60 piped up to “Quartet Press Getting Lots of Love Before They Open, But Why?”

1. katiebabs Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am

   1 All we can do is wait and see. There are great people behind Quartet and I hope they can succeed.

2. Shiloh Walker Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

   2 I was surprised when I heard about Angie leaving. She helped Crissy build Samhain into a fantastic place. But everything changes and change often leads to growth. One thing about RR that really threw me-even before they opened, they were claiming they’d release a title a day. To me, that doesn’t sound particularly easy to do-not if they are going to keep up quality. They didn’t seem to operate with sound business practices and they handled the criticism with a decided LACK of professionalism-these are probably the reasons they were taking hits from the get-go. I’m not seeing that from QP-at all. I don’t always pay new pubs much attention because I’m not looking for a new one, but to my recollection, what I can recall from QP is that they behave professionally. And it helps that their head-honchos haven’t called romance ’smut’.

3. areader Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

   3 I notice that QP pays net, most other epubs particularly Samhain pay gross. I wonder if there will be a rush of authors over there. I remember authors following editors before to new pubs (both print and ebook) and it hasn’t always ended up successfully for either party. QP seems to have been googling themselves up the wazoo, everytime a blog appears somewhere likely to get a lot of traffic they show up en masse with very long winded replies. (What is it about epublishers that makes this aren’t we great rarara blog invasion happen? ) Not saying anything particularly much about how they are different from all the million and one other ebook publishers. Even with their new editor I’m still firmly in the wait and see camp. I see nothing about them that makes me more likely to buy anything from them. I don’t have authors on autobuy I’ve been burned before. If I like the story and excerpt I’ll buy it but I tend to stick with a brand I trust. I know nothing about QP, so I shall wait and see.

4. Mireya Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

   4 I am not doing anything different with this one than I did with other epubs. Since their product is not out yet, that is the only smart thing to do. All we’ve seen so far is smart networking and marketing campaign, but that is meaningless if their product doesn’t live up to the hype.

5. Maili Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

   5 I initially found the announcement of QP awesome because of Kassia’s presence alone. I admit if she wasn’t involved, I would treat QP just the same as I do with other epubs: indifference. Of course, it still doesn’t mean QP would certainly succeed, but I hope it does. Having said that, I’m eagerly waiting for the announcement of a launch line-up and solid editorial information as I’m starting to get a bit wary because some questions for QP are subtly ignored as well as a couple of tactics used that aren’t to my taste. So yes, my ‘whoa! that’s fantastic’ reaction is fast evolving into a wary wait-and-see stance. I didn’t react to Ravenous Romance’s launch well because of the interviews they did with various publications, e.g. no difference between romance and smut, one release per day, a lot of potential profits (“It’ll so easy! Write a smutty story, money will roll in!”), and many other elements that give the genre a bad name.

6. Ghetto Diva Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

   6 I’m surprised at this. Why would Angela leave Samhain and go to an epub that’s barely on the ground? Why would Samhain let Angela go? Yes, it was her decision, but it makes me think that something had to have happened to let there brilliant editor up and leave. And with QP, I’ll stick to the publishers I already write for, which have been around for years. I’ve been burned by one too many newbie presses.

7. Anon Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

   7 Are you kidding? Angie James is a nasty, spiteful woman. Sure, publicly everyone loves her like a fat kid loves cake, but she burned a lot of bridges and made a lot of enemies. I say good riddance. I couldn’t be happier with the news.

8. AztecLady Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

   8 I’m still in the “wha…?” stage myself–but I gotta say: Anon, I sincerely doubt anyone could care less what a spiteful coward has to say about Ms James or anything else. Have a gripe? Have the cojones to sign your name when venting it.

9. Holly Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

   9 I’m honestly surprised at all the hype myself. I appreciate that their approach is much better (and more professional) than RR’s was, but the online community is at best cynical – where’s that cynicism now? I agree it’s a major coup for them to have snagged Angela James. Her name is huge in the digital world and I think that will carry them quite a ways. But, uh, maybe we should see what kind of books they publish before we go all, “OMG, THEY ROCK!!!!”??

10. Ghetto Diva Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    10 Are you kidding? Angie James is a nasty, spiteful woman. Sure, publicly everyone loves her like a fat kid loves cake, but she burned a lot of bridges and made a lot of enemies. I say good riddance. I couldn’t be happier with the news. Anon a little harsh no? I mean I haven’t always been on the Angela band wagon, BUT I’ve always respected her for her straight forwardness. I agree it’s a major coup for them to have snagged Angela James. Her name is huge in the digital world and I think that will carry them quite a ways. But, uh, maybe we should see what kind of books they publish before we go all, “OMG, THEY ROCK!!!!”?? And Holly ditto that.

