How to use this Page

Amen!

A picture of your adorable dog, beautiful Colorado snow, and Over the Hills and Far Away all in the same post? Genius. Pure genius.

Preach it, sistah. Let's spread this one far and wide.

YES YES YES!

The industry is completely going to implode if it doesn't change it's unsustainable practices soon. HOLY CRAP I mean honestly. And then everyone makes fun of people who self-publishes.

Another key to Vanguard's ability to draw top notch writers is they pay royalties MONTHLY.

I hear you on this!

Hell's yes. Along with the numbers, the conditions need to be negotiated. It's one thing to acquire digital/electronic rights, but if a publisher then just sits on them and does nothing to actively publish and market-or publishes a shoddily formatted ebook, then the author is out potential sales.

And, while we're at it, if an author is going to be investing their own resources heavily into the marketing of a project (digital, paper or otherwise), that should be accounted for/compensated by the terms of the contract. More and more publishers are expecting authors to contribute to the marketing (or be wholly responsible for it), and publishers reap the benefits of the author's marketing and promotional efforts, but there's no modification of advance or royalty structure to reflect that. At best, the marketing department will split costs here and there if an author hires a publicist or sets up an event. Definitely needs to be discussed before the ink is on the contract.

A lot of publishers are still operating as if it's the 19th Century, let alone accepting it's now the 21st Century.

Time to stop burying their heads in the sand and hope this internet ebook thingy will just GO AWAY and start dealing with it.

Really enjoyed reading this.

Is that snow I see? I heard that happens in some foreign countries. Never happens in Wisconsin, where I live. Not like that, not in October. Please, be a nice agent and keep that white stuff there. Pleeeeeease.

Love it, love it!

No advance but a fair royalty (escalator) on audio and other formats - great idea! Or at least potential.

Equal risk? Again- could be a great idea!

It is definitely time to find new ways to sort out the money side of this. Too many changes in the last while and creative thinking is long overdue.

Thanks, Jill
www.jilledmondson.blogspot.com

I agree: I would rather reap more benefit (money) from my efforts to sell the book at the back end. That way, everyone wins if the book does well, right?

Amen! I couldn't have said it better! As an author would I love a six or seven figure advance... of course...would I love an advance period? Oh yeah... but I would much rather have a larger chunk of all of the sales, small or large. I honestly think it's a better deal for the publishers also... but that's just me. Ahh... well.. we call can dream can't we?

Great post.

Re: hating her fleece coat, it might tend toward static electricity. Some dog coats are terrible that way.

Absolutely, yes!

Holy "New Business Model", Batman!

I would take a low advance in exchange for better e-book royalty rates any day!

Ah, but you are ignoring the fact that your suggestions makes sense. It's an everyone-wins scenario, which in the face of greed, just does not stand a snowball's chance in a frying pan.

I'm having a Jerry Maguire flashback.

You rock. In a crazy, logical, OMG that makes so much sense kind of way.

Just to play devil's advocate here, if you went to no advance (or very small advance) and then offered a heavy royalty structure, what is going to be the publisher's motivation to get it out in a timely manner? Or what's going to make them fight for shelf space in book stores?

It would be interesting to see the numbers how much a hypothetical book would generate if it was "mid-list" (yeah, I just went there) vs. a blockbuster.

I do like the idea of higher royalties/lower advances

if you went to no advance (or very small advance) and then offered a heavy royalty structure, what is going to be the publisher's motivation to get it out in a timely manner? Or what's going to make them fight for shelf space in book stores?

The motivation is the thousands in up front costs publishers expend during production - before the book ever hits the shelves. I'd say a return on investment is motivation enough, wouldn't you?

Why buy a book if you don't have any plans to push it? Makes no sense.

No advance at all if we can truly do a shared equal risk on a no returns basis... Maybe I’m alone on this (but I doubt it)

Does equal risk mean equal profit for the author?

P.S.

I have the perfect Halloween costume for Chutney at my blog, btw. And she will love wearing it all year round.

Well said, Kristin.

Authors says this a lot... and get told we're merely authors, we don't understand business, we don't know what we're talking about, we shouldn't worry our silly little heads over things beyond our ken, blah blah blah.

And then self-published people come along saying, "Do it MY way! Self publish! I get ALL the profits of my book!" Cheerfully ignoring the fact that the advantage of dealing with a major house is their massive production, marketing, and distribution capabilities, so that I can -write- full-time, instead of spending 1/4 of my time producing my books and 3/4 of my time hawking them to readers. And I'd much rather have a reasonable percentage of 100,000 sales than all of 100 sales.

But publishers so indeed need to be REASONABLE.

And one of the key problems with net, in addition to the low percentages being offered to writers, is that calculating net is extremely complicated--meaning it's also extremely complicated for the writer to figure out if she's being paid what she's owed. If a publisher makes 12 different distirbutions deals for a title, the author needs to know how each one is being calculated, because her net will be different on each of those dozen sources; and each title on her semi-annual or quarterly royalty statement SHOULD (but probably won't) account for the dozen different inflow terms on which her sum total for that period is being based.

When a publisher attempted to negotiate a net royalty into a contract with me last year, they COULDN'T ANSWER all my lawyers questions about the income sources and the different percentage deals on which my royalty income would be based.

Negotiations ground to a standstill as my lawyer kept saying, "If you want Laura to agree to net, she needs to know WHAT she's agreeing to." In the end, they reverted to offering me the traditional royalty basis, a percentage of cover price. On that basis, ALL I need to know to monitor my royalties is how many copies of a title are sold (which, as anyone who's ever read a royalty statement knows, is hard enough, since they leave out so much information!).

