Should E-Publishers Pay Advances To Their Authors In Order To Be Considered Viable?
Saturday, July 28, 2007Posted in: RWA Loves E-publishers Like A Fat Kid Loves Lettuce
Oh look, RWA has redefined ‘vanity publishing’. I guess they must have finally found a lawyer with a higher IQ than a tadpole. *g* Just kidding of course. *g*
*Ahem* I digress…
As a lowly reader, it makes perfect sense to me. Seriously.
I think E-pubs should pay advances, because if they did, they’d be less likely to accept any old drivel.
Don’t faint, but this part of the RWA statement got a big old Yay! from me:
Though we know some RWA members disagree, when determining whether a publisher is a Vanity Publisher, RWA believes it is important to look at distribution of books.
When a publisher does not pay an advance and does not become involved with marketing and distribution, it is, in reality, acting as nothing more than a consignment dealer for the book. Providing this kind of service requires little or nothing of the publisher, and the responsibility to market the product and drive traffic to single distribution point falls upon the author.
There is nothing two-sided about this kind of arrangement, no give and take where both sides involved incur risk and both stand to gain. In this situation the author incurs all of the financial risk in attempting to market a product.
On an earlier blog post, Angie opined that if Samhain did start paying advances, they wouldn’t be able to take the risks they do now, in terms of the wide variety of books and genres that they currently accept. I’m not so sure that’s altogether a bad thing.
I think Samhain are pretty savvy when it comes to signing authors, but I know that there are plenty of e-pubs out there who seem to take any old crap (I think a lot of us know who they are). I think this happens because some of these publishers don’t have the same level of investment or risk factor, that an advance-paying publisher does. Look at Triskelion and Venus Press, as prime examples. Those buggers totally sodded off, and left their authors high and dry as a nun’s c*nt.
As per usual, I’ll completely ignore the bigger picture, e.g., what it means to publishers like EC and Samhain, and concentrate on the only bit that interests me. *g*
So, waddaya think, should e-pubs pay advances or not?
And actually, do you truly give a crap either way?
Angela James
July 28
8:13 pm
I think your logic is flawed 😉
What we’re talking about here is only RWA eligibility for resources at Nationals. There are very few epublishers who are going to be overly concerned with this. Less than 10, I’d guess. The rest don’t give a fig and having the RWA say they should pay advances isn’t going to make a bit of difference to them. They’ll keep going about business as usual.
RWA is an organization, not the publisher police. So suggesting that we should have to pay an advance so bad books and bad publishers don’t exist is a bit…fallible. Who’s going to tell them (and enforce it) that they can’t be a publisher anymore? No one. No matter what RWA calls a publisher, those publishers will still exist, still produce books.
So what you’re suggesting only affects the publishers you’ve said might not need it (like EC and Samhain).
And I’m not going to bore anyone by pontificating on how the epublishing business model can advance careers and produce quality books since I’ve spread my rhetoric so often before this 😉
Karen Scott
July 28
9:12 pm
What we’re talking about here is only RWA eligibility for resources at Nationals. There are very few epublishers who are going to be overly concerned with this. Less than 10, I’d guess. The rest don’t give a fig and having the RWA say they should pay advances isn’t going to make a bit of difference to them. They’ll keep going about business as usual.
My point had less to do with RWA specifically, and more to do with whether E-pubs should offer advances, period, regardless of whether or not they are members of the RWA.
The RWA statements merely acted as a launch pad for a discussion on the lack of advance payments in e-publishing.
Tilly Greene
July 28
9:38 pm
E-pub or NY, its the same to me…I’m not fussed about receiving an advance, give me the help on marketing and I’m yours!
KC
July 28
10:17 pm
I personally think it would be a bad idea for e-publishers to begin offering advances. Ignoring the question of quality for now, if e-publishers began offering competitive advances—in other words, if their business models more closely resembled New York’s—then they would likely no longer be able to offer monthly royalties or the same high royalty percentages that they do now. These are two of the things that make e-publishers so appealing to authors who are simultaneously published with NY.
Midlist and Lowlist authors do not make sacksfull of money. The advance is lovely, yes, but then there’s that long gap of time between advance, release and royalties. And then what if the book doesn’t sell out its advance? What if the agent and author were too eager and the advance is simply too large to support the author’s sales? NY houses will think twice about letting that author stay on. It’s a big worry for many authors.
That isn’t the case with publishers such as EC and Samhain. There is no competitive advance, true, but the author begins receiving royalties–very, very high percentages of royalties–a month or so after release. She doesn’t have to worry about returns and debits and earning out her advance with e-books. She doesn’t have to worry about her publishing company deciding she, as a new author, didn’t make enough and shouldn’t receive another contract. Not only does this award the author some peace of mind, the monthly royalty payments (instead of quarterly), go a long way toward allowing responsible budgeting. It, in essence, makes it easier to write for a living. That’s a big dream for many authors.