11. Lolita Lopez Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    11 This is definitely a wait-and-see pub for me. I’m still not quite sure what Quartet is going to offer that isn’t already out there. As a reader, I can hardly keep up with the established e-pubs and my favorite authors releasing books. As a writer, I’d like to know how they’re going to position themselves in what seems to be a crowded market.

12. Mora Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    12 Are you kidding? Angie James is a nasty, spiteful woman. Sure, publicly everyone loves her like a fat kid loves cake, but she burned a lot of bridges and made a lot of enemies. I say good riddance. I couldn’t be happier with the news. Let me guess: she rejected one (or a few) of your manuscripts, didn’t she? Good riddance? It’s not like she’s going to Siberia. Sheesh.

13. sybil Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    13 With as hard as DA/Jane has been shouting about how grand QP is – why is anyone shocked about Angie joining? I would have thought that was a given. I think Kassia has been around way too long to fuck this up totally in a Gail or RR way. But they keep asking for questions and are grand at saying a lot, a lot, a lot and never answering it. I think that is so you get bored and stop reading never noticing you weren’t answered. PR trick maybe? They might want to drop that ‘we are a family’ message. Cuz most epublishers who have used that uh well… And it would be nice to see who the authors are but maybe they haven’t bought anything yet. They are spending LOTS OF MONEY (just read the responses from kat on giggle’s blog) maybe there isn’t any cash for books until later. Although I am guessing they don’t have an advance but again ‘guessing’ haven’t looked. Maybe they just want to keep us in suspense? The launch isn’t until Nov or Dec. The ‘reviewer’ interview is a good marketing trick, pimp yourself out without talking about yourself. But the OMG aren’t they the fucking bomb got old so I toned it out a while ago. ::shrug:: I don’t write so don’t have a dog in that race and will read your posts if they crash and burn. I can’t remember Samhain’s launch lol although I did check my gmail *g*. I don’t think it was me that said I would never evah buy from them. Hopefully all is well at Samhain.

14. Shiloh Walker Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    14 Why would Samhain let Angela go? Yes, it was her decision, but it makes me think that something had to have happened to let there brilliant editor up and leave. I’ve no clue why Angie left, but it’s possible she wanted a change. If that’s the case, Samhain isn’t going to be able to offer that. People leave jobs for similar reasons on a regular basis.

15. writer Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    15 Here is one book that is being published by Quartet. They seem to be looking to buy up digital reprint rights. http://monkeywithapen.blogspot.com/2009/07/book-launch.html

16. Mireya Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    16 @writer: Digital reprints… that’s very interesting. Thanks or sharing that. As to Angela James moving to Quarted, I don’t know her at all, but from what I’ve seen online it’s obvious that she’s a business woman. I am sure there was a mighty good incentive there. There may have been other, more “personal” reasons, but that was a big move that she just did. $$$ is an extremely powerful motivator, even if this is still a new enterprise that no one knows how it’s going to turn out.

17. SarahT Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    17 I’m in the ‘wait and see’ category. There have been so many horror stories involving epubs that it’s hard to not to be cynical. I’m indifferent to the advance publicity. Once Quartet start publishing books and I hear buzz about them, then I’ll take an interest. At the moment, they’re like a shop with no wares.

18. Emmy Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    18 I don’t get all the relentless cheerleading on various blogs saying how great QP is going to be. Well, the pub haven’t said anything about authors who’ve signed on, or put out any product yet, so how would they know? Because it’s their circle jerk friends getting together to start a new epub?? Good people with good intentions =/ good books. Firmly in the wait-and-see camp.

19. K. Z. Snow Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    19 I’m not sure who’s who in the zoo at Monkey with a Pen, but that’s some damned good writing in Bad Karma. If all QP’s books read like that, they’re the real thing.

20. Myra Willingham Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    20 I’m in the wait and see camp, too. I worked with Ms. James a couple of times and liked what she had to offer. What I don’t like is the rah-rah-sis-boom-bah attitude of upstart epubs slathering themselves all over the web. They try to make themselves seem like the next coming of…well, you know. Makes it very hard when they fail. Let’s hope that’s not the case with QP.

