Pub Rants

Category: electronic books

Game Changer

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: I’m not at the office late. That’s news!

What’s playing on the iPod right now? IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT by R.E.M

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you should have heard the news by now. Apple had released its new tablet PC called the iPad. Think bigger, badder iTouch.

Just in case you just crawled out from under that rock, here’s a link to get you up to speed.

Most folks in the industry see the Apple announcement as a game changer—a company big enough and nimble enough to give Amazon a run for its money in terms of being the dominant player of eBooks.

As agents, the electronic rights playing field is literally shifting daily. (Ah, where did those sleepy days of just doing book deals go?)

One can imagine that The Goog will not be too far behind…

What this all means for the future is not entirely clear and I’m actually not going to speculate in this entry.

What I do want to say is this. This is the first time I’ve had to do a major shift in a negotiation literally mid-stream because of a news announcement.

In short, previously publishers have sold books to an entity like Amazon wholesale. In other words, the entity has bought a certain number of “books” in bulk at X discount. Then an entity like Amazon takes the ebooks and makes them available at a price they deem (which has been $9.99).

Apple’s announcement is changing the way publishers will be doing business moving forward. Instead of buying wholesale, Apple is saying “hey, we’ll simply be a portal for you to sell your books and we are going to ask for a 30% commission for the privilege. You get to keep the other 70% (with the main caveat that the eBook not be priced over $14.99)

On the heels of this news, Amazon announced a similar structure.

I see all of you are starting to do the math in your heads. Why should an author be stuck with a crappy 25% of net amounts received in this kind of deal?

Why do we need one lump catch-all royalty at all?

Some other random thoughts as I contemplate the massive changes publishing is going to undergo in the next five years.

1. eBooks are unreturnable. There would be no need for a publisher to hold a reserve against returns on that format. Language should be inserted in the contract addressing just that.

2. Will advances go the way of the dinosaurs? If so, what will become the main factor for choosing one “publisher” over another?

3. Will publishers finally update the royalty statement accounting periods? If eBook becomes primary format, there is no need to be 6 months behind (so as to account for returns according to publishers) in the generating of statements and the paying of royalties earned. There is no reason not to do this monthly.

And these are just a few things that immediately pop to mind…..

Q&A continued

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: You don’t even want to know how many eggnog chais I’ve had this week.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? CAN’T WRAP THIS by MTV video

Richard Curtis says the unmentionable. Where would publishers be if agents split off electronic rights away from the print rights sold to publishers? Amazon did just fly out a bunch of agents to corporate headquarters and no one there is talking on or off the record about that discussion. Now before you get too excited, the likelihood of this possibility for a debut or midlist author is slim—for now. But I know Richard is preaching to my choir…

And even though it’s not Friday, this video cracked me up so much I had to share it ASAP. Enjoy.

And now back to some Q&A so I can get my nose back to the grindstone.

Peggy Asked:
What do you think of sites like Authonomy.com from Harper Collins (where authors can upload chapters of their books in hopes of getting discovered)? Do would-be authors take any risks uploading to a site like this? Do you think their books are any more/less likely to get a traditional publishing contract if sections of their works have been posted on a site like this? I know how you feel about vanity publishers, but I’d like to get an agent’s take on forums/sharing spaces like Authonomy or even Deviant Art and other such websites.
I personally don’t have a problem with writers participating in Authonomy (sorry don’t know much about Deviant Art so can’t really comment on that at the moment) but in general, I do think a manuscript that’s good enough to get attention through Authonomy will probably be good enough to get notice from agents.

Authonomy looks a little different from the Penguin sponsored contest via Amazon Breakthrough Novel where the winner of that contest is pretty much stuck with the boilerplate Penguin contract (which trust me, is not in a writer’s favor). It looks like at Authonomy, writers can still negotiate if HarperCollins shows interest and maybe even get an agent on board for that discussion. I don’t see a downside. I wouldn’t post my entire work there but chapters are fine.

It’s actually kind of smart. HarperCollins is using the general readership to read through the slush pile and vote for the works that are worth their looking at as, according to the site, the editors look at the most popular entries.

Anonymous asked:
Hi! My question is this: Do you see spies being a popular trend in YA? Also, should we quit on the vampire stuff for awhile and write more classic fantasy? Which do you think would sell better at the moment?
I’m the agent for the very popular New York Times bestselling Gallagher Girl series. I’m thinking I might have a biased opinion on whether I think spies are a popular trend in YA. Grin.