And the money is good. I’m sure some authors don’t make a great deal, but Mid to Highlist authors can make a pretty penny at places like EC and others.
So when I think about it that way– some measure of security and the fruits of your efforts appearing months after release vs. a cash advance– I can see why e-publishers choose to do it the way they do…or at least why it’s in the author’s best interests that it continues this way.
As for quality: Does it mean bad books are published because there is less of a risk (and less of a headache for the editor, who in NY often has to fight for every book she signs)? Yes, it definitely does. Does it mean authors who should have been sacked from the publishing house continue on long past their time? Yes, definitely. Does it mean good authors with a new voice or an unpopular interest can have a much better shot at getting a chance? Yes. Definitely. I’m sick and tired of vampires and werewolves and fated mates going at it in shady corners. E-publishers follow the trends—they’d be stupid not to—but they don’t have to weigh every book against the trend and justify with numbers and equations whether the werewolf-hungry reading public will be interested. They rely on editors, good and bad, to know what they want to read and what readers want to read based on external stimuli…such as reader blogs. The good editors weed through the dreck and find good books. The bad ones…you get the point.
As for being RWA recognized, why should the publishers care? Readers don’t tend to buy based on whether some writing organization gave the book and the publisher their stamp of approval. A publisher presence at RWA National can, if I’m not mistaken, be bought for a fee. RWA Pan status is what really matters, and that only matters to the authors. Since RWA more or less did away with “recognized publishers” altogether, it’s on the authors to prove they are, indeed, published authors. And since that requirement is $1,000 made in a year on a single title, and since that is a cakewalk for the majority of authors writing for the bigger e-publishers, it doesn’t change anything.
I know I’ve gone on and on about this, but it’s something I’ve been keeping an eye on, and I do feel very strongly that it’s against the best interests of the authors to move to an advance-paying business model. Monthly payments with around a 40% royalty have enabled publishing houses to take risks *and* have allowed authors some manner of stability in a very unstable field. To me, at least, it just makes sense.
Angela James
July 28
10:54 pm
Oh, well, in that case. It depends. How large of an advance are we talking? A show of faith? Samhain offers a $100 advance.
I already see some people sneering 😉
It’s a promise of an investment, like I believe the RWA statement above implies. But it’s not the same as a NY advance because we’re a different business model. I wonder how many times I can say that in one month?
But I think an advance as a show of faith isn’t a bad thing. It does demonstrate the publisher is committed to doing the best possible for your work, so it makes money for the author and the publisher.
But do I think no advance means no commitment? Nope, don’t think that at all (because there’s more to being a publisher than just providing an outlet for distribution; cover art, editing, copy edits) but I also understand why people want an advance and believe in the importance of one.
December/Stacia
July 28
11:26 pm
What KC said. I worry on pretty much a daily basis about not earning out my advance on my urban fantasy (which wasn’t sizeable, but still). I worry about what my EC books will make but not to the same extent. I want them to do well because I want people to enjoy them; it’s very simple.
Emily Veinglory
July 28
11:56 pm
Part of epublishing’s job is to make available stuff the print guys won’t–even at the risk of putting out a lot of rubbish. Otherwise they are just more of the same but without paper, and what’s the point of that?
I think it should come down to what readers actually buy. So maybe earnings after one or two years. Then people who never earned their advance would be shown as what they are, and ebooks that were surpice hits would get some kudos.
Anonymous
July 29
12:19 am
Then people who never earned their advance would be shown as what they are
and what would that be, emily?
Sarah McCarty
July 29
12:30 am
It depends on the business model the epublisher is following: Traditional epub who does e only, contract for 2 years of rights, books published within 3 months of contract signing, no.
Any other business model, yes.
If an epublisher is asking for copyright for life or a long term, asking for options on subsequent books, and scheduling release dates a year or so out, then absolutely they need to pay a competitive NY advance as they are asking fo NY terms and asking the author to sell those rights with no compensation and for merely the potential of being published as the publisher has nothing on the line and 18 months down the road could simply change their mind and the author would be out substantially and the publisher not at all. In no contract should one party assume all risk.
The argument that epublishers wouldn’t be able to take chances on riskier books is, IMO a red herring thrown out there that plays into the passe image people have of epublishing as a struggling market. It would hold water if epublishers were charitable organizations relying on donations but they’re not. They are businesses. By it’s low overhead high profit nature, the epublishing market is already set up to be able to take literary risks without requiring additional subsidizing. If an epublisher doesn’t expect to make $1000 on an ebook in a year (overhead is VERY low in epublishing and that’s only about 227 sales of a 6.99 book) then they need to look at one of two things. Their ability to judge a saleable product, or their and fixed/ administrative costs. One or both are off.