21. Kassia Krozser Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    21 Karen — thank you so much for the ringing endorsement of my sanity. I know a few people who might disagree, of course! We are very pleased that Angie agreed to join us. We are members of a mutual admiration society. Her vision of where digital publishing is going is very much in line with ours. And now comes another one of my (probably) long-winded responses on someone else’s blog. For the record that any question you have about me, the Quartet team, or the state of the world, if it can be answered, it will. If I’ve missed questions, ask me directly. Once again, I’d like to address the “net” comment. And once again, I’ll say that it’s really, really important to define terms. I have no idea what is meant by the commenter(s) who say “I’ve heard they’re paying on net” because I have no idea how other people define this term. Likewise for the word “gross”. As many people likely already know (cue groans as I repeat myself), my former career included royalty calculations/payments, and, out of habit, I always make it clear what I mean when I use these terms. As we’ve clearly stated in various forums, we pay royalties based on amounts actually received — which is fairly standard for digital royalties, and one reason why readers are gently encouraged to buy directly from publishers. The amounts received, thus royalties paid, are higher. We do not charge distribution expenses, developmental/editorial, or marketing costs. The money flows differently in digital distribution. It also flows faster. Paying based on actual receipts is the trend with traditional publishers as well, with Random House and Simon & Schuster leading the way (RH being notorious for fiddling with their digital royalty structure). I strongly encourage all authors to fully understand these concepts *before* signing an agreement with anybody. It’s your business, and I encourage you to make the right decision for your career. One question I know we haven’t answered in much detail, though the various authors involved have discussed it on their sites, is the names of the authors we’ve signed. There are a few reasons for this. The most important, of course, is that until an agreement is finalized, anything can happen. We have reached that milestone with all but one author, so I’ll be announcing the books on our site. I will say that once we entered into serious discussions with Angela about joining us, the signing process slowed down. Reading and reviewing of submissions continued, but I wanted to leave the final decisions up to her as she now has the fun job! Again, I apologize for monopolizing someone else’s site. I understand caution and skepticism. At the end of the day, it really is all about the books, and it’s our job to deliver. I appreciate that people are asking us hard questions. If you’re not getting an answer, either I haven’t seen the question or I think it’s been answered. If the answer isn’t satisfactory, talk to me — I assure you I’m easy to find. Maybe I didn’t fully understand the question.

22. writer Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    22 @KZSnow. From the sidebar of that monkey with the pen blog Anne Frasier (Theresa Weir) is a USA Today bestselling author of nineteen novels that have spanned the genres of suspense, mystery, thriller, romantic suspense, and paranormal. Her books have been printed in both hardcover and paperback and translated into twenty languages. Her debut title was the cult phenomenon AMAZON LILY (by Theresa Weir), initially published by Pocket Books and later reissued by Bantam Books. Writing as Theresa Weir she won a RITA for romantic suspense (COOL SHADE), and a year later the Daphne du Maurier for paranormal romance (BAD KARMA). Underneath the cover image it says that Bad Karma was originally published in 1999 by Harper Collins, edited by Anne Frasier/Theresa Weir 2009 To be perfectly honest with you if I had a back list with a bunch of books like that the last place I would go is a start up ebook house. I would self publish them, no way am I giving the bulk of money from those books to what is effectively a storefront but maybe that’s just me being greedy. I hope she got a good deal from them.

23. Jessica Posted: Aug 18th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    23 Sybil wrote, “With as hard as DA/Jane has been shouting about how grand QP is – why is anyone shocked about Angie joining? I would have thought that was a given.” I would not have put it quite this way, but this makes sense to me. I found it surprising how much great press QP was getting from very strong supporters of Samhain, not just at DA, but elsewhere. Like most of you, I’ll wait and see. What else is there to do, really?

24. Eve Vaughn Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 12:02 am

    24 Are you kidding? Angie James is a nasty, spiteful woman. Sure, publicly everyone loves her like a fat kid loves cake, but she burned a lot of bridges and made a lot of enemies. I say good riddance. I couldn’t be happier with the news. Seriously? She was definitely a pleasure to work with and she’s always been courteous and professional. That at least has been my experience. I’m sad to see her go but I wish her the best of luck in her new endeavor.

25. Mary Winter Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 2:29 am

    25 Having written extensive blog entries on net payments, which I am 199 trillion% against… This… As we’ve clearly stated in various forums, we pay royalties based on amounts actually received — which is fairly standard for digital royalties, and one reason why readers are gently encouraged to buy directly from publishers. Sure sounds like net. All the epublishers I write for pay on gross. The book sells for $2.99, the author gets X% of $2.99. Not, $2.99 minus the approximately .25-.30+2-3% that most credit card companies charge. That would be actual moneys received, which means if they pay on that, they pay on net. And, that means that they’re asking their authors to pay Quartet’s cost of doing business. And no, this isn’t fairly “standard”. I hope net payments aren’t the case; however, the ambiguous wording “pay on moneys received” makes me feel like it might be. And that would be a sad thing for the authors.

26. Ann Bruce Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 3:57 am

    26 @KZ Snow – Theresa Weir is the author of a string of tightly plotted, tightly written, and…quirky romances. Cool Shade and Bad Karma are two of my faves. It was a sad day when she stopped writing romance and did straight suspense/thriller.