Anon 7:41 - I guess what I was thinking, if I were a publisher is that I would take a contract out on a book, let's say, that was rough b/c it cost me nothing to do so... I would then have the author edit and re-write and edit some more and keep them strung along, and then if it didn't come in with really, truly, great potential I would print it... otherwise, I would say, "tough luck" and maybe I've helped the author get a better book, but maybe not, and either way it's not cost me (the publisher) a penny up front (nor given the author a penny).
It would also be a way to keep new authors from signing with rival publishing houses.

Personally, I would forgo the advance if they committed the funds to buying shelf-space or marketing.

Cam, before embracing the idea of higher royalties in exchange for lower advances, you have to keep in mind how many houses don't report roylaties accurately. For example, three major houses have been successfully sued for this just by people whom I know personally, and a fourth is currently being sued.

Collecting royalties can also be a problem in dealing with small presses, which don't all manage their monies as well as they could. (I speak from recent personal experience with this.)

So much of advances negotiations for a writer is based on knowing that if you ever do get any royalties, there's a reasonable chance you're not actually going to get what you should, and so it's best to collect as much as possible up front.

A massive corporation that's part of an international conglomerate is better at hiding income than an individual author, her auditor, or her lawyer are at finding it. One writer who agreed to a large settlement after 3 years of legal battles told me that sum was considerably less than what was missing, but they were settling because they knew they'd never find the rest.

The problems involved in royalty reporting and payments is why writers want such big advances. It's a way of ensuring we actually get paid, and that we make our deal decisions on the basis of KNOWING what we're getting paid. I tend to regard my royalty earnings as confirmation that I should keep asking for bigger advances.

Let's face it. The way the traditional pub contracts are written, authors have Vegas odds at best. With my last four novels,the house definitely won. By the time I added up my advances against my marketing expenses (a new website, promotional material, travel, etc), I was way in the loss column.

For years I said give us deals where the publisher and author are partners in the process- let us join in on the risks as well as the rewards by taking lower advances. No thanks, they've said. They only want us as silent partners.

Time for a change, indeed. Thanks for beating the drum, Kristin! My hope is that other agents will join the chorus, and then maybe we can make some headway.

thanx for this nice blog and please let me take a copy to my sites

تسوق على الانترنت
شراء على النت
Online Shop
Online games
البورصة المصرية

Bravo! Bravo!

And I would also like to high-five Kat for her comment. :D

I love the way Kristin greases the...ahem...wheels of the inevitable future for new fiction authors--i.e. no advance, royalties only.

And who's first with an almost religious support of it--surprise! Nathan Bransford.

And then the ubiquitous chorus of wannabes knowing no better than to hero-worship the agents think it's a great deal. To quote a young Tom Cruise as he screams over the roar of an M-60 in the movie Taps:

“It’s beautiful, man. It’s beautiful!”

P.S. Agents, it used to be, existed to get writers as big an advance as possible.

Does 25% of net mean that if the publisher decides to offer the eBook for free, the author doesn't get paid for any eBooks? Is there language that prevents the publisher from being able to do this?

I think I'd rather not sell e-book rights.

Chutney looks adorable!

Thank you. It feels good to see someone else give that rant. I don't feel so alone in my opinion on the shifting publishing business model.

Advances are necessary but those don't need to be excessive--just enough to give the publisher an incentive to sell the books to readers.

Ebooks are not developed enough yet. There's no proven method yet of promoting them and it's not going to get any easier when all of them use the same promotion methods. Ebooks need careful editing and more control over what's accepted to begin with.

Online markets need to set criteria for what they're willing to list for sale within the literary industry. Readers have a right to expect good writing and that means quality in both the writing and the editing process.

Dave Kuzminski
P&E

As an author I would totally and 100% give up an advance in return for higher royalty rates. I've been saying that forever. It's best business deal for agents and authors all around.

I'm going to have to read up on the whole payment system of publishing because it seems a bit confusing to me. I just hope publishers give authors what they're due - it's not easy writing a book after all and like everyone else, writers deserved to be paid appropriately for their work...

what's that white stuff on the ground around your dog?

I agree with much of what you say. However, if you eliminate or significantly cut down the front end advances, you've also cut down the publisher's investment in you. Doesn't a higher advance ensure a higher commitment level from the publishers? Also, don't book sellers sometimes gauge how many books to order based on the size of the advance? I'm all for better profit sharing, but not if it's going to weaken the publishers commitment to make the book succeed.

So basically less money to the authors and more to the Publishers.

...the more posts I read about the industry, the more I want nothing to do with it.

And according to Publishers Lunch, it's 20% across the board, rights and licence sales. That'd be a significant drop in licence sales which are hovering at 50%.

Interesting that they said they'd notified agents when they hadn't.

Sometimes these pricing battles are beyond dizzying...

So what response can agents give until Jan. 2010? Can you dispute?

Worrisome...

The person who needs a relationship less has the most power in it--and can dictate all the terms.

I love the way the publisher is demanding that writers take less money for a format of book that costs almost nothing to produce.

But here's the big question? Can an agent do anything about it? No. All they can do is sell the changes to their writers.

The one who needs the relationship less has the most power in it.

Um, I just want to comment that I love Joshua Radin. Everything he does. Good music pick for the day. The rest makes my head spin.

Maybe writers and agents should just start blowing off MacMillan. This is the equivalent of the music industry back in the Napster battle days wanting to charge as much for digital music as it had been for CDs - never mind that the government finally determined that CDs were way overpriced & they were forced to bring them down.