Epublishing has matured out of the baby steps stage into a viable profitable market. Are their good books that wont sell as well as others? Naturally, and those books should be a small percentage of a publishers offerings and those lesser sales covered by the higher profit books.
If a publisher traditionally buys a high percentage of books that they anticipate won’t make 1000 for the publisher in a year but are scheduling books a year out, again, they need to look at what they are buying because selling 227 books over 12 months is a very low target in the current ebook market.
The bottom line as to why Epublishers don’t pay an advance is because they don’t want to (who would want to put their money on the table and assume risk if they didn’t have to?) and because authors still look at them as fledgling business that are on the verge of crumbling without authors making a sacrifice to the cause. Yet epublishers routinely talk about their how authors love to write for them because of those hefty monthly checks. What authors need to correlate in their minds is whatever their book made for them that month the publisher made almost twice that amount. IOW, the publisher is doing well too.
Will epubishers fold if authors start demanding publisher share the risk of publishing in return for giving more rights and waiting for release dates. Of course not. Will they fuss. Sure, why wouldn’t they? Right now they are enjoying a huge advantage from an outdated perception of their business model that works to their advantage, but no viable epublisher would fold. They probably, after the first couple months, wouldn’t even notice the hit. There’s a reason every NY house is getting into the ebook market and it isn’t because market research says there’s no money to be made there.
That’s pretty much the bottom line. An epublsiher is not a non profit business. Authors should expect their publishers to approach business like a business. Books are product. Product needs to sell a certain amount to be viable. If the product doesn’t sell to that level, the loss needs to be covered by other product. If the publisher is unable to consistently choose product that hits the target number they require to stay in business, then authors would probably be better served avoiding the house. There are some things in business that are, fortunately, black and white. Whether to submit to a house that is unable to make a profit is one of them.
I know probably not a popular opinion, but the bottom line the way I see it from watching the business grow the last ten years.
Emily Veinglory
July 29
12:35 am
I guess that sounded nasty, but all I mean was people who sold X amount of books. On the same basis as other people who sell less, as many, or more.
c.f. the more symbolic status of people who get paid an advance.
Teddy Pig
July 29
12:51 am
I worry on pretty much a daily basis about not earning out my advance on my urban fantasy
Ahhh THANK YOU for spelling that out December!
That is exactly what I was thinking while reading yet more RWA rhetoric. I need to stop that. When they actually do something to show support for eBook authors I might think about taking them seriously but even then I would have to ignore a hell of a lot of other crap.
Advance advance advance… Think the RWA is obsessed with something?
Seems to me an advance is one way to do business (A business model of a type that seems to be how shall we say… not doing so hot.) and smaller advance but higher royalties are simply another way to do business (A business model that seems to be flourishing on the internet as of late.)
Despite whatever the RWA idiots are drooling about, I like the attitude that December has of not having to “worry” about “earning out” that advance “loan”.
I myself would much rather earn whatever I make from the sales of the actual book which seems more honest to me somehow.
I find it hilarious that the RWA says they are there for the writers while constantly showing bias towards certain publishers as the way to do business and yet it seems writers are doing fine with Ellora’s Cave and Samhain and Loose-Id.
I think it is even funnier that Piers Anthony on his website documented quite a few Trisk issues before the big fall. Ya think the RWA heard anything from those writers that contacted him and did nothing to inform their membership about it?
Talking about NY publishers, Ya think the RWA said anything about Simon and Schuster contracts like the SFWA did?
Oh that’s right, they do not want to get involved.
Teddy Pig
July 29
1:09 am
Oh Karen,
I am biased since the big ePublishers support Gay Romance way more readily than traditional outlets.
Something RT and RWA seem to have issues with recognizing.
Sarah McCarty
July 29
2:34 am
Teddy,
You seem to be missing a point. RWA is not an organization for publishers. It is an organization to support authors. Something it seemed to lose sight of for a bit when they started hinging author recognition on Publisher recognition, the latter distorting perspective.
Publishers come to RWA conferences to solicit RWA members to submit to their lines. Since “eligible” publisher will get in free, it is reasonable for the organization to set a minimum criteria for those publishers to meet. And the criteria set is extremely minimal. Those publishers that don’t meet the minimal criteria are not being kept from attending the conference. They simply will not be able to attend free of charge. It will be up to the publisher to decide, just like with any other business expense whether the benefit is worth the cost. Whatever the publishers decide will not impact the authors ability to participate in RWA events, something that was not a fact of the past when Publisher recognition was the cornerstone on which everything an author did in the org was built.