27. Ann Bruce Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 3:59 am

    27 Ah, found the AAR reviews for Bad Karma and Cool Shade. Both are DIKs.

28. Kassia Krozser Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:25 am

    28 Mary — I’m not sure if we’re saying the same things in different ways or not. Because I believe we are, I’ll respond here (with apologies to Karen for hijacking her blog). If you think we have a difference of opinion, I’m going to suggest we take this to your site or mine (because, sadly, I can discuss this stuff for hours on end; it was not only my career, it’s a passion — I’ve dealt with every possible permutation of royalty payments known to humankind). Credit card/processing fees fall under the aegis of distribution expenses. Your example assumes the credit card charges are flowing through the publisher’s website only. So if we receive $2.99 via our website from a customer, that is the amount actually received for the sale. There are costs associated with that sale — hosting fees, bandwidth, processing fees. Those are distribution costs. They are part of the cost burden the publisher bears, in addition to costs likes marketing, conversion, and editorial. (Yes, I am a business geek, and I’ve strongly advocated for years that authors educate themselves on these points. I cringe when someone says they don’t understand their agreement or royalty statement. You’re only hurting yourself if you don’t know this stuff or know someone who can and will explain it to you. Then you can make the right choices for your career.) Net, traditionally defined, is revenues less expenses. Gross is pure gross. I’ve seen it happen in other instances, but not the book world. Generally (traditional) publishers pay on an adjusted gross basis, factoring in things like returns (or reserves for returns), bad debt (or reserves), discounts, commissions, etc. For digital sales, some of these costs do not apply. Given that it’s a market in flux, I suspect we’ll see changes that put things like bad debt into play. The different terms being put into play by digital distributors is the reason traditional publishers are re-evaluating their payment process. Traditional contracts are hindering publishers from exploiting some books in the digital marketplace. It’s a huge learning curve, so if you choose to go with a digital publisher or a traditional publisher, as an author, you need to understand this market is evolving and things will change, meaning ongoing education on your part. I’ve spoken and written about this for years. I’ve addressed the topic from both the perspective of the business side and the artist side. I tend to advocate on the side of the artist/author, but I hope I’ve also presented the business case for why things are done the way they are. I think it’s important to remember that publishers aren’t always out to get you, but it’s also important for publishers to understand that they are stewards…it’s the author’s money.

29. Jennifer McKenzie Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:26 am

    29 Like all new publishers, with Angie James or not, I always say “time will tell”. We’ll see how it goes. I’ve always appreciated Angie James’s ability to state her position clearly and she’s often said (in a much better way)the exact words I wanted to say. I say Quartet is lucky to have her. Does it make me trust Quartet more that Angie is on board? No. But I won’t judge the publisher until I see what they produce.

30. Anon Y. Mouse Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:30 am

    30 I agree with Mary that paying on “amount actually received” is not standard in epublishing. Royalties on cover price is standard, as it should be. Ellora’s Cave pays on cover price, Samhain pays on cover price (as far as I’m aware, though I will say I’ve never seen their contract for myself. I do however know many of their authors and that’s what they say). I believe Amber Quill and Loose ID also pay on cover price, not minus whatever costs off-site distributors charge the publisher. Kassia said “We do not charge distribution expenses” but isn’t that exactly what you’re doing if you first deduct the chunk etailers like Fictionwise and ARe charge before you give the authors their percentage? Those are distribution expenses, are they not? If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to have that explained.

31. Mary Winter Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:31 am

    31 Kassia, if you don’t mind I’ll email you, because I don’t want to hijack Karen’s blog. And, I want to make sure I get all the facts. I tend to get especially jumpy when when I see publishers talking about paying on revenue minus expenses, because I’ve seen publishers include such things as the cost of shipping books in those “expenses” (Which I feel the publisher should be solely reponsible for bearing, btw). Plus, I have very strong feelings on the subject. I guess the simple question is… you said: Net, traditionally defined, is revenues less expenses. Gross is pure gross So, which is it? A) Net or B) Gross

32. Mary Winter Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:35 am

    32 @Anon Y. Mouse Kassia said “We do not charge distribution expenses” but isn’t that exactly what you’re doing if you first deduct the chunk etailers like Fictionwise and ARe charge before you give the authors their percentage? Those are distribution expenses, are they not? If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to have that explained. Exactly. Those are distribution expenses, and they are the ones that it is STANDARD for the publisher to deduct. Usually, either pub/author split such receipts 50/50 or the author gets X% royalty on that amount. But only from third party retailers like ARe/Fictionwise/Kindle (who take a nasty 65% OUCH!), etc… But those are the only ones. I can say that I won’t sign with a pub who pays on net, and I’ve been pubbed with quite a few. (If that answers any questions… )

33. Kassia Krozser Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:49 am

    33 Mary — email me at kassia at quartetpress dot com (or you have my other address as well). We are talking about the same thing in the same way. I’m not going to get into the nuances of other contracts because, like many, I only know the public terms (but I know enough to know that Mary and I are speaking about the same thing, but possibly using different language). Mary hit on the key aspect in her comment about third party retailers. While she calls them distribution expenses, I call them distribution fees. See previous comments about why digital publishers (and their authors) prefer that sales go through their own websites. Now I’m going away because this is Karen’s blog.