As a writer I wouldn't want this sort of a deal. Considering how much the publishers are hurting, I think writers & agents have more power than they realize.

How prophetic. I was just commenting on publishers making this attempt on Pimp My Novel. It's an opportune time for publishers to do so. They know where the market is moving, but the total percentage of revenue off of ebooks is still low. They can claim how they have to do it to survive, being at the whim of Amazon and a changing marketplace that requires reinvestment. And perhaps they think they do. The publisher/retailer paradigm will have to change for publishers to remain solvent once ebooks become market dominant, but they can't begin implementing that structure now without invoking Amazon's wrath. A tenuous situation, to be certain.

But publishing doesn't adjust quickly or change easily. Once a line is drawn for the "standard" of e-revenues (and 20% won't be the cellar; some publisher will be ballsy enough to try 15%), that standard will be used even when ebooks pass 50% market share (or when e-only releases become viable). They say it's necessary now, but the author will get it in the end.

Anon 4:06 said, "the more posts I read about the industry, the more I want nothing to do with it."

Un huh... That's easy to say when they don't want anything to do with you.


Big publishing isn't the enemy, people. Amazon, B&N, Walmart, and Target are the enemy.

Publishing aside, if you like to read, these examples are the evil ones you should fight against.

I think J. Selby summed it up perfectly - in any industry if you see you can establish a high rate (or lower royalty) on something that might be huge in 3-5 years, then you have to jump at it.

What would people think of a "total return" type of royalty? i.e., you agree that the author get's X% of the profit on all types of sales instead of making it vary for each type of media?

Heck yes! Go get em' girl! LOL

Because they think they can get away with it. So the question is: can they? Or would it be realistic to look them in the eye and say: it's our policy not to accept those terms. How badly do they want you?

"Yes, it’s more expensive to print than a mass but it’s not as expensive as a hardcover."

Wouldn't the costs be factored into the price being charged wholesalers (and passed on to consumers as the cover price)?

Wouldn't the strip-able nature of mass market books cost publishers more, since the publisher is not getting the book back? (Or does it cost more to handle returns?)

Isn't the publisher making money (and not paying royalties) when trades and hardcovers are being remaindered?

Do publishers offer a sliding royalty for number of copies sold?

*cheering and clapping*

WOOT!

I agree 200%

*cheers from sidelines*

Go get 'em!

Keep pushing! Knowing you, you'll get there eventually, and then everyone will have to keep up with you!

I'm glad you are in the writers' corner on this. I sure hope a change occurs.
When it comes to purchase of books, I prefer trade paperbacks over mass, because they are larger format and better quality. It makes no sense that mass pays better.

I had no idea this was an issue, but that practice does seem ridiculous. If one format escalates, the other should too, etc.

I think an agent who is looking out for the best interests of her clients (and by association, herself), and is willing to get mad and fight for what she thinks is just, is living up to some fine standards.

Disclaimer: While I do write, that wasn't butt kissing!

Go for it and raise that bar, Kristin! For the publishers AND other agents!

Best. Agent. Ever.

I agree with Joseph ;).

Seriously, though--SOMEONE has to make a call for change, or nothing will ever happen. The publishing industry will stagnate.

Thank you for being that voice!

Thank you, Kristin!

You go, girl!

Kristin,

You are such a wonderful advocate for authors. Thanks and keep fighting the good fight!!

wordver: pations - the horribly misspelled but more aurally-accurate description of what I lack while waiting to hear from publishers about my submitted MS :)

You see, publishers are like most really old people. They can't seem to change their old habits, and they see every new thing as a curse. Mostly. And when you tell them they're wrong, they think you're not smart enough or wise enough or worthy enough to step up to them and talk such "nonsense".

Which is why self-publishing will continue to grow, attain respect and eventually reach a level where it is considered lucrative for most authors.

I'm not into self-publishing, so don't point any fingers at me, because I know a lot of you are against it. Truth is, the state of the publishing industry at the moment is just as bad that I don't understand how some agents, authors and editors can have the balls to sling mud at self-publishing.

What's more depressing is that it's not the failing economy that seems to be crippling the industry (this rubbish highlighted in this article has persisted long before today), it's the publishers themselves and their asinine old ways.

I don't think "set in our ways" covers this, quite. If Kristin and the others were arguing for them to change to a 6% royalty on trades, they'd embrace change quickly enough.

This is why we authors seek agents. You understand the business. For those aspiring authors out there, who think they're above seeking an agent, read through Ms. Nelson's post one more time, until you get it.

Hear hear. And as you allude to the change in the hard vs soft approach - I have often wondered why does there have to be a hardback at all? Why is it 'easier' to get reviews of hardbacks? I know many people who don't buy hardbacks just because they are less 'manageable' and heavier, and wait for paperbacks.

Lucky are your clients, that have someone not conformed to old ways. Good luck with the changes you intend to make! And I hope it extends to all market in due time.

Excellent question.

Great question and great information. Thanks!

I do believe there should be a royalties escalor for trade pb (Oxford University Press for example, does have a trade escalator.)
But trade pb do cost more to print than mass markets. And I can assure you trade unit costs are more than 6% higher than mass markets (the difference between initial mm and trade royalty rates). Also publishers usually print much, much smaller quantities on trade pbs compared to mm which drives the unit cost up even higher.

Contracts are why agents were invented, I think.

What a damn headache.

I love the new possibilities that the digital revolution has brought to me as a reader. I have the Kindle 2 and am a complete addict.

It is so disappointing (although not surprising) to see how corporations treat the authors. It reminds me of the whole Writer's Strike from last year where there were arguments over revenue from online episodes.