As for your other questions about whether to quit on the vampire stuff and write classic fantasy, I really can’t answer that without having looked at your work. Perhaps you are a stronger writer in classic fantasy than in urban fantasy. If that’s the case, you have your answer. However, if your vampire take is wholly original, then it can probably still work. As to what will sell better at the moment is wholly dependent on how good the manuscript is.

Anonymous asked:
My question is: can we send our queries to you before the 18th or should we wait until the New Year? Since you guys are in a crunch, I don’t know if that’ll affect how you read the queries…like if you’re rushing to get everything done, would you be a bit more impatient while reading a query sent to you in the next few days? Just wanna know…
We are reading all queries up to 5 pm on Friday. Dec. 18. After that, all incoming queries will get the auto-reply that we are closed until Jan. 4, 2010.

I find that if you really want a certain agent to rep you, this time of year is not the time to be querying (although I know a lot of writers have great stories about landing their agent during this holiday time).

For me, I just need the break. I really do. We are always behind in terms of reading and replying to queries. We live constantly with the thought that there is more work then we can really keep up with. It makes such a difference to believe that we are caught up for 3 weeks—even if it’s an illusion. I know some agents are still reading (Nathan mentioned he would be as he’s afraid to lose out on something good) but I don’t care if I miss out on something great. This is for my mental health and renewal. Smile.

If I were you, I would wait until Jan. 4 and then send away. We’ll be rejuvenated and excited to get back into the game. January is probably THE best time to query us.

Dreamstate asked:
What to do about those dreaded “Didn’t love it enough” rejections? Should the writer response be persistence, querying with the belief that someone will love it enough. Or after 3 or 4 such responses, should the writer be looking at revising, albeit in the absence of any guidance from said rejections? I would be so grateful for any words of wisdom from you!
Only 3 or 4 responses! Surely you jest. I wouldn’t worry until you’ve gotten at least 20 rejections on your sample pages. When you’ve hit that, then you might want to think about revising, working with your critique group, making it stronger, and following any feedback you might be receiving. Once that is done, go out full bore with it again. If you are still getting 20 to 30 “didn’t love it enough,” then you might revise again or keep trying. I wouldn’t be giving up on those sample pages until you have 200+ rejections.

Anonymous asked:
My question is, since you and Sara both have the same email address to send queries to, should I address my query to both of you? Or just pick one? (both of you rep what I write, YA)
You can address to both us of or if you think it would work specifically better to one of us versus the other, then you can address directly. Hope that helps!

Authors Guild on RH’s Rights Grab, Q&A continued

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: It’s obvious that I need to rule the world. I couldn’t BELIEVE that the judges dismissed FACE from the Sing-Off. Are they nuts? Not to disparage the other performers but FACE is doing something different with a cappella. Surely an audience might like to see more of what they can do. Now it’s just the same old same old for the remaining groups with the exception of Nota (who were outstanding). Go and buy FACE’s new album Momentum anyway. Take that Sing-off.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? COLORADO CHRISTMAS by Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

I’m getting an early start to my blog or I’m just going to get buried. I was very happy to see the Author Guild speak out. In a message to members, they basically rejected RH’s argument that its older contracts that grant rights to publish “in book form” or “in all editions” is a grant of electronic rights.

RH politely disagreed with their stance. Surprise I know. Put on your boxing gloves. Here we go.

But back to Q&A.

Anonymous asked:
Ask them – are mid-list authors dead in the water? What do you expect from mid-list to say yes to future projects?
I don’t believe that midlist authors are dead in the water but it also depends on where they are in the midlist. There are different levels—the consistently-selling midlister versus the midlister who is now having declining sales for each subsequent project.

If the author is a solid seller, publishers are still buying new projects—however, they may be offering less money than they have in the past or they are sticking with the same terms as previous contract. There’s not a lot of negotiating leverage for the midlist author.

In order to say yes to a future project from a midlist author (looking to change representation), I would have to believe that the new project or proposal is strong enough to bump the sales numbers or will take the author in a new, stronger direction from which the author can build.

Anonymous asked:
I was wondering if you have ever fallen in love with a manuscript and then never found a home for it?
Sadly yes. It always amazes me when I’m not able to sell a project. There’s obviously something wrong with the editors. Grin.

Rebecca Knight asked:
Hmmmm. My question for an editor would have to be what direction they think e-book pricing and the royalty structure is going to go in the next few years.
Actually, individual editors have no idea. All changes to eBook pricing and royalty structures are set by corporate policy. In fact, in negotiations, they have to toe the party line.