34. K. Z. Snow Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:51 am

    34 Thanks, writer and Ann Bruce! I vaguely noticed two names but, after that, simply dove right into the blurb and excerpt. Reviews and awards mean virtually nothing to me as a reader. The writing must speak for itself . . . and this is impressive stuff. I’m very intrigued.

35. RomReader Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:58 am

    35 I absolutely wish them the best of luck, as well, but why would they launch with an old reprint of a book I can buy for a penny from Amazon?

36. AztecLady Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 5:10 am

    36 @ RomReader: I absolutely wish them the best of luck, as well, but why would they launch with an old reprint of a book I can buy for a penny from Amazon? It could be because: not everyone can order stuff from amazon (the world, it be a very big place) and/or because existing copies of out of print books are limited in number (hence, even if there is demand, there ain’t supply to satisfy it). Slightly off topic (i.e., not about Quartet Press), I see digital publishing of out of print books are a wonderful thing. First, we all have heard of wonderful titles that were printed twenty years ago and are either impossible to find, or cost an arm and a leg if located. Second, given the limited numbers originally printed, there is every chance that there is a whole new audience (people who never heard of this or that series/author) out there that would willingly jump on those books if they were widely available. Third (which actually sorta flows from two–and perhaps from one too), these are NEW books for a huge percentage of the total readership.

37. medumb Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 5:12 am

    37 I’m still not quite sure what Quartet is going to offer that isn’t already out there. The above quote pretty much sums it up for me. Apart from seeing them mentioned at several large blogs, they just seem to be everywhere, and as much as the hype and the overwhelming online presence is peeving me off, I am also very curious.

38. Lex Valentine Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 5:13 am

    38 I’ll admit I’m a geek. An accounting geek and an IT geek. Windows 7 is about to be launched this fall and I have new computers I need to build. Will I load them with Vista and reload with Windows 7 when it’s available in a few months? I think not. I’m loading XP. No one who knows the IT industry buys a new operating system before the first service pack is released. What’s that mean in English? I’m with Jen. I’ll wait and see what the product is like and how the pub conducts itself first. I’ll admit, like with Windows 7, I’m all agog to see how Quartet does.

39. medumb Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 5:19 am

    39 Also to answer the reprinting stuff through ebooks, when second hand copies still available – but releasing it again brings it to the attention of new readers if that makes sense? And yes it would be easier and cheaper (generally) for most international readers to buy an ebook instead of paying the postage on ABE or amazon. As to why e-pub release instead of DIY version, yeah you lose a cut but it also gets more marketing, done by other people and broadens your market. That is just my guessing/opinion.. lol

40. Sheri Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 5:34 am

    40 Your blog has been nominated for a 2009 BBAW Award. However, I need to send you an email with the details surrounding this nomination and potential award. Please email me your email address at anovelmenagerie@aol.com. Sheri BBAW Awards Committee

41. Ebony Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    41 This is timely information for me as I contemplate on which e-publishers to submit my stuff to. If by chance if anyone knows which epublishers I should stay clear of, please let me know.

42. Ghetto Diva Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    42 This is timely information for me as I contemplate on which e-publishers to submit my stuff to. If by chance if anyone knows which epublishers I should stay clear of, please let me know. Ebony, I honestly would submit to the ones that have established themselves in the epublishing world like: Elloras Cave, Loose ID, and Samhain. Cobblestone has also been around for a few years, and I’ve never heard anything bad about them.

43. Ebony Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    43 Ebony, I honestly would submit to the ones that have established themselves in the epublishing world like: Elloras Cave, Loose ID, and Samhain. Cobblestone has also been around for a few years, and I’ve never heard anything bad about them. Thanks Ghetto Diva.

44. writer Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    44 @Ebony Check out the erec site to see the sales – this is voluntary and focuses on erotic romance Also check out the bewares and background checks forum on absolute write. Most publishers have a thread on them where folks put their experiences and advice.

45. Ebony Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    45 @Ebony Check out the erec site to see the sales – this is voluntary and focuses on erotic romance Also check out the bewares and background checks forum on absolute write. Most publishers have a thread on them where folks put their experiences and advice. Writer, thanks. I’m on my way to c heck those out right now.

46. TerryS Posted: Aug 19th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    46 Loved “Bad Karma” in print and will be buying it now as a ebook even if I could get it for a penny at Amazon. A penny at Amazon gives an author exactly zero dollars for their work. I want authors to continue writing so I try my best to buy my books in a way that authors get paid. I don’t work for free and don’t expect authors to either. We all have to wait and see on how good QP actually is. We have no choice. But I see nothing wrong with being optimistic about the possibilities nor with their blog presence letting readers know about another venue coming our way. I would be the first to admit I’m a half glass full kind of person.

