"Traditional Publishing is no longer Fair or Sustainable"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Very interesting article and discussion. People say the cost cutting is threatening our literary tradition. Only if our literary tradition is making publishers rich. The publisher that printed that awful 50 Shades gave everyone in the company a $5000 bonus one year. The publisher shouldn't be making that much money on a book. It is the author's work.

It's the small number of successes, though, that pay for the rather larger number of books on which the publisher makes a loss. Most books don't make back the advance that's paid to the author.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the small number of successes, though, that pay for the rather larger number of books on which the publisher makes a loss. Most books don't make back the advance that's paid to the author.

1- Earning out is something of a smokescreen because, with the low royalties and switch to "net" instead of list, it takes the author far longer to repay the payday loan than it takes the publisher to recover their investment and start making money.

2- The big name titles never earn out because the advances are designed not to earn out at the nominal "industry standard" royalty rate. (Does anybody really believe that the likes of Patterson only get a 15-17% cut of sales?) What they do there is calculate how much the book will really net and pay an advance equal to half (or more) of that amount. It's really a lump sum rights sale instead of the royalty-driven licensing deal it pretends to be. It's also why the millionaire authors don't object to low royalties--even Shatzkin admits that the effective royalties they get are in the 50% or higher range. Their cut gets bookkept as a loan instead of as a royalty. Probably helps drive their taxes down, too.

In Hollywood no movie ever makes net profits because their accountants ensure all the money that goes to the "right people" gets bookkept as costs (salaries and commissions, contract services, etc) and they make sure there is no net left over. In corporate publishing they play the same games with the advances for the big boys.

3- The third reason midlist titles "never earn out" is the reserves against returns and the deep discount clauses that eat away at royalties to the point where a book can sell tens of thousands of copies and generate zero income for the author, especially now that some of the corporate publishers are applying those clauses to ebooks.

[pwalker8]

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.

[TCSimpson]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

This is true, but the problem also arises that so many authors who wish to be trad-pubbed don't realize the possibilities to be had in self-pubbing. If a traditional publisher wants your book, let them have it, but not all of your rights or your right to selfpublish other works of a similar vein la David Dalglish, who not only started off self-pub but is now signed to Orbit for one series, Amazon's Fantasy imprint for another, AND still self-publishes other works. THAT is the key for today's author. Use the traditional publishing for the advantage of "writing" recognition, public "trust" that your work is good. Then piggyback off that to be hybrid. The KEY nowadays for the majority of midlist and lower level authors is to write, and write a lot: three to four books a year. Example, a friend of mine, Daniel Arenson, who has sold some 300k copies or so since late 2011 as a selfpub author and puts out 4 or 5 books a year.

Some of them also make what I feel is a mistake, when they're signed by a trad-pub like Tor, ala John Brown and David Walton, and then work their way out of the contract because things did not happen as they foresaw: be it sales, the way the publisher wanted to put out the work, etc. The reason I say mistake is that the use of the trad-pub to build an audience is better than going solo from a self-pub standpoint off the bat for the majority of indies. If I were in that position, I would write other works to complement what I did under contract, which then goes back to not giving up all your rights, or making sure you can publish elsewhere, namely self-pub.

I do realize there are those non-compete clauses to prevent an author from putting out similar work. If a trad-pub was interested in my work and insisted on that clause, I would not sign. I like my freedom.

I do recognize some of this might be hard to ask for as an unknown author and that the likes of Dalglish negotiated from a better position because they were already established as a self-pubbed author. However, if a publisher thinks the work would provide enough profit for them to invest in I doubt they would stop an author from selfpublishing also. And I say profit, because let's be honest here, I see some people try to equate the higher ebook prices with better books. Is it really about better books? No. The publisher's money is placed where they think they can make a profit and that is as much about good books as it is about popularity as can be seen by books from celebrities etc.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by TCSimpson

This is true, but the problem also arises that so many authors who wish to be trad-pubbed don't realize the possibilities to be had in self-pubbing. If a traditional publisher wants your book, let them have it, but not all of your rights or your right to selfpublish other works of a similar vein la David Dalglish, who not only started off self-pub but is now signed to Orbit for one series, Amazon's Fantasy imprint for another, AND still self-publishes other works. THAT is the key for today's author. Use the traditional publishing for the advantage of "writing" recognition, public "trust" that your work is good. Then piggyback off that to be hybrid. The KEY nowadays for the majority of midlist and lower level authors is to write, and write a lot: three to four books a year. Example, a friend of mine, Daniel Arenson, who has sold some 300k copies or so since late 2011 as a selfpub author and puts out 4 or 5 books a year.

Some of them also make what I feel is a mistake, when they're signed by a trad-pub like Tor, ala John Brown and David Walton, and then work their way out of the contract because things did not happen as they foresaw: be it sales, the way the publisher wanted to put out the work, etc. The reason I say mistake is that the use of the trad-pub to build an audience is better than going solo from a self-pub standpoint off the bat for the majority of indies. If I were in that position, I would write other works to complement what I did under contract, which then goes back to not giving up all your rights, or making sure you can publish elsewhere, namely self-pub.

I do realize there are those non-compete clauses to prevent an author from putting out similar work. If a trad-pub was interested in my work and insisted on that clause, I would not sign. I like my freedom.

I do recognize some of this might be hard to ask for as an unknown author and that the likes of Dalglish negotiated from a better position because they were already established as a self-pubbed author. However, if a publisher thinks the work would provide enough profit for them to invest in I doubt they would stop an author from selfpublishing also. And I say profit, because let's be honest here, I see some people try to equate the higher ebook prices with better books. Is it really about better books? No. The publisher's money is placed where they think they can make a profit and that is as much about good books as it is about popularity as can be seen by books from celebrities etc.

Very good points. The reason that so many big named SF writers from the 50's and 60's were so prolific is that was the only way to make a living at it, write and sell lots of books. Asimov literally wrote hundreds of books and short stories. We may be heading back to those days.

I think that for self published authors, the struggle is, even if you write good stuff, to get noticed and remembered.

I would also say that what publishers offer is a known quantity rather than "better" books. It's a bit like going to a chain restaurant when you are driving cross country in the US, rather than stopping at some random restaurant. You might miss out on some really good food that way, but you also don't find yourself in some greasy rat trap either.