And, uhm, no, I’m not a die hard RWA fan, but when something is reasonable, it’s reasonable.
Teddy Pig
July 29
3:42 am
Sarah,
I have to repeat a soon to be ex-members comment on that…
Why would any organization even take money from a questionable business to come to their event and yet turn around and say your organization is in the business of protecting the interest of the new writers or any writers for that matter?
Simply leveraging your internal definitions to imply you favor a traditional publisher business model does not mean that magically the legal risks that any bankruptcy procedure would cause any writer with any publisher goes away.
Blaming common legal business contract language on ePublishers is wrong.
This whole “after the fact” flurry to use a wide brush to obviously suggest that the ePublisher business model (without the use of advances but with higher royalties) is somehow flawed or not “stable” just reinforces my opinion of their apparent inability to handle changes in the industry.
Blaming the instability of any new or poorly run business on ePublishers is wrong.
But that’s just me.
shiloh walker
July 29
4:34 am
Honestly, I’m okay if my epubs don’t pay an advance….however, I can see where you’re coming from.
If a publisher had to shell out a little money up front, they would likely be diligent as far as quality goes. But that also means they may be less likely to take risks.
I think my first accepted ebook was considered a risk. It dealt with some things that generally aren’t found in erotic romance and I’ve heard from enough readers to know that the book didn’t exactly follow what they consider the ‘norm’. So if epubs started paying advances, are they going to take as many risks on unpubbeds? I dunno.
So long as they’ve redefined how they look at things, subsidary versus vanity, etc, I think I’m a little more okay with it. No matter the decisions, it wouldn’t have changed how I write or who I write for, but I’m glad to see that they might be realizing that epubs are viable.
Kaz Augustin
July 29
7:47 am
Karen, your basic point is that you’re making a correlation between advances and manuscript quality. That is, advance == better ms quality.
I think that’s a furphy. We have all read books from NY publishers and thought “Jeez, how did *that* get published??!!”. LKH’s ex-bodyguard with a multi-book deal also springs to mind (forget her name but have read the excerpts)…think *she* writes brilliant prose?
You do mention Samhain but word it like it’s an exception. Why? If Samhain can publish good stuff, then the NY houses can publish good stuff. If a NY house publishes crap, then an epub can publish crap.
I actually think advances are used as a weapon by big houses against writers. If you don’t earn out your advance, then YOU are the one who’s subsequently punished for writing it, not the publisher for publishing it. I think the epub model is much fairer…besides I get more royalties! 🙂
Paris Hilton, OJ Simpson, whatsherface I mentioned…c’mon. Look me in the face and say they’re quality because they got advances?
Karen Scott
July 29
8:52 am
Karen, your basic point is that you’re making a correlation between advances and manuscript quality. That is, advance == better ms quality.
Well, it isn’t actually Kaz, my point is mainly that publishers would be less likely to hand out contracts willy nilly, if they had money invested upfront. Also, they’d probably employ more editors who actually knew how to, ya know… edit.
Of course NY pubs publish dreck too, I don’t think I said that they didn’t, but their dreck is at least usually better edited.
A lot of e-pubbed authors will probably start twitching in annoyance at this point, but having read hundreds and hundreds of e-books, and thousands of NY pubbed books in my lifetime, I think I can safely give that opinion.
As successful as a few of the E-pubs have been, a lot of them still have some major issues when it comes to consistently churning out quality books, and I think the reason for this, is because they simply don’t have to be as discerning when picking up writers, due to the lack of initial investment from the publisher.
Using the now defunct Venus Press as an example, having read some of the books there (during their very early days admittedly), I would question whether some of those authors would have even gotten contracts if Venus Press had had to pay an advance.
So no, I’m not saying that advance = better manuscript quality, I’m simply saying that if the risk level was better shared, e-publishers wouldn’t be as willing to take risks on writers that still had a long way to go, in terms of honing their craft.
I cite Samhain as a notable exception, because having read huggings of their books, I can safely say that I’ve only come across a few books that were total wallbangers, in terms of editing, and content.
Oh yeah, actually Liquid Silver Books aren’t bad either.
EC used to be the best in terms of consistency of quality, but I’m sure y’all are aware that I think their standards have been dropping in recent times.
Nora Roberts
July 29
1:09 pm
An advance is not a loan. It’s the author’s guarantee. It’s the publisher who risks by paying the advance, not the author who risks by taking one. And the publisher pays that advance believing the book will have sales that justify the outlay. It may not earn off the advance for the author, but the publisher doesn’t necessarily lose money. In fact, most often–unless we’re talking gazillions for a book that tanks–the publisher will make a profit.
Angela, once again your comments are so clear and reasoned. And Sarah, your point was very well made. I guess I share your unpopular opinion.