47. Denise Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 3:45 am

    47 I’ve been following Quartet’s progress since its first announcement on Twitter. I wish the press and its staff the best of luck and future success. That being said, I’m a little curious myself as to the hype being generated over yet another unproven press. Like others, I’m taking a wait and see approach. Bringing on Angela James was a brilliant move. She brings with her a wealth of experience in the digital print arena and is a well-known and respected name in the industry. Honestly, I think QP’s marketing approach has been enormously successful in getting their name out there and recognized by both readers and authors. If members of the staff are friends with the creators of such widely read blogs as Smart Bitches and Dear Author, it makes good promotional sense to network with them in getting the word out of their existence. Competition for both readers and writers is fierce. Use what’s available to you. However, based on commentary I’ve read here and other places, I think Quartet’s first promotion run is near or at its saturation level. Until they can bring on something more concrete such as specific book titles, covers and release dates, I’d suggest giving blogland a break in favor of concentrating on the website. If I want to find out more about Quartet Press, the first place I’ll visit is the website, and this website desperately needs an FAQ section. In the comment section of Romancing the Blog, I read one reader state they’d asked a question of QP on their site but never received an answer. A staff member responded they’d answered a similar question on various blogs. Well, that’s nice, but there’s no guarantee the person asking that question visits those blogs, saw that post or read the answer within that particular commentary. I also submitted a question on the QP website and never heard anything. If it was answered on another forum, I’d never know it unless I stumbled across it. If QP is soliciting questions from the community, post them with answers in a central location—the QP website. Tell us more about the editorial staff and cover artists as they are add them to the QP roster. If the cover artists have portfolios on places like Deviant Art, Epilogue, Renderosity or Elfwood, provide links so we can see what they have created. Regarding the gross vs. net payment, I’ve read QP’s explanation of royalty distribution. I’ve had almost twenty years experience in financial analysis and accounting. Beyond a little tweaking involving publishing lingo, this looks like a straight-forward net payment structure to me. While I, and I’m sure others, appreciate your detailed explanation of how this works, it still doesn’t definitively state whether or not QP pays gross or net. I know what I’m interpreting it as based on my own business experience, but until QP declares one or the other, I suspect they will see this question appear again and again until it’s answered with something more succinct and definitive. Depending on the distribution scenario, I can see where there would be a mix of gross and net. Product sold directly from the website would result in a gross royalty percentage paid. If sold via a third party vendor such as Fictionwise, who usually takes $15.00 per title as part of their distribution fee before paying a dime to the publisher, net royalty percentage would be paid (cover price minus Fictionwise’s percentage) AFTER Fictionwise earned its flat $15.00 fee. Print would be net royalty percentage. The explanation for how QP is handling it is thorough but a more succinct “Royalties are paid on gross and net depending on the sales conduit and format.” I mean no offense, but this looks like a dodge of a question where “net” is considered a dirty word and an info. dump is used to avoid answering it. Again, I wish Quartet Press every success. I know one author who will be part of the Quench launch program, and I’m looking forward to reading her story when it comes out.

48. Kassia Krozser Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 5:19 am

    48 Hi Denise — I’m sorry your comment didn’t get a response. I went back through the archives, and didn’t see one from you. Ask again. I’m not avoiding questions. I actually responded to Fae’s question both on the site and in other forums. I believe she acknowledged this. (I do agree that we need an FAQ section. I’m working on it. Starting a new business has a lot of moving parts, and everything gets equal attention. That’s not an excuse, of course. We need to do a formal FAQ, especially now that we have a sense of what those questions are.) So I’ve been very clear: we pay on amounts received. I’m not sure where your questions is, but I’m going to give a (typically long-winded) response, because educating authors about the business is important to me. It’s the only way to make smart decisions. I have been doing this for, well, about the same amount of time you’ve been involved in financial analysis. I have been involved with every type of royalty accounting there is. I’ve dealt with contracts going back to the 1950s (which is really cool; you’d be amazed at what they put in writing). So, are you, as an accountant, suggesting that the fees retained by distributors are distribution expenses? Do you push them through that way on your P&L? I’ve never seen that, but I come from the royalty side; I’m not a CPA, and I acknowledge that royalty accounting is not pure GAAP. Publishers have always factored the existence of non-standard distribution into their agreements. As Mary noted, contracts tend to account for these situations — if you look to the traditional world, you will see specific language regarding licensing/third parties. Standard royalty accounting is pretty straightforward: receipts/revenues/sales less returns/reserve for returns less bad debt less other deductions (commissions generally) times the royalty rate. You want to call that gross or net or whatever, that’s the basic calculation. Ain’t no mystery to it, and, with few exceptions, it’s how the publishing industry pays royalties. (I will note here that I am speaking more to big-house fiction structure than other types of publishers. Other structures may apply.) Where it gets sticky is that traditional publishers base the first number on cover price. They hedge for that by paying authors anywhere from 6% to 15% (adjusted down for deep discounts and other factors). This covers actual amounts coming through the door, overhead, distribution expenses, leaving a small but reasonable margin to keep the business running. In the digital publishing world, authors are paid from 35% and up, and they’re generally paid on actual amounts received. It’s couched in different ways (if you dig into this on the websites/forums, you’ll see this), so let’s look at some math: for many of those publishers, they are receiving a 35% cut from Amazon (the most aggressive of the distributors, but a growing force, and it’s not easy to get better terms from them). If the publisher pays the author 35%, that’s a margin of, uh, 0%. Then you factor in editorial and other costs. Makes no sense. Again, most of those publishers, including Quartet, do not deduct for distribution expenses. I have heard that there are publishers who do take certain costs, and these are stated in their agreements. I implore every author to read, analyze, and make the best decision for their career. I mentioned Random House and Simon & Schuster in an earlier response. Their current contracts are mirroring the digital royalty structure, with a base 25% rate. You all should know that, increasingly, authors are not being given the option of shopping their digital rights for the best deal. It’s becoming a take it or leave it type thing with traditional publishers, and if you go this route, be aware that you are tying up your rights long term. This may be a very good thing for your career. I can’t say. Now if you want to get detailed, gross — pure gross — is receipts. Adjusted gross is the calculation I outlined above — it’s the basis for most publishing calculations. Net is adjusted gross less distribution expenses (marketing, distribution, storage). In the world of digital, factors like bad debt and returns (generally) aren’t factored into the equation (though it depends on the contract; we state we pay on cash receipts — if someone pays on a revenue basis, they may very well deduct bad debt or create a methodology to mirror the actual receipt of cash). So, yes, we pay the royalty based on actual receipts. Which, again, is standard. We don’t charge expenses. I realize we’re playing with terminology here. And, while I respect your experience, I can only look at my own long (sadly long!) experience. I don’t know how to state it more plainly: we are paying royalties based on amounts received.

