is that even though the system is grievously flawed, it still does a better job of transferring money from readers to writers than any other system, overall. Commercial publishers pay in advance, and get books into bookstores. For most writers, that translates into more money.

Yes, an independent hit makes the writer far more money; the catch is that it's exponentially more difficult to get that hit.

The authors who really benefit most from independent publishing are those who built up a name with the commercial publishers, then went indie with their backlist. They have the name recognition, which builds demand, so when they do go indie they already have the audience.

Truthfully, there's plenty of room for both approaches and there's no reason to say that one is universally better than the other for all writers.

Using the term commercial or traditional makes no difference. Most people think of the traditional publishing and distribution of books when using "traditional", long standing practices.

The term commercial to me just indicates you are for profit and there may be a difference in scale of operation. Traditional and Commercial publishing for most people are the same thing, rip off companies like Publish America are not traditional or commercial. Any true publisher doesn't charge you to publish your book. Self publishing services that sell editing, printing, formatting serivices are not publishers though some people seem to think they are.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Actually, most of the older contracts have reversion clauses and they're working for the authors. Newer ones are having issues, especially since "out of print" has no real meaning with ebooks.

As for "rip-off publishers," BPH contracts are getting worse, but they're nothing like the one in Frederick that I'm not mentioning by name.

I know, they are doing all they can to maintain their stranglehold on the industry. Every dollar they can pump into the lawyers.

That's precisely the reason Dean mentions in his article about an Intellectual Property Lawyer it much more important than an agent these days.

[Katsunami]

And following the trend that started three or four years ago, the big traditional publishers are working to tie down as many writers’ books as possible, and control as many rights. So their contracts in 2013 managed to get even worse and have become completely anti-writer.

So... how do they expect to keep writers publishing through their company, in an age where everybody who owns a computer that is less than 10 years old can be his own publisher if he wants to?

If a well-known writer gives his publisher the finger and sets up shop on his own personal site (literally: running a webshop is relatively trivial nowadays), he can sell his books for less than what they would normally cost, and after paying the operational costs of the site, he gets to keep all the money.

Scribd is known for being a pirate site.

Who actually said that? Scribd is not a pirate site, but it can be used as such by submitting works to it for which you don't have the copyright. Sometimes, they get through... for a time.

[kennyc]

FUD mostly and the one's they already have tied up and those that don't feel confident enough to do it themselves and they will claim Marketing and Sales Channels which is partially true but not unless they decide up front to put bucks into marketing a particular book....and if they don't then you are no better off than publishing on your own and you've given up at least some of your rights....

[mcrow]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

So... how do they expect to keep writers publishing through their company, in an age where everybody who owns a computer that is less than 10 year old can be his own publisher if he wants to?

If a well-known writer gives his publisher the finger and sets up shop on his own personal site (literally: running a webshop is relatively trivial nowadays), he can sell his books for less than what they would normally cost, and after paying the operational costs of the site, he gets to keep all the money.



Who actually said that? Scribd is not a pirate site, but it can be used as such by submitting works to it for which you don't have the copyright. Sometimes, they get through... for a time.

The big advantage is that commercial/traditional publishers have the ability to market and place books in stores a lot easier. They also used to have better editing cover design (....ect) but that isn't always the case now.

It is still unique to be able to make a living publishing your own books. Many of the ones who do went through traditional publishers at one point and gained a following that way.

So, there are not a lot of authors making big money completely self published and fewer still that never was published through a tradtional commercial publishing company.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by mcrow

The big advantage is that commercial/traditional publishers have the ability to market and place books in stores a lot easier. They also used to have better editing cover design (....ect) but that isn't always the case now.

That was true for paper books. Many people follow well-known writers through their websites; if a new book is being released, it'll be posted there. I wager that many would buy it there if it was for sale.

As fjtorres quoted above, there are also many POD (printing on demand) services cropping up that will print books as needed. If an original run of the book is successful (be it digital or on paper) part of that money could be used to have the book translated.

I think that only the very biggest authors of this world see their books translated into 27 different languages before release.

It is still unique to be able to make a living publishing your own books. Many of the ones who do went through traditional publishers at one point and gained a following that way.

So, there are not a lot of authors making big money completely self published and fewer still that never was published through a tradtional commercial publishing company.

True, but this may be changing since the advent of the e-reader.

[mcrow]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

That was true for paper books. Many people follow well-known writers through their websites; if a new book is being released, it'll be posted there. I wager that many would buy it there if it was for sale.

As fjtorres quoted above, there are also many POD (printing on demand) services cropping up that will print books as needed. If an original run of the book is successful (be it digital or on paper) part of that money could be used to have the book translated.

I think that only the very biggest authors of this world see their books translated into 27 different languages before release.

Yes, I'm very familiar with POD and it has actually been used for quite some time now. The issue is that an author's name doesn't get out there near as much if they don't have the marketing backing of the publisher. Many authors don't know how to market online. Not that none of them do, there are several who do very well at marketing on their own but it's not like you just put a website up and people start buying books.