Teddy Pig
July 29
2:31 pm
Joe Wikert described The Risk/Reward decision in his blog that I think covers some of the ideas ePublisher vs traditional Publishing ideas of small or no advance and higher royalties.
I should not have used the over simplified idea of “Loan” for the complexities involved in an advance. I should have to use terms like “unearned” or “reserve against return” or “cross-collaterization” and so on.
Mireya
July 29
2:46 pm
Um… from what I’ve read and noticed over the four or so years I’ve been reading e-books, when an epub goes under it is because of poor business practice no more and no less. If the publisher in question does not have a solid foundation with a good structure and a plan, its chances of success are close to zero. There has to be an investment on the organization of the business (the structure and foundation) from the get go. Good luck and good intentions can only go so far. From what I read online, that is what happened in both VP and TP. In both there were only a couple of people that were the backbone of the business. Once those people were gone (be it because they got fed up or burned or whatnot)… there went the business.
The quality of the end product (the books) does not necessarily indicate if an epub is going to make it or not. I know of at least one epub who has been around for years, that has been made fun of, gotten bad reviews frequently, etc. that is still in the game. Why? because the people handling it actually give a fig about it. That they have poor taste in choosing what to publish? well, taste is a subjective thing so who am I to say. The bottomline is, they are still around and competitive.
I don’t think giving advances will make a difference in the quality of what is being contracted. There are other factors involved in contracting. Let’s face it, I’ve picked up quite a number of what I call wall bangers from big print publishers such as Kensington, Simon & Schuster, etc. and they do give advances, right? So … don’t think it would make a difference.
Nora Roberts
July 29
4:07 pm
Teddy, I don’t know that those terms fit either. Unless again you’re talking a gazillion advance, and the author renigged, a publisher doesn’t ask for the advance back–or portion thereof–that hasn’t earned off. The author keeps the advance. Even if the author didn’t turn in the book, or turned in work the publisher deems unacceptible, getting that advance back is a tough road.
This isn’t arguing or debating whether or not e-pubs should or shouldn’t pay advances, just trying to be clear what the advance is, and what it means to the author.
Many, many authors don’t earn off their advance(s), but the books still earn money for everyone involved.
Anonymous
July 29
4:26 pm
As I have heard JoAnn Ross say more than once, “If you’re earning out your advance, your advance is not large enough.”
Lynne Connolly
July 29
4:27 pm
I’ll give up the advance if I can keep my royalty rate!
Why are people so aereated? If the writer wants to do it, the publisher wants to do it and both go into it with eyes open, who are they hurting?
My ideal is to write for both NY and epub and I can’t see giving up one for the other.
However, they are very different markets with different approaches and even different marketing and distribution models.
So why should payment be any different? I’m an old hand at epubbing, been at it a while now, and I know what I’m doing there. I’m doing quite well, despite setbacks like Trisk’s downfall (a lot of which was definitely down to bad management from the top – competent and sometimes outstanding middle management, sod all from The Owners) but I’m still published, or will be, by Samhain, EC and Loose-ID, all of which I’m very happy with (waving to Angie, who I see has been busy here).
Hey, if getting a big advance means giving up my 30%-plus royalty, nope, I don’t want that.
Sarah McCarty
July 29
6:22 pm
An advance has absolutely nothing to do with the royalty rate so there is no correlation of one to the other and therefore no threat of loss of one if the other is given.
As Nora explained, and advance is an advance on anticipated sales and compensation for the author promising the rights to a work to a specific party for a specific period of time. It is also a form a guarantee that the other party will perform and if the party doesn’t perform, compensation to the author for the loss of potential income while the work was tied up.
Royalty rate is based on the cost of producing the work. Because there is such low overhead and lower associated cost in epublishing versus print publishing, royalty rates are substantially higher.
December/Stacia
July 29
7:03 pm
Perhaps I should make clear, my worry with regards to my advance isn’t that nobody will make money or I’d have to pay it back, it’s that further books in the series won’t be contracted and/or the advances for them won’t increase at all and/or if they’re not selling well enough for the advance to increase they’ll fall off the radar as far as promotion goes.
Teddy Pig
July 29
8:17 pm
Joe Wikert again has a good post on calculating advances and royalties.
December I was not talking about paying it back as much as, when do the royalties kick in.
Particulars are in the contracts signed so this varies along with terminology and other variables and I for one will want a professional looking over a contract before signing.
azteclady
July 29
11:06 pm
Not being an author, I know next to nothing about publishing and contracts and the rest of it, so what follows may be completely irrelevant to this discussion. However…
The subsidy publishers sound to me like a bad idea.