49. Fae Sutherland Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 7:29 am

    49 I actually responded to Fae’s question both on the site and in other forums. I believe she acknowledged this. Poking in since my name got mentioned. I never did find where the answer to my question appeared on the QP website (if y’all say it’s there I’m sure it is I’m just missing it somehow), but I did get the answer in the comments of the Dear Author blog, for which I thank you. My google-fu must be failing me in the case of the answer being on the site somewhere.

50. Fae Sutherland Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 7:44 am

    50 Can I ask another question? What happens if QP has a sale on their site, as many epubs do from time to time? Would authors get full cover price royalties or royalties only on the discounted sale price? Since you said you pay on amounts received, does that mean if you guys offer a sale, the author takes a hit in royalties on those sales? Sorry for being so question-y lol, that scenario just occurred to me.

51. Denise Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    51 Thanks for responding, Kassia! Now if you want to get detailed, gross — pure gross — is receipts. Adjusted gross is the calculation I outlined above — it’s the basis for most publishing calculations. Net is adjusted gross less distribution expenses (marketing, distribution, storage). We don’t charge expenses. These, right here, are what I believe many are looking for in an answer once it’s boiled down. From a number-cruncher’s standpoint, I can appreciate the very detailed explanation you listed above, but cutting to the chase like the above quotes is probably what most wanted to see. If I’m reading this correctly, then QP’s royalty structure is adjusted gross, which is what I’ve seen from my publisher. Yes, they do pay gross, but it is adjusted gross. Was it Fae who asked the question? I’ve checked the website again and didn’t see a spot where answers are posted to questions submitted. I make no accusation that QP is avoiding questions, but I’ll reiterate that the current scatter-shot method of answering them on various forums is inefficient. I’m glad to hear there will soon be a FAQ on the site. I’ll resubmit my question at the QP site as well and hope it gets through a second time. Again, thanks for popping in to continue addressing the issue of royalty structure and for answering my individual questions.

52. Kassia Krozser Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    52 Fae — You bring up a good question (and I can’t locate your original question in the archives, though I know I’ve seen it because I checked with the Dear Author thing, it’s part of the response about Kindle sales). I had to go back to the full agreement to make sure I wasn’t speaking out of turn. While the language does not specifically state that the full price will prevail in the event of a sale on our site, it does address the instances of buy one, get one free or similar sales (author still receives the full royalty as if the book had been sold at regular price). I will make sure the language in that section is clear. Denise — I’m glad we’ve cleared this up. I don’t think I said anything different this time (looking back at my answers here and on our site), except to go into *extreme* detail about royalties. The original issue was a commenter who stated that she (he?) had heard we paid on the net, and I asked that that term be defined because it gets thrown around without a clear definition. My first response stated that we don’t charge expenses as well. (And even though it probably bores most people to tears to read this stuff, I think it’s really critical for authors to understand how the money flows. I think the reason this discussion has gone on as long as it has is because most people don’t dig into the bits and pieces — and I certainly don’t blame them!) So the reason I respond in various forums as well as our site (and I am fast-tracking the FAQ to make it easier on everyone) is because the information is being disseminated in these venues. You indicated you’d go to a publisher’s website for answers first, and I appreciate that. The truth is that many people get their information from other sources. I can’t expect that the people who read (the very patient) Karen’s site will do more research. I hope they do, but if someone like “areader” continues to post similar comments in various forums without clarification, then, well, you know. You’ve been online long enough. Now I really am going away. I again apologize to Karen for monopolizing her site.