If people ever wondered about the value of an agent- this would be proof positive.

Anyone who has you for an agent is a lucky person to have someone who cares so much about them and their work to be as thourough as you are. Keep it up, Ms. Nelson! :)

There are so many new uses of 'electronic uses' on the landscape to begin with. So many possibilities for future revenues. While I can understand the whys, I'm glad to see agents on top of it. It might pennies today, but 3 (because things are moving rapidly, growing and expanding in this area) years from now? It could be dollars. And lots of them.

*pushing two excedrin in Kristin's direction. I'm sure what number this headache is but hope these help. :-)

Damn! I so want you right now! Too bad you don't represent any authors below middle grade. When my book is polished to perfection I hope you will consider me. You are what every author needs in an agent

Kristen said:
**Or maybe another word that begins with an "A" and has exactly 6 letters as well.**

Hmmmm...I give up. The only word that immediately comes to mind that starts with an "A" has seven letters.

Nice catch. You raise a very important point. Who knows where electronic media will take us?

Your clients are lucky to have someone as thorough as you.

Good catch!
This sounds like the we-do-what-we-want-and-with-no-regulation that messed the economy. It feels like a combination of greed and fear.

The more avenues I explore about the publishing panic of today, I'm finding going straight to epub a more comforting scenario.

The current implementation and exploitation of publishing companies in regard to electronic media is so poor that I really wonder if I should even bother shopping my manuscript. It may look like pennies now, but that's changing rapidly. Publishers know it, but they have last year's numbers to try and leverage cheap royalties knowing those numbers go up as soon as a better infrastructure and sales focus are implemented. As eReaders gain market saturation, this will become a bigger and bigger deal. Maybe I should just wait until that happens.

Hooray for you! Good and careful reading of leagalese to catch the changes is the sign of a master. Take a deep breath and pat yourself on the back.

Very interesting. And I agree with whoever commented above that this is the perfect example of why an author needs an agent.

Its not anything that would occur to me. I am not attracted to the idea of digital reading at all. I love the feel of a book in my hands. I get a kick out of brousing book stores and libraries, seeing the books.

But I do recognize that cutting down on paper use is a good thing.

You go girl! They should call you superagent! I'm thinking you need a day-or maybe a week-at the spa.

As for the clause, they're already reaching so far into authors pockets that it should be considered sexual harrassment. ;)

So what happens if you get last years contract, change the names and dates, sign it and send it back?

Would they catch it?

Probably bad karma though.

Pennies add up, Kristin, so you keep right on talking about them! :P

Thank you for sharing this, even though it sounds like a crazy time. I've been wondering how this will all shake out with electronic books becoming more and more prevalent, so this is fascinating.

Good luck, and go kick some ass!

I have a contract that's been hung up because of e-book issues. It's hard to wait, but I'd hate to think of what would have happened without my agent.

Ooooh, Kristin called someone a nasty name. Albeit in the most genteel, roundabout and polite way possible. :)

Wow, I'm really glad you understand this.

Agents rock.

What our esteemed agent friend is attempting to ignore about digital/electronic publishing is this; eventually, if we all abandon reading print books (highly unlikely, since not everyone will spill hundreds of dollars for a reader), the big broadband e-book sellers (Amazon, etc) will become publishers in their own right, and with the remarkable cheapness of electronic storage, will take tons more material than the print publisher--- allowing readers to focus very narrowly on what kind of books they wish to read, lowering the quality overall of the 'published' word and dropping author fees into the toilet... and eliminating the need for agents. "What, you say you like books about vampire hookers who battle werewolf cops by the light of the moon? Lucky you... we've got thirty different titles that cover that! Here's the top three..."

Popular, bestselling novelists will only need to start up a website and sell their books directly to the public... again, eliminating the need for agents and allowing them to keep all the cash for themselves. You honestly think Stephen King or JK Rowling couldn't afford to sell their own work on a sophisticated website? Rowling would be worth ten times as much if she sold direct to the public!

Of course, since she's selling digital media rather than a book, people are only going to pay a fraction for it that they would for something to sit on a shelf. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that once upon a time, a female friend of the family showed up with the first three books of Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series on her Palm Pilot. She didn't buy it... she downloaded it from a friend's PC.

Happy Writing!

This is why I needed an agent with my first book. I didn't have one. (sob)

Digital rights was one of the issues that caused the Writers Guild of America strike in 2007-08. It is incredibly important because no-one knows how things are going to shake out.

The future of publishing is not clear which is why making sure contracts are balanced fairly is so crucial. That Penguin inserted the clause without telling anyone is not a surprise, they were probably hoping you wouldn't notice.

I love that you're so passionate about standing up for authors' rights. You rock Kristin Nelson!

The publishers are trying to do a not so subtle end-run around an author's potential earnings in the electronic delivery of product. Electronic delivery systems of books is the future. To cut an author's percentage by 40% in a growing market that will eventually become the major source of income in publishing is a huge haircut. Pretty darn ballsy if you ask me.

Piffle, unadulterated piffle. Electronic books are not the future. That is pure intelligentsia tripe, which makes the assumption that everyone has an excellent internet connection (there are stats that intimate less than twenty percent of the country is on broadband), an updated computer system and/or an electronic reader device. It also presumes that every person who buys books will upgrade to an e-reader and accepting that they can read as long as their battery has life. People who are gadget-porn addicts will assuredly make the switch, for the love of yet another gadget, but most people do not buy enough books for pleasure in the course of a year to merit buying a reader.

It makes no sense.