From my perspective? I think eBook pricing and royalty structure is going to be a huge battle. Publishers are seeing squeezed profit margins and they are clearly on notice about how third parties such as Amazon are controlling the perception of what pricing should be for eBooks (with their $9.99 price point or lower).

On Mike Shatzkin’s blog, he speculated that the publishers’ decision to delay the e-book versions of some major upcoming titles isn’t “a battle to rescue hardcover books from price perception issues caused by inexpensive ebooks” so much as it is about “wresting control of their ebook destinies back from Amazon.” I don’t disagree. His insights are worth reading.

Because of fear, publishers are all jumping on board the 25% of net bandwagon because they have no clear idea of price points and discounts that would be needed to stay with a 15% or 25% of retail model.

Who loses out the most right now? Authors. Unless they contract directly with eBook providers such as Amazon or Rosetta Books (see the stories on Stephen Covey’s deal with Rosetta and the Pat Conroy deal with Open Road). However, that’s probably only profitable (right now) for clearly established authors who have a backlist and control of those eRights. A debut author is not going to be in the same position and if that debut wants a traditional print publisher on board as well, then they will have to acquiesce to the electronic royalty structure being offered.

Agents aren’t stupid. We know that this 25% of net crap is not good now and it’s not going to be good 5 to 10 years from now and we might be stuck. (Just as the 7.5% trade pb royalty rate hasn’t change in 20 years although the publishing model for trade books has shifted significantly). If we have leverage, auction situation, we get more. When that’s not available, what is the likelihood of that debut author or midlister walking away from a traditional book deal over eRoyalties when the current percentage of sales done electronically is not even 1% of the total book sales overall? And yes, I know this is going to change drastically over the next 5 years but the agreements being done right now are creating the “standard.” However much we disagree with them and warn authors that it’s not to their advantage.

May you live in interesting times. Rather sounds like a curse right now.

RH Gets Brazen!

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: We are in the final days. Ack. Such a list of things to accomplish!

What’s playing on the iPod right now? SANTA CLAUS IS COMING TO TOWN by Dave Brubeck
We interrupt this Q&A to give you an announcement.

And here I thought Simon & Schuster was brazen in the summer of 2008 when they tried to drop off the crucial 4 lines of their Out of Print clause. Random House has that beat hands down with their recent pronouncement that by default, electronic rights belong to them via their definition of what is a “book” for any backlist title still in print.

From the letter they sent to agents:
“The vast majority of our backlist contracts,” writes Dohle, “grant us the exclusive right to publish books in electronic formats. At the same time, we are aware there have been some misunderstandings concerning ebook rights in older backlist titles. Our older older agreements often give the exclusive rights to publish ‘in book form’ or ‘in any and all editions’. Many of those contracts also include enhanced language that references other forms of copying or displaying the text that might be developed in the future or other more relevant language that more specifically reflects the already expansive scope of rights. Such grants are usually not limited to any specific format, and indeed the “form” of a book has evolved over the years to include variations of hardcover, paperback and other written word formats, all of which have understood to be included in the grant of book publishing rights. Indeed, ebook retailers market, sell and merchandise ebooks as an alternate book format, alongside the hardcover, trade paperback and mass market versions of a given title. Whether physical or digital, the product is used and experienced in the same manner, serves the same function, and satisfies the same fundamental urge to discovery stories, ideas and information through the process of reading. Accordingly, Random House considers contracts that grant the exclusive right to publish ‘in book form’ or ‘in any and all editions’ to include the exclusive right to publish in electronic book publishing formats. Our agreements also contain broad non-competition provisions, so that the author is precluded from granting publishing rights to third parties that would compromise the rights for which Random House has bargained.”

Oh really now. I have a feeling that many agencies and the Authors Guild are going to disagree with this interpretation.

My agency hasn’t been around long enough to have to confront this (as digital rights were already addressed in any RH contracts I’ve done in the last 7 years) but that’s not the case for many agents I know who have been doing this 20+ years.

And speaking of an agent who has been doing this for a long time, Richard Curtis gives some insight on this RH rights grab via his blog E-Reads.

Horizons Is Not Remotely Like Harper Studio Or Vanguard Press

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Heading off for Thanksgiving Break. I won’t be back to blogging until Monday. Seems like bad timing with all that’s going on but don’t worry. We haven’t heard the last of it yet. If I hear any breaking news, I’ll try and update the blog.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? Nothing at the moment.