There are a couple blogs I read wherein publishing is a frequent topic (one of them, Making Light, both of whose owners are editors at Tor). From those discussions I’ve gotten the impression that–as far as they are concerned, YMMV–a writer should never put money down, not for distribution, printing, promotion, what have you. Yes, the writer should look for opportunities for promotion (signings, talks, what have you) but not pay good money to have the book out, nor have a guaranteed minimum sold before the publisher pays.
After all, there is no shortage of folks willing to take advantage of a writer’s eagerness to see his/her book in print.
Nora Roberts
July 30
11:16 am
~I for one will want a professional looking over a contract before signing.~
Words to live by. Nobody should sign a contract without an agent or lawyer reading it first.
Royalties start with the first sale–and begin to earn off the advance. If and when the advance is earned off, the author would get royalty checks. Most NY pubs send out royalty statements twice a year.
Nora Roberts
July 30
2:36 pm
Teddy, I clicked on that link. I may have read it incorrectly, but if he’s saying an author’s royalties are based on the bookseller’s cost of the book, he’s wrong. Royalties are based–in paper publishing anyway–on the retail cost–the publisher suggested retail price. So a ten percent royalty on a thirty dollar book would be $3, not $1.50.
Tally
July 30
4:24 pm
I may be completely off the mark, but I imagine if epubs started giving bigger advances, they would lower the amount of royalties they paid an author so they could be sure to recoup their cost. The publisher itself doesn’t just keep the full 60 or so percent royalties they earn off a book. Most editors earn their pay off royalties, for example, so the publisher will probably wind up with the same 40 or so percent the author does.
It seems to me that in order to ensure they make the 1000 dollars back, they’d increase the amount of royalties THEY keep and lower the amount of royalties the author does.
Maybe I’m completely wrong, I don’t know. But I think saying that size of advance is a separate issue than the percentage of royalties an author makes, is shortsighted.
Teddy Pig
July 30
5:07 pm
Well Nora,
He represents a publisher of computer books maybe he was over generalizing. I don’t know. I do think he explains the basic ideas but goes no where near explaining the complexities of “reserve against return” or “basketing”. Which is understandable since those may or may not be the same contract to contract.
I think it is prudent to say that any contract advice is great for understanding common terms or concepts around advances and royalties but to not depend on that knowledge when signing your own contracts. Get a professional and pay him to know this stuff.
I made my other half hire an accountant and a small business attorney and he just owns a small t-shirt printing business.
Now if things get going writing wise then comes finding a attorney that has some publishing contract savvy.
But at least I can sleep at night not having to be too worried about him.
Sarah McCarty
July 30
6:32 pm
Tally,
That’s not how it works. Every publisher knows the range they can expect in sales on a book. That range is with a static royalty rate and based on factors like genre, new or established author, etc. This is not guess work in whether the book will make zero dollar, two dollars or whatever. The guess work is how much above the norm it might make. There really is no risk to the publisher to give an advance, merely the inconvenience of putting their money where it should be.
While a publisher might try to snow an author by using this threat as an excuse to not pay advances or as leverage to get the royalty rate lowered, (I find it hard to believe a publisher would attempt to argue this with any author with even a rudimentary knowledge of the business, but one never knows) in reality, it’s an argument that has no merit or basis in fact.
FWIW- If a publisher ever tells an author they have to lower lower their royalty rate in order to pay an advance, authors should RUN VERY FAST in the opposite direction. They should not hesitate, should not slow down, and should never look back. It’s a very very bad sign and a huge red warning flag that the author is now swimming in shark infested waters.
Jane
July 30
8:09 pm
I think this is interesting. First, perhaps in Joe Wickert’s world, it is different, but every print author I’ve corresponded with has royalties figured on the retail price.
Second, I don’t think an author can survive today without spending some money on promotions, whether it is traveling for your own signing tour ala Suzanne Brockmann or establishing a website (very few authors have a publisher funded site like Neil Gaiman).
Third, I am not sure that RWA serves every author out there and I don’t think it should.
By virtue of its longevity in the industry and the breadth of its membership, RWA is a venerable institution, but I don’t see it as being the right institution for all authors.
Something that really hit home with me was during the Passionate Ink luncheon when Jessica Faust said that the market for erotic romance was capped and if your career goals were to be a bestseller, you had to write something other than pure erotic romance because there are some people who are just not going to read you.
Using that as a basis, I would like to proffer the following argument: print authors and ebook authors do not have the same career issues and therefore cannot be served by one institution fairly.
I see RWA, for better or worse, as being an institution that protects print authors and advocates for print authors. There are issues such as advances, distribution, promotions, and so forth that are unique to print. There are also issues such as advances, distribution and promotions that are unique to ebooks. I don’t know that one institution can serve both types of authors well and therefore, its definitions and recognitions and so forth will always be at odds.