Also, POD is good and bad. POD is expensive by comparison to tradtional printers and if you want to make POD economical you have to order a few thousand copies. You can have them go through places like Lulu and have each book printed when they are ordered but then your profit margin is pretty low unless you charge a lot for the book.

Your cost for a typical POD 250 page (6x9)is going to be $9. So, even if you make $3 a copy you still have to charge $12+shipping (about $3). So to ship your book you'll have to charge around $15 and make $3.

Now if you order POD in batches you can bring the cost down to $4-$6 a book depending on how large of a batch you order. Then again, you're stuck with any copies that don't sell.

Self publishing also tends to be a lot more work. You are the marketiing guru, the web design guy, the writer, editor and you have to run distribution, sales, and customer service yourself.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mcrow

From talking with a few people I know who work in trad publishing the reason they are going this direction is sort of as an investment.

They will try to lock up more books from authors they sign but at much lower costs. So, where they might have bought 3 books from a promising author they will now try to buy maybe 5-6 but at lower price than if they had to buy them after a sucessful trilogy.

So where a first time author sells a very good trilogy for maybe $10-$15k in advance and gets 15% of HC sales and 7% of paperback sales they might only pay a $2-$5K advances for each book after that and maybe at reduced royalty rates.

The idea is that with some of these authors they might become popular and they have them under contract at terribly low costs. The author is legally bound to provide those books at the rates agreed to so the publisher is likely to get the books. So, even if the publisher holds the books and doesn't publish them they have the rights to them that they can sell or that they can hold on to and publish later.

Suppose the writer writes the 5 books contacted for and moves on to another publisher because of the poor contract. They move on and become even more popular. Now the original publisher can publish and release these books or the back catalog during the height of their popularity.

In any case it is the publishers trying to lock in potentially top selling authors at low rates.

Another reason I heard from publishers was that they work with and develop an author and it might be first after a couple of books that he is well known and makes a profit. So of course they want to have a multi-book contract in that case.

[mcrow]

Originally Posted by tompe

Another reason I heard from publishers was that they work with and develop an author and it might be first after a couple of books that he is well known and makes a profit. So of course they want to have a multi-book contract in that case.

Yup, it is an investment that might pay off later.

Maybe they can work with the author and market him/her well and over a few years they become a money maker for the company.

There is a reason why many authors get published once and never again, the first book didn't sell enough and the publisher isn't looking to repeat it for nothing. With these sorts of contracts some of the authors will be assured a certain number of paid books which isn't all bad for them either. Now if they catch fire and start selling boat loads of money the author comes out looking bad for signing the contract but most don't have that problem.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...and since authors willingly sign these onerous contracts, they share blame too.

...and since the public willingly buys these books, they share blame also.

So there's plenty of blame to go around. It's a viscous circle. Who's gonna break it?

Someone's bound to slip.

[SteveEisenberg]

The main word I heard the last few years from writers was “freedom.” It seems that suddenly we all feel free to write what we want, not what we think some editor and sales force might like.

Back in the era of lack of freedom, what was being written about? And now that writers are free, what's different?

I suppose that if you go back around sixty years, you could say explicit sex was forbidden, at least in Boston. But DW Smith seems to be talking about a far more recent change.

Readers want more books and stories from favorite authors and don’t understand the “only one book per year” thinking of traditional publishers.

Not this reader.

Last month I attended a speech given by my favorite genre author, Archer Mayor. It's not his publisher keeping him to one book a year. He just can't write any faster and be satisfied with the product.

Mayor is also a part-time cop (his word), so you could say that he could quit law enforcement and write more. But, then, he wouldn't be writing about what he knows.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by mcrow

The big advantage is that commercial/traditional publishers have the ability to market and place books in stores a lot easier.

The new US baseline contract terms DWS refers to do not guarantee a print edition so there may not be any book to place on shelves. Neither do they guarantee any marketing, editing, specific release date, attainable reversion terms, or "nurturing".

They do offer up advances in the $2000-3000 range, royalties of 25% of "net" (with net defined as whatever is left after the publisher is done deducting whatever they feel they need to deduct), and 50% of whatever they negotiate for subsidiary rights, often to themselves. They also come with non-compete clauses, rollover rights, and the right to demand the return of the advance (plus interest). They also come with the promise to distribute the ebook to major ebookstores (i.e., Amazon, Nook, Kobo, Apple, etc)

And all they ask for is control of the copyright for the next hundred years or so.

Doesn't matter whether you call them traditional or commercial, that is what the NYC corporate publishers offer to newcomers in this year 2013. Whatever their precursors once did, whatever their brethren might be doing elsewhere, is irrelevant; the reality of BPH publishing today is what DWS is reporting on.

Anybody who wants a better deal had better be related to a BPH exec, already be selling more than 50,000 copies (the new minimum for corporate publishing to retain midlisters ), or already an indie publishing success.

Edit:
On book marketing, 2013:http://kriswrites.com/2013/11/20/the...lity-part-one/

On book distribution, 2013:http://kriswrites.com/2013/12/25/the...ability-kinda/