Today, Thomas Nelson Publishers joins the Harlequin hoopla in a ridiculous blog post. Ashley and Carolyn Grayson posted their response—to which I whole heartedly agree. I find it laughable that Hyatt believes that agents are speaking out against the ripping off of writers via vanity publishing arms because we see “self-publishing” as a threat.

As many commenters have already noted in my blog comments section, vanity publishing and self publishing are not the same. A distinction that Hyatt does not seem to understand. I suppose he also believes that venerated writing organizations such as RWA, MWA, and SFWA, all of which have a long tradition of helping and protecting writers, are similarly trying to keep the status quo by vehemently speaking out against such blatant ripping off of writers.

I also want to make this distinction.

When I spoke to an editorial director from Harlequin last week, the editor mentioned that “several other publishers were doing it.” The only difference was they didn’t announce their vanity publishing arm.

Incredulous, I had asked “like who?”

The editor could not respond with a list of names.

I’m wondering if the editor was erroneously comparing Harlequin Horizons to a legitimate publisher such as Vanguard Press or Harper Studio.

They are not remotely the same.

At Horizons, the writers are forced to pay for their work to be “published.” And forced to pay for “marketing” or anything else from a fee-oriented “menu” of choices. The writer foots the entire cost.

At VP and HS, the publishers pay for publication. The authors are not out any money from their pockets. Vanguard and Studio also commit a certain percentage of monies to the marketing/promotion as part of the plan. In lieu of the advance, there is an equal split of royalties between Publisher and Author.

And another key factor, at VP and HS, the books are available for wide distribution via traditional sales outlets just like a traditional publisher.

None of these things are true at Harlequin Horizons (or whatever they are calling it now).

And the most egregious part of Horizons? The fact that Harlequin planned to refer rejected authors to this option as a “viable” alternative.

As RWA, MWA, SFWA have all pointed out. That’s not legitimate publishing, it should not be advertised as so, and it’s just plain wrong.

Friday Funnies

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: I’m done for the night.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? LANDSLIDE by Dixie Chicks

Considering all the chatter over the last two days, today has been relatively quiet. SFWA (Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America) did issue a statement. You can find that here.

Also, the Ashley Grayson agency blogged with their response.

On a wholly different note, I have a Friday funny—sort of. Do you remember my blogging about an Eddie Murphy movie being shot on our street about two summers ago? For two days in a row they had the extras and the movie crew filming. Sara and I remember it vividly as a car alarm kept going off incessantly. With our windows open on a nice summer day, it was all we could hear for two days running.

Can’t imagine why if you don’t remember. That was a year and a half or two years ago. I only remembered a couple of weeks ago when my husband said he caught the film while on an airplane trip.

The movie is called IMAGINE THAT and no, neither Chutney or I are in the film. In fact, I can’t imagine what they were doing on our street for all that time because in the film itself, there is a brief flash of the front façade of our office in the SH Supply Company building in the scene where Eddie Murphy is fumbling in his briefcase for something while driving. About 10 seconds later, the car drives down the alley behind the building.

Exciting stuff I’m telling you. Grin.

There is one big scene where Mr. Murphy dances on a concrete wall and there is a beautiful lit up staircase behind him. This leads to the bridge that goes over the railroad tracks and into lower downtown. Very noticeable by the bridge support which looks like a ship’s mast. (You can actually see that scene in the movie trailer.)

Well, that takes place right in front of the Platte River Park where Chutney and I often go walking on nice days.

Anyway, highly amusing to watch a movie set in Denver and in Lodo where our office is located.

I’m out. Have a great weekend.

Harlequin News Flash

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Sara’s first day back in the office. Totally fun.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? SHAKE THE DISEASE by Depeche Mode

This just in (literally five seconds ago) from Donna Hayes, CEO of Harlequin.

Harlequin was very surprised and dismayed to receive notice late yesterday that the RWA has decided that Harlequin is no longer eligible for RWA-provided conference resources. We were even more surprised to discover that the RWA sent a notice to its membership announcing this decision, before allowing Harlequin to respond or engage in a discussion about it with the RWA board.

Harlequin has been a significant supporter of the RWA for many years in several ways, including:

• financial sponsorships at the annual conference
• sending editors to the national and regional chapter conferences throughout the year to meet with and advise aspiring authors and participate in panel discussions on writing
• celebrating our authors, most of whom are RWA members, annually with the largest publisher party at the conference.

It is disappointing that the RWA has not recognized that publishing models have and will continue to change. As a leading publisher of women’s fiction in a rapidly changing environment, Harlequin’s intention is to provide authors access to all publishing opportunities, traditional or otherwise.