I'll buy into the whole 'print is dead' movement when every school child is issued a dependable, durable e-reader in school, one worth thirty bucks or so that needs to be charged once a week. Remember twenty years ago when we thought every school kid would be seated behind a PC by now? That hasn't happened... sure, there are computers in the classroom, and computer labs in every building, but the concept of every school kid doing every stitch of work on a computer is still science fiction.

OMG - Given my marketing background designing brochures, advertisements, and all manner of marketing pieces I would be beyond distraught if I didn't have a say in the cover process. Thanks, Kristin, for always being an advocate for your writers!

I'm saying amen to Debra and adding, and thanks for sharing. I would have never thought that everyone wouldn't have some say or another.
Wow.

Another example of agents earning well over their 15% - nice work!
Sarah B

Ditto to what Debra, Sarah and Anon said. I find it odd that any editor would exclude writers from the cover art process, considering they create the stories in the first place! Well if anything, it offers yet another reason why agents are so valuable in this business. Way to stick up for your clients, Kristin!

Thanks for this, I wasn't aware it was something that needed to be present in the draft. I always assumed the author already had a general idea of what the cover should represent. For me the visual is present with anything I write. The sense of the descriptive is in the story, within the words, why shouldn't it also include the cover. (Hugs)Indigo

While I know it's a part of the contract, I immediately wondered if the reason some editors hedge on the consultation pertains to budget constraints. When I see those look alike covers, I assume it's a cost-saving device. Kristen, do you think there is any validity to my theory?

Can you tell I've spent years in corporate marketing? LOL.

With so much of the writing/publishing journey being a cooperation with others, it makes sense that this would extend to the cover design as well. The author's vision for the story can be recognized here as well as inside the book.

An editor's two cents... I absolutely agree that not consulting properly, or making a show of faux-consulting once the cover has already been pretty much decided, is very bad form by editors.
But it's worth remembering that they probably do this because they've encountered authors who make real consultation very difficult. It's true that authors understand their stories more intimately than anyone else can, and can therefore bring invaluable input to the cover design process. But some authors come with very specific, very inflexible ideas about what their cover must look like. And because authors aren't necessarily visual artists or graphic designers, not to mention marketers, their cover ideas aren't always spot on. When you encounter an author who has misplaced ideas about their cover AND who refuses to budge, useful collaboration is nearly impossible. This doesn't mean authors shouldn't be consulted - but authors who send in awful mocked-up covers and insist that nothing else will do, or who veto every suggestion from the publisher but refuse to discuss why (and "I've always hated red" doesn't count as discussion), may make editors wary of inviting author input.
This is a shame, especially for more reasonable authors and their agents. I'm not saying editors are right to try to avoid giving authors and agents a chance to contribute - but I can understand why they'd be tempted...

You had to throw that caveat in there, though, didn't you. You are sane and you offered good suggestions. Do you represent the majority? That's the question! I can say that the editors I worked with (I was in production and blissfully free of dealing with the cover until the end of the process) appreciated authors with good suggestions or authors that trusted them to do a good job (some of the cover styles that promote good sales I never would have guessed, but they have the experience to know these things). The authors that have dumb ideas and a stubborn streak ruin it for everyone, though. An example of this from 2007 was an author that had a friend design the cover (don't they all?) and the thing was pee yellow! Buy this book, it's made of pee! Not the EA, not the AE, not the publisher, not the marketing manager, not the director of sales could convince this person that a pee yellow book would not sell. A year later the book had to be reprinted with a new cover because the sales were tanking.

On a complete side note to what everyone else has been saying (which, for the most part, I totally agree with therefore will just be an echo, echo, echo) I love SO WHAT by Pink. Every time it comes on my three-and-a-half-year-old daughter have, repeat HAVE to stop what we're doing, get up, dance, and occasionally grab her Barbie Microphones and sing our hearts out. So, thanks for bringing good memories unintentionally!

I was wondering about this, because I went to a conference and stood in line for HOURS to have a book signed by a very well known and successful author and I distinctively remember him saying about one of his books "I hate this cover." (I did too.) And I thought, Gee, I guess if he didn't have a say then nobody does! But I'm glad to know that's not always the case. If I ever have a book published I'll just cross my fingers that I actually get the real consultation.

As a couple of others have mentioned above: this all depends on the author's ability to not be a psycho freak jackass where his or her cover is concerned.

I have a background in graphic design and marketing, and after designing websites for people who wouldn't know what good taste was if it jumped up and ripped their throats out -- I feel sympathy for editors who have had to deal with authors cut from that exact same cloth.

Now, I completely agree that authors and their agents need to be consulted on the cover right from the beginning in the simple name of respect; but, unless the author really knows what they are talking about, their "vision" does not necessarily have to be executed.

You're a writer: so keep writing. Leave art and design to people who know what they are doing.

I wish I could say that to my clients: "Uh no John, you fracking crackhead, blinking red text on a lime green background is not a good idea for your business."

Every agent deserves a venting session. Keep up the good work, Ms. Nelson! You know that there are a lot of people who appreciate it. :D

I've been lucky so far with covers. No complaints...yet.

In my experience, I've worked with authors who have run the gamut - those who have great (even superior) design sense, and those who think that book covers are just type and pictures on a flat surface. When people are reasonable, compromises can be made. I've made many. But when I get "you don't love me if you don't love this design" emails from authors, I want to blow things up. Thanks for posting a story of when people can and do meet in the middle. It gives me hope.

It's good to see that there are editors and agents out there that do want strive to have the author consulted in the cover process.

Of course, nothing can ever be easy and there have to be those editors that don't consult the author at all too.