53. Mireya Posted: Aug 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    53 @Kassia: I am among those sitting on the fence until QP opens to the public. However, I have to say, from a reader’s perspective, that the discussion is very interesting, even when I am not an author nor intend to ever become one. In the over 6 years that I’ve been reading forums and blogs, and interacting online with publishers and authors as I co-own an erotic romance reviews little publication for which I act as publisher liaison (I omit the name as I am not here for self-promotion), I think this is the first time I have read such detail offered by a new publisher.

54. Denise Posted: Aug 21st, 2009 at 3:25 am

    54 Kassia, I’m looking forward to seeing the FAQ on the website. As for the royalty structure, I think it was actually the detail that may have been the original source of confusion. I think based on the commentary I’ve seen go back and forth, each party was asking the other to define net and gross. You did so in your response to me when you went into exactly what consituted gross, adjusted gross and net and defined them as such. Prior to that, your explanation was expansive but never really stated exactly which it applied to for the purposes of QP’s payment structure. Without that definition attached to the explanation, there’s still plenty of room for misinterpretation by the reader or a need for more focus so that the person wondering how royalties are paid aren’t still walking away asking “So, which is it? Gross or net?” Adjusted gross can bear a striking resemblance to net in many incarnations. I realize this is probably beating a dead horse, but I don’t want you to have the impression that those of us asking this question aren’t listening or aren’t getting it. We are. We just want to make sure we understand exactly which slot in the often complex structure of contingent compensation this payment structure falls. Even the most savvy number twisters and contract negotiaters will take this to the mat on occasion for clarification. A merchandise dispute between Disney and a company called Cry Wolf is a great example of how one entity interpreted royalty payment as opposed to another. http://www.fwrv.com/news/article.cfm?id=100788 As for responding in various forums, I think it’s a good thing. Just mirror it at your website as well–which is something you’ve said you have in the works and which I think is great. Gah, like you, I’m zipping it and will just stick to reading the comments. Sorry, Karen and readers, for hijacking the thread.

55. Kassia Krozser Posted: Aug 21st, 2009 at 4:19 am

    55 Denise — No worries. I don’t mind answering questions. I don’t have your direct email address, so one last response here. Anytime you have questions (or want to talk about Disney disputes — ah, good times, that was part of my former job, though for another studio!), contact me at kassia @ quartetpress dot com.

56. Denise Posted: Aug 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    56 Excellent! I’ll do that today. Thanks, Kassia!

57. Alison Kent Posted: Aug 21st, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    57 Windows 7 is about to be launched this fall and I have new computers I need to build. Will I load them with Vista and reload with Windows 7 when it’s available in a few months? I think not. I’m loading XP. I chuckled at this because I’ve been running Win 7 Beta for MONTHS and can’t wait for my official disk to arrive. Just bought a new slimline tower running Vista so get the upgrade for nearly free. (I let the geek husband handle that.) Win 7 is my fave OS ever.

58. Jen Posted: Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:03 am

    58 Windows 7 is about to be launched this fall and I have new computers I need to build. Will I load them with Vista and reload with Windows 7 when it’s available in a few months? I think not. I’m loading XP. I chuckled at this because I’ve been running Ubuntu Linux for 3 years and completely avoided the entire Vista debacle, not to mention having a sleek, functional, stable, and gorgeous OS. But I’m in IT, too, and everybody who’s stuck with Windows is sticking with XP for as long as they can, and until Redmond pries it from their cold, dead, and geeky fingers. It’ll be a sad day in Mudville when we have to turn the lights out on XP.

59. areader Posted: Sep 9th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    59 And poof! They’re gone! To Our Friends in the Bookish Community Written by Kat Meyer For a variety of reasons large and small, Quartet Press has decided to discontinue operations. Sometimes, even with the best of intentions, a hard-working team, and the support of the community, things just don’t work out. This is one of those times. It’s disappointing to all of us, but it’s reality and we will all move on. We are truly grateful to all of you who have wished us well.Your support and enthusiasm for our venture was humbling, and we hope you will not see our company’s disbanding as an indication that any of us doubt the viability of digital publishing. Far to the contrary — if nothing else, we have learned that the future of digital publishing, while overwhelmingly complex, will be bright indeed, and we will each be working toward that bright future via our individual efforts.

60. Karen Scott Posted: Sep 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    60 Author Comment @AReader, your comment made me chuckle no end. Thanks for the heads up.