Most importantly, however, we have heard the concerns that you, our authors, have expressed regarding the potential confusion between this venture and our traditional business. As such, we are changing the name of the self-publishing company from Harlequin Horizons to a designation that will not refer to Harlequin in any way. We will initiate this process immediately. We hope this allays the fears many of you have communicated to us.

We are committed to connecting with our authors and aspiring authors in a significant way and encourage you to continue to share your thoughts with us.

Sincerely

Donna Hayes
Publisher and Chief Executive Officer
Harlequin Enterprises Limited

And earlier today, Mystery Writers Of America Board of Directors weighed in:

Recently, Harlequin Enterprises launched two new business ventures aimed at aspiring writers, the Harlequin Horizons self-publishing program and the eHarlequin Manuscript Critique service (aka “Learn to Write”), both of which are widely promoted on its website and embedded in the manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints.

Mystery Writers of America (MWA) is deeply concerned about the troubling conflict-of-interest issues created by these ventures, particularly the potentially misleading way they are marketed to aspiring writers on the Harlequin website.

It is common for disreputable publishers to try to profit from aspiring writers by steering them to their own for-pay editorial, marketing, and publishing services. The implication is that by paying for those services, the writer is more likely to sell his manuscript to the publisher. Harlequin recommends the “eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service” in the text of its manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints and include a link to “Harlequin Horizons,” its new self-publishing arm, without any indication that these are advertisements.

That, coupled with the fact that these businesses share the Harlequin name, may mislead writers into believing they can enhance their chances of being published by Harlequin by paying for these services. Offering these services violates long-standing MWA rules for inclusion on our Approved Publishers List.

On November 9, Mystery Writers of America sent a letter to Harlequin about the “eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service,” notifying Harlequin that it is in violation of our rules and suggesting steps that Harlequin could take to remain on our Approved Publishers list. The steps outlined at that time included removing mention of this for-pay service entirely from its manuscript submission guidelines, clearly identifying any mention of this program as paid advertisement, and, adding prominent disclaimers that this venture was totally unaffiliated with the editorial side of Harlequin, and that paying for this service is not a factor in the consideration of manuscripts. Since that letter went out, Harlequin has launched “Harlequin Horizons,” a self-publishing program.

MWA’s November 9 letter asks that Harlequin respond to our concerns and recommendations by December 15. We look forward to receiving their response and working with them to protect the interests of aspiring writers. If MWA and Harlequin are unable to reach an agreement, MWA will take appropriate action which may include removing Harlequin from the list of MWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by Harlequin will not be eligible for the Edgar Awards.

We are taking this action because we believe it is vitally important to alert our members of unethical and predatory publishing practices that take advantage of their desire to be published. We respect Harlequin and its authors and hope the company will take the appropriate corrective measures.

This e-bulletin was prepared by Margery Flax on behalf of MWA’s National Board of Directors.

The fun continues. I did speak with a Harlequin Editorial Director this morning. She couldn’t say much (as you can imagine) but I was able to voice some concerns–specifically about eRoyalties at Harlequin going into the future.

And I Thought The Furor Was Bad Yesterday….

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Who can get work done when there is so much Harlequin gossip flying around?

What’s playing on the iPod right now? EDGE OF SEVENTEEN by Stevie Nicks

Then today can’t even compare. I think Harlequin has just gotten the smack down.

I have not confirmed this rumor yet, but a fellow agent just emailed me to say that RWA revoked Harlequin’s recognized publisher status. Uh… that means no Harlequin author can enter the RITAs.

Let me tell you, the emails are flying fast and furious among the agents.

And RWA just sent out this announcement:

RWA Alert: RWA Responds to Harlequin Horizons

Dear Members:
Romance Writers of America was informed of the new venture between Harlequin Enterprises and ASI Solutions to form Harlequin Horizons, a vanity/subsidy press. Many of you have asked the organization to state its position regarding this new development. As a matter of policy, we do not endorse any publisher’s business model. Our mission is the advancement of the professional interests of career-focused romance writers.

One of your member benefits is the annual National Conference. RWA allocates select conference resources to non-subsidy/non-vanity presses that meet the eligibility requirements to obtain those resources. Eligible publishers are provided free meeting space for book signings, are given the opportunity to hold editor appointments, and are allowed to offer spotlights on their programs.

With the launch of Harlequin Horizons, Harlequin Enterprises no longer meets the requirements to be eligible for RWA-provided conference resources. This does not mean that Harlequin Enterprises cannot attend the conference. Like all non-eligible publishers, they are welcome to attend. However, as a non-eligible publisher, they would fund their own conference fees and they would not be provided with conference resources by RWA to publicize or promote the company or its imprints.