Kristin,
Thanks for an explaination from the agent's POV. I was an art teacher and book illustrator for many years before I began to write. It has been a source of deep angst with me as I have watched author friends cry and fight to have covers which reflect favorably on their work. One wants their baby shown to best advantage, and your clients are lucky to have you in their corner.

I went to a panel on covers at WFC when it was in Saratoga Springs, and one thing that came out was that a lot of covers are designed and created BEFORE the book is even written, where the artist is working only from the 3-paragraph plot summary in the proposal. This explained a lot of book covers to me. Also, the editors in the room wanted a cover that makes the book sell well, but the readers in the room wanted a cover that told them what the book was about. I guess the point is to come up with one that does both.

Lubes - I know what you mean, exactly. On the other hand, you have to walk the customer through the questions of
"How do you want to position your business?" and
"What is your customer really looking for?" and
"What does this color scheme say to your average customer?"

There should be good reasons for the cover design, and some reasonable connection with what's between the covers, rather than just the genre flags (woman, tattoo, moon, ornate dagger).

If the publisher starts off with the idea that the writer is ignorant or stupid, or that the book is just a commodity to be packaged as they please, then they are losing the greatest source of free creativity that is available to them. Luckily, most folks in publishing are professionals, so I expect that most writers are pretty happy with their covers.

But for the exceptions, one day one of those companies that don't live up to the consultation clause of their contract is going to meet an author that hates the cover enough to get an injunction. A little hit to the pocketbook might teach them the meaning of the word "courtesy". Probably not, though, and it's unlikely for a sane writer to do that unless there were a lot of other unprofessional acts on the side of the company.

"...one day one of those companies that don't live up to the consultation clause of their contract is going to meet an author that hates the cover enough to get an injunction."

I don't see how you could possibly get an injunction for such a thing. You'd have to prove it was a material breach, and since the publisher doesn't have to listen to your input at the end of the day, you'd have a basically impossible time with that one.

But in any event, lawsuits are just the wrong way to think about that kind of thing.

Most of the language in publishing contracts has NOTHING to do with enforcing rights in court. Instead, it sets out expectations--the publisher expects the author to work with the editorial department in X, Y, Z ways, and they'll work with the author on A, B, and C.

Lawsuits are a really, really terrible tool for forcing people to do things for you. Contracts are legal documents, but they're rarely about legal enforcement. You can just sort of agree up front that it's best for everyone if you do certain things. If the person doesn't live up to their obligations, well, now you know that about them, and you can choose whether you want to work with them again.

The enforcement is in the repeat of the game. (As Kristin pointed out, it's also something she'd take into consideration if advising an author about choosing between deals, too--so it is not just authors here. Can you imagine how a house will feel if they lose out on the next Stephenie Meyer, not because they didn't offer enough money, but because the agent representing the author panned them for lack of cover consultation?)

Unless the work is non-fiction (where the writer is also obligated to market his or her own work in some degree), I'm sort of dumbfounded as to how much input the writer needs to have over a cover. Unless it's horrible, wouldn't the publisher know best? Also, wouldn't the agent be able to better handle this sort of thing? I'm a writer, and I have no idea about marketing, I leave that up to the agent and, ultimately, the publisher.

I'm not a marketing wiz by any means, but I would like to be able to see the cover and comment before it was finalized. It is the face of everything you've worked so hard over, after all, and you want it to look good.

Approval, on the other hand... Ah, well, we can all dream, right?

Radar magazine also just folded.

YEP, TIMES ARE PRETTY BAD RIGHT NOW.

Onus on the author? My head hurts.

Ouch. In other news, someone kicked my puppy.


(Not really.)

Sounds like another good reason to get an agent.

What makes me nervous is when people start shouting from the rooftops, "Doom and Gloom! We're done! America is over!"

I mean, come on people, it's just a recession. And since the bible-thumpers are getting their pleasure off of proclaiming the devil is preparing his handbasket to come pick us all up, I don't need everyday people telling me that now is NOT a time to get published. The thing is: that's what I want to do, write!

How can I not submit to try to get published? How is that fair when other writers have been doing it for ages?

Just my rant...

In other words, times are continuing to change and in the long run this will be the norm. It will be harder and harder for authors to get agents because fewer books will be sold.

I can't get discouraged, I just bend as the wind blows.

I'm guessing they intentionally make some of this information hard to understand. :( Must get agent before running out into the world.

So many new technologies and laws for emerging writers to keep up with! I'm trying to educate myself, but if I ever land an agent, it's nice to know I can cling to her coattails and let her handle the truly confusing stuff :)

Edward -

I know a few Bible thumpers and that's not what they're saying. Please leave the straw men out in the fields where they belong.

You know the question about Google publishing my copyright protected but technically OOP book is an intriguing one. I'm mostly okay with it as an author as it is another audience for me.

However, I have been thinking about that alot. The exact scenario described may happen to my first book. It was technically out of print for a bit, but still under copyright protection. If the publisher does not do a new edition in a specified amount of time (they just did a small French printing, so I guess the timeline starts anew) then the rights revert back to me.

But what if Google publishes it in its entirety online during that interim. If the book were technically dead, I'd be okay with that - one more chance for readers to find my work.

But let's say the novel I'm currently sending around is a big deal (as I believe it should be) and suddenly there is a renewed interest in ALL my work?

At that point, I no longer have an avenue for resurrecting my own intellectual property in some other form. That's a little odd.

Are Anne Rice's early works as Anne Rampling still in print? If not, are they up for grabs? That is a bit dodgy for me. I think Ms. O'Brien-Rice should have the say on that. Just my thoughts.