Nora Roberts
July 30
8:24 pm
I don’t know, Teddy. To say a royalty rate is based on publisher net isn’t factual. It’s based on publisher suggested retail–the price printed on the cover. Big diff.
I’m not an agent, but I can try to explain reserves and basket accounting. And hope I’m at least close to correct.
Reserves against returns are pretty much just that. And in the contract. The publisher will hold royalties on a certain percentage of books shipped as a buffer against returns from bookstores. A bookstore may order 10 copies, and a year later return 5. So mostly reserves are held for a certain number of royalty periods (negotiable) to offset those returns. After that period, they’re released, or what’s left of them are, and the author’s paid.
Basket accounting means you’ve agreed to have a number (could be 2, could be 10) of books joined together for royalty accounting purposes. You get your advance, but you don’t start seeing (earning, yes, collecting in your bank account, no) royalties beyond that advance on any of those basketed books until the full advance has been earned out. They’re ‘basketed’ together, like one entity.
Your advance is 50k for ten books,and you’ve agreed to joint accounting on that contract. Until those books earn out the fifty, you don’t collect royalties beyond it.
Whereas, without basketing, you get that 50k, and each book is accounted separately at, say, 5k per book. Book one earns its 5, you start earning over and above your advance on book one, even though two hasn’t earned its 5 yet.
I am not a fan of joint accounting. Which is why I have an agent who’ll snarl when it’s brought up.
I’m fairly sure I have this right. Anyone who knows the ins and outs better, feel free to correct.
shiloh walker
July 30
8:25 pm
I don’t know if I’m in the minority here or not, but I didn’t join RWA for any reason other than my editor told me it wasn’t a bad idea.
I don’t really use it for networking and I don’t enter contests. I didn’t find my agent thru them and when I was researching publishers, I did it without using RWA.
The one thing I do find useful to me, as both a print author and an epubbed author, is my local chapter.
I adore my local chapter.
Several friends told me I should join the Kiss of Death Chapter, the paranormal chapter, the online chapter, etc etc etc and I did end up joining several of them but the only one that has ever been helpful is my local one.
But I don’t use RWA to do my homework or protect my career. It’s my career and looking out for what is in my best interest is my job.
I know some people select only RWA approved pubs, agents, etc, but just because somebody is approved doesn’t mean an author doesn’t have to worry. You still need to do your own homework and since I’d rather not mess with investigating what an organization has to say and then researching it myself, I cut out the middle step and just do it on my own.
However, that is just me.
Nora Roberts
July 30
8:29 pm
Jane, that’s a really good point–or several good points. It could be, if RWA isn’t serving the needs of ebook authors, but many of these authors want RWA, there might be a way to do an internal subsection (as with PAN, PRO) to focus more on the needs and issues of ebooks.
In any case, your comments made a lot of sense to me.
shiloh walker
July 30
8:37 pm
I’m not copying all of NR’s explanation on joint accounting and reserves but that’s basically how my agent explained these to me.
Reserves only makes sense. Would kind of suck to get a check thinking you sold XXXXXX amount of books, only to find out a year later you only sold 1/2 or 1/3 of that and the money isn’t really yours.
As to joint accounting, I think it’s sort of common for new authors, but once you’ve ‘proved’ yourself and shown that you’ll earn out the money, most publishers don’t worry about it. But that’s just my understanding of it.
Jane, I’d agree that a lot of ebook authors don’t necesarily have the same career goals as print pubbed authors…unless they don’t plan on remaining ebook authors.
NR mentioned something like PAN or PRO and I’d say that is likely the most logical solution. It can address the needs of e authors without really making it seem like e authors can’t find what they’re looking for within RWA.
As I said earlier, I’m not too into RWA~nothing against them, it’s just that other than my local chapter, I don’t really use them much but I know they have been a huge benefit to others, both e pubbed and print. I’d hate to see epubbed authors forced to form their own organization.
There have already been some things happen that seem to make epubbed authors feel as though a lot of RWA sees them as inferior.
Forming an organization for epubbed authors because RWA isn’t meeting their needs could likely add to that.
Jane
July 30
9:12 pm
Jane, I’d agree that a lot of ebook authors don’t necesarily have the same career goals as print pubbed authors…unless they don’t plan on remaining ebook authors.
I agree with that but then, when an ebook author moves toward being a print author, her needs change. Or she has different needs for her print and her epublished career paths and expecting RWA to fulfill them all is dangerous.
Perhaps like Nora suggested, a division within RWA should be formed to address epublishers and eauthors but then, if that were the case, wouldn’t ebook authors be then unhappy with the segregation?