Sometimes the wind of change comes swiftly and unexpectedly, leaving an unsettled feeling. RWA takes its role as advocate for its members seriously. The Board is working diligently to address the impact of recent developments on all of RWA’s members.

We invite you to attend the annual conference on July 28 – 31, 2010 in Nashville, TN, as we celebrate 30 years of success with keynote speaker Nora Roberts, special luncheon speaker Jayne Ann Krentz, librarian speaker Sherrilyn Kenyon, and awards ceremony emcee Sabrina Jeffries. Please refer to the RWA Web site for conference registration information in late January 2010.

Looking forward to seeing you at the Gaylord Opryland!

Michelle Monkou
RWA President
RWA Alert is a publication of Romance Writers of America®,

I have to wonder. Did Harlequin not think there would be a strong response? I’ll keep you posted if I hear anything more!

Exploitation or Empowerment?

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: Only 205 emails in the inbox now. I’m making headway!

What’s playing on the iPod right now? MY EVER CHANGING MOODS by Style Council

So Harlequin is causing quite the furor today. Last week they announced a new ePub imprint called Carina to potentially compete with ePublishers like a Samhain or Ellora’s Cave with royalties of 30% of retail price on copies sold (which by the way, should piss off any Harlequin authors who are being traditionally published by that house as their eRoyalties suck).

Then this week, they announced a self-publishing arm called Harlequin Horizons partnering with Author Solutions (not unlike what Thomas Nelson announced about 2 months ago using Author Solutions as well). Now prospective authors can pay to be published by Harlequin and have access to that Harlequin name.

So here’s my question. It’s quite the revenue machine. Is this exploitation of romance authors who have been rejected by Harlequin but now have an opportunity to “publish” and a possible entry into traditional Harlequin publishing via a strong self-pub sales record (according to the Horizons website) or is this simply another option that empowers authors to get their work out there?

As an aside, I can’t help but think that more books published (and in the marketplace) is not what the industry needs. It already can’t support the number of books currently being published in any given year.

Publishers, You Want An Edge On the Competition?

by Kristin Nelson

STATUS: TGIF and blogging early as I actually want to leave the office before 7 pm tonight.

What’s playing on the iPod right now? OVER THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY by Led Zeppelin

Then let me throw this idea out there before all of you jump on the 25% of net band wagon so as to be like every other publisher out there offering substandard e-royalties.

Three years ago when I had a hot project (as in I’m getting pre-empts, potentially going to auction, going to have my choice of publishers), if Random House was in the mix, I’d lean their way. Why? Because RH had decent royalties for eBooks (at 25% of retail—which I know doesn’t match ePublishers but for a NYC major, not bad). Obviously other factors were in consideration such as marketing plans, other royalty structures, escalator break points but I think you can see where I’m going here.

This was 3 years ago (maybe even longer) when eBook sales might have added up to 10 copies total in any given 6-month period (SF&F or major authors excluded).

I could see the change a-coming; it was just going to be a matter of time.

So RH, you used to have a strong leg-up—which this year you’ve taken away from yourself. I can’t help but think that’s short-sighted.

You want an edge on the competition? Well then, why are all you publishers racing to do the same short-sighted thing?

Tell you what. Come to me with strong trade paperback royalty escalators, solid e-royalties percentages with escalators, decent audio percentages (downloadable or otherwise), etc. and I’m open to talking about non-outrageous advances or dare I say it? No advance at all if we can truly do a shared equal risk on a no returns basis (a la Vanguard Press and Harper Studio).

Maybe I’m alone on this (but I doubt it), I’m totally open to discussing less on the front end for a larger share of the back end.

But what I hear from publishers is the same low advance spiel with no change on the back end. And you’re wondering why I’m not leaping out of my chair with joy. I often hear that agents are to blame for demanding crazy advances etc. but have publishers asked themselves lately what’s been offered in return? Given an alternative, agents could be persuaded to think outside the box. Not given any viable alternative, then we have to stick with business as usual in order to best represent our clients.

Two to tango, certainly, as I’m thinking that “business as usual” won’t suffice for either publishers or agents as the publishing model rapidly changes…

And since it’s Friday and sheesh did I get off on a rant there, a gratuitous Chutney-in-the-snow shot from this morning. She HATES wearing her fleece. Can you tell? She won’t even look at me. Grin.

No Imeem file available.