You might want to check out this guy's blog about publisher bankruptcy as well:
http://writersgroupblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/publisher-bankruptcy/

Sadly, I've been through a bankruptcy with an epublisher, and that bankruptcy clause is basically worthless. The judge can decide if the rights of that book are worth something and then hold the author's rights until they find out if they can sell them.

Because a book or the book rights are an asset, the company going through a bankruptcy has no right to give that asset away, in essence taking potential money away from debtors.

Trust me. It's not as easy as just writing a letter and asking for your rights back.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I would imagine this is a bean-counting move, completely divorced from thinking about the authors (or agents) as if they were human beings.

Ooh. There's a joke in there. Something about bean-counting vs being-counting.

Anyway, the lawyers are probably trying to preserve all possible assets for the company in the event of bankruptcy so that the company has something to sell. They would count the nonreverting contracts as assets and sell them off to other entities in any reorganization.

But that's just a guess. Stand firm!

I worked as a bankruptcy appellate lawyer for nine years, researching and drafting memoranda and decisions for a judge on the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate panel. And now I write humorous books for teens and children. Go figure.

Those "ipso facto" clauses are often unenforceable in bankruptcy, though it's somewhat unresolved whether they can be enforced when the debtor is the licensee of a registered copyright. Here's an article explaining things: http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2007/09/articles/business-bankruptcy-issues/are-termination-on-bankruptcy-contract-clauses-enforceable/

I'm told by authors who were with Triskelion that the bankruptcy clause in their contracts is unenforceable. Their rights are tied up ad infinitum until some court releases them.

Attorneys out there, why would these be unenforceable if both parties agreed that rights would revert? I'm no legal-savvy type, but aren't contract provisions usually binding unless the premise is illegal?

Wow, I had no idea! A bit scary too.

I read this on the 'In the (Red)' blog: "If enforcing an ipso facto clause is important to one of your agreements, especially if you also seek the highly problematic reversion of intellectual property or other rights upon such a termination, be sure to get specific legal advice on your situation, including whether alternative approaches may exist to help achieve your objectives." It made me wonder, what are the alternatives, because honestly, the idea of having your rights and income tied up by a bankrupt publisher is terrifying. Does anyone know what the alternative is?

Thanks!

Deb,

Contract provisions are usually binding, but if you think about it, bankruptcy is relief from debt that that the person going bankrupt is contractually obligated to pay. If you enter bankruptcy and you have credit card debt and a mortgage and the like, your creditors may have to accept a smaller amount than they would otherwise get by contract.

When someone is no longer able to pay, bankruptcy dissolves contracts and apportions the remaining assets in a way that is (hopefully) as fair as possible.

Deb, not if the company owes money, and these book rights are the majority of their 'assets.' The judge is all about getting the debtors as much money as he can. Authors' rights are assets, nothing more.

This has also happened to some who've been through other types of bankruptcy. They sell a product to a company, the company gets a bill, they don't pay the bill, they company files for bankruptcy. You would think that the person who sold that product to the bankrupted company would get it back...they never paid for it, right? But no. The judge would use that as a asset and sell it to pay off debt...some of that debt being the very person they bought the asset from!

It makes absolutely NO sense. But that's how it works.

Authors have absolutely NO protection in a bankruptcy case. That is what is so disturbing. The rights to this author's book will be stuck for months and months (or even maybe a year or more) before the court either sells those rights to someone else, or releases the author's rights to him once they find out there is no buyer for those rights.

10-26-08
I think the Econ downturn means publishers will want more polished material. I edit most of my stories about twice each year. I took out 2 years to write screenplays for every one, and this taught me a great deal about being thorough. My guru in this regard is Linda Seger, THE Hollywood script consultant. Her attitudes might help any writer.
She writes books like “How to Make A good Screenplay Great!” I watch movies much differently now. Structure is everything. It's rare to find anyone who will pay millions of dollars to make a movie if the screenplay itself is not clear, detailed and vivid. These days, I'm editing my books as if I had to convince someone to make a movie out of each story I am a real scientist, and we have to be imaginative to get grant money too.
The next few months will obviously be hard on new authors. Study and learn from your best stories and scenes. Try to understand your voice better and continue to polish and edit.
Scientifically, all huge market downturns are preceded by times of great overconfidence. Right before the crash of 1929, President Hoover promised voters “Two cars in every garage!” We had just learned to mass produce the auto a little more than a decade earlier.
Newspapers collaborated. They spread the good news. Headlines in '29 screamed, “Everyone is Rich!”
Facts prevalent today show Wall Street printed too many stock shares. Daily trading volume is 200-600 times that traded about 3-4 decades ago. With the exception of prosecutable flimflam CEOs, the bad news is your salary hasn't increased that much. Added cash in circulation has lagged too. The printers of share certificates though were overconfident.
Keep writing. Best of luck to you.
WilliamEpic (“Eppik”, online)

WilliamEpic correction: ("Eppik", online)should read (LiveJournal dot com, then search for Eppik.) Otherwise, it's random Google nonsense. Things change so fast these days!

"The judge would use that as a asset and sell it to pay off debt...some of that debt being the very person they bought the asset from!"

It's true that an author is nothing other than a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding. It doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

A company has $1000 of assets and $10000 of debt, and a bankruptcy court decides to apportion the assets out as 10% of all debt to the creditors. So yes, that means you have to sell off the assets, including assets that belong to the person who has been credited. And it's not like there's "no" reason--the reason is that everyone is going to get shafted, so you try to shaft people in a fairly equitable fashion. Bankruptcy rules actually make a lot of sense. They just don't make a lot of people happy.