I think that there is some notion of validation wrapped up in RWA. I.e., I read some authors unhappy because they aren’t “published authors” in the eyes of RWA but that doesn’t make sense to me. It’s not like RWA serves as a regulatory body like the Bar Association. I.e., if the Bar takes away my license, then yeah, I am no longer a lawyer. But just because RWA’s definitions don’t fit you, doesn’t mean you aren’t published. You simply don’t fit RWA and then you have to decide whether RWA’s goals/purpose really fit your needs as an author (and obviously I talking the general you versus a specific you).
What is it that PAN offers an epublished author that she can’t get somewhere else, is the question that I would be asking. Is there something PAN offers (other than a nice lounge area during RWA National) that is necessary to advancing an epubbed career?
Wouldn’t an organization who understands epublishing and the needs of epublished authors better serve the host of authors whose primary source of income, right now, is epublishing? And then as their career shifts into print such as Ms. Walker or Ms. McCarty, then a move to RWA makes sense? or to PAN?
Maybe RWA should re-organize so that there is a PPAN and an EPAN or something like that. I don’t know. I don’t know what goes on in PAN but I do know that learning what sells at Barnes and Noble, Borders, and Levy doesn’t help ebook authors much.
Teddy Pig
July 30
10:47 pm
Jane…
“I think this is interesting. First, perhaps in Joe Wickert’s world, it is different, but every print author I’ve corresponded with has royalties figured on the retail price.”
Joe manages the SYBEX imprint and has written several programming books of which I have. Techy publisher/author types make interesting blogs.
shiloh walker
July 31
2:00 am
I think that there is some notion of validation wrapped up in RWA. I.e., I read some authors unhappy because they aren’t “published authors” in the eyes of RWA but that doesn’t make sense to me.
That’s it right there. For a lot of epubbed authors, there IS some validation in it. A lot of it stems from how certain people tried to make epubbed authors feel so inferior.
Bear with me here, because I’m also discussing erotic romance but for as long as I’ve been published, it seems as though some people within RWA have treated erotic romance and epubbed authors like the ugly red headed step child. While erotic romance isn’t so much the issue this time around, there have been so many issues about the two, it almost feels like they go hand in hand. If one isn’t being singled out, the other is. And I know it’s possbile that neither have been singled out, but being on the affected end as often as I have been, it certainly feels that way after a time.
When RWA redefined things so that most, if not all, epubs lost recognition there were things in the wording that almost felt like epubbed authors were being poked at.
There was the ‘graphical standards’ issue a while back and while honestly, I understood RWA’s stand on it, (hey, i got kids and I’d rather not to hide my RWR report because of the shiny pics that might show up on the back) again, it seemed like a certain group was being poked at, this time erotic romance authors more than epubs, although most of the erotic romance pubs are epubs, or were then.
There have been quite a few authors I’ve encountered who get this sour lemon look upon learning that I was only eepublished. I’m not the only one who had certain individuals look down on me for either writing erotic romance, being e pubbed or both.
Did I let it bother me? In principle, again, it bothered me some. It was on the level of who in the world are you to look down on me for what I write or where I chose to submit it.
On a more personal level, how much I did let it affect me? Not too much and should it happen again now, I don’t think it would bother me at all.
I don’t need RWA for validation. I got my validation the day I was able to walk away from my nursing career and pursue one as a full time writer. And at that time, my income was all coming from e pubs.
And FYI, in case I haven’t made it clear, I don’t think RWA is a bad organization. It’s just not one that I’ve used much, but I’m not really much of a group person either. I’m one of the people where it just didn’t fit me, except on the local level. I do love my local chapter. 😛
;o)
As to PAN, I’m a member but I’ve never done a thing with that membership. I wouldn’t know how to answer that.
Jane, there is an organization, EPIC, that is there for the electronically published author, but I don’t think it has the resources or even the same focus as RWA. I really don’t see any reason why something within RWA itself couldn’t be formed. That, actually, is the best solution I’ve heard, IMO.
H.S. Kinn
July 31
10:19 pm
I must echo Shiloh here and say again, there is a professional organization for ePublished and indie authors. It’s called EPIC. It doesn’t have the same focus as RWA exactly, but I think that’s because Indie/ePublished people have differing needs. I don’t think RWA will ever be obsolete – it’s needed if you’re pursuing print. I don’t belong, but that’s because I don’t feel that it represents my needs at this time. EPIC, on the other hand, does. To each their own, I suppose.
Anonymous
August 1
5:30 am
If e-pubs start giving out advances, then the readers will suffer because those who are hungry for more and more new releases each day will not get them. Many publishers, indeed, will also fold under the financial burden, especially when they are barely keeping their heads above water with overhead costs (which is why the majority of e-pubs fail in the first place…they can’t even pay royalties since the overhead costs were more than they expected).