All that being said, there is a reason to get an ipso facto clause even if it's unenforceable. Imagine that you have a bankruptcy court, and it's going to give people a percentage of what they're owed.

Sans ipso facto clause, you can argue that you're owed the royalties that you've collected thus far. With it, you may be able to argue that you're owed royalties plus the value of the remaining rights. You may not get your rights back, but you could get your percentage of a larger pot.

It might not work out like that, but a chance is better than not having anything at all.

I'm so glad you posted this, because last week I was actually wondering about it. With all the financial chaos of the last few weeks, the question of "what if" has grown even larger in the back of my brain. Now I know what to look for. Thanks!

i read somewhere on another blog about an author who's publisher went belly up after they bought the rights but before the book mde it into print and the author found themserlves in a situation where they never got to see their book in print, and they never got to shop it elsewhere because of something complicated with rights ownership.

as someone above said rights are assets. and are usually treated as such.

How would a bankruptcy court assess the value of a title in the scenario Anon 6:09 cited above? I mean, no book (yet) equals no royalties. Only individual getting shafted here, as I can see, is the author who can't sell the work anywhere else.

Bankruptcy courts are courts of equity rather than courts of law. In essence, the judge doesn't have to follow the exact laws, but is supposed to determine what feels "equitable" as a distribution of the assets to the creditors.

Now, when an author license the right to publish a book to a publisher, that right becomes part of the publisher's assets. By contract law, only the written contracted rights should be assets owned by the publisher. Unfortunately, the judge *can* override contract law and decide that, for reasons of equity to the group of creditors, the asset (publication rights) can/shall be retained for longer than the original term.

It's like leasing some manufacturing equipment to a company and having the bankruptcy judge determine that, since the equipment is needed for the business to continue, it must stay on the factory floor even if they are not making payments.

It's not fun for the company doing the leasing, but it's the way bankrupcy works

This is why authors need agents. None of that made any sense to me. My ears (or I guess I should say, my eyes) perked up when I read SF&F, however, because the second 'F' is the genre I'm working on. That's interesting to note that eBooks are more popular for Science Fiction and Fantasy readers. I never knew that.

I'm glad I discovered your site, you're making my life so much easier. It's like one stop shopping. A Super WalMart of information. Now if you could just take care of my grocery list I'd never have to leave my computer. :)
Thanks again,
Kasie

Cool post. One of the main reasons I'd like to have an agent is because the line I'm targeting has a contract that I've heard is not quite up-to-date on e-book royalties. They're a huge publisher, respectable in every way, but a little slow in this area (I've heard).
So an agent definitely comes in handy. I was wondering what the percentages were. Thanks!

Holy crap. That sounds low to me. I get more than that, and I thought Ellora's Cave was at least at 30 or so percent. Am I wrong?

E-book royalties should be more than that. The distribution costs are next to nothing!

I've been wondering about this. I buy new books exclusively as eBooks. It's been gratifying to watch the availability of books increase across genres. I think eBooks are on the brink of exploding (in a good way!) with readers built for iPhones. I'd like to see an industry platform standard, similar to mp3 for music.

Yet another reason why agents are so, so needed! Thank you for posting things like this. It's frightening how tricky these contracts can be.

You mean for traditional publishers, don't you? Sorry, LOL. I thought the Sky Was Falling for the Future of Authors Everywhere.

I'm praying higher e-royalty rates become a trend with higher ebook sales over the coming year!

This made me wonder... how many of the books you sell have ebooks made of them, and who gets to decide what format? (I have an ulterior motive; I desperately want Demon's Lexicon to come out for the Kindle...)

Hi, Kristin! Just wondering, could you give an example of language that allows renegotiation of e-royalty rates should industry standard go up? How would the clause be phrased?

To spyscribbler, I don't think agents handle contracts with EC since (as far as I know) EC doesn't pay advances, so this post probably doesn't apply to EC contracts.

While most writers don't seem to know about this (I sure didn't), there's a subset of e-books which covers tech-reference books: the subscription model.

Because technology passes by in an eye-blink, it gets real hard, real fast, to find a physical copy of a book on a retail shelf. And you don't really need the physical copy; typically you're after one fact -- one solution, one way to accomplish a particular "something."

O'Reilly, for example, calls their e-subscription library Safari. The subscription gets you access to all the books they've e-pubbed (which is all, I think, for the last maybe 10 years?).

My royalties statements from my tech books' publishers almost never see a bump in physical copies sold. But even 6-10 years later, they still bring in a little of money from e-subscriptions.

I sent the following questions to two other agents with a suggestion they comment on their blogs. So far, nothing has been said. Here they are:

This [reduced royalties on Kindle books specifically] raised a question in my mind about how you are thinking now regarding your own income effect as well as your clients' interests when Kindle books are sold for less [royalties are still based on percentage, therefore less]. Do you truly believe volume will make up the difference? Will there be diminishing returns to writers so that the quality suffers because writers withdraw their work or will it be a counter balance to the number of titles and therefore increase quality? Will writers refuse to sell their ebook rights unless royalties are lifted on ebook formats [share the wealth of the reduced overheads]? What do your crystal balls foretell?

Right, I was boggling with Spyscribbler. o_O My publisher's standard royalty rate is 35% for e-books sold through their site, and 25% for books sold through third parties like Amazon or Fictionwise. I'd turn down a 15% royalty on an e-book contract flat. If you're talking about NY publishers, though, they've always had lower royalties (although of course they make it up on volume.)

NY-only also explains why F&SF is the biggest selling e-book genre. If you count all the small presses, romance and erotica blows everyone else away. I imagine Tor's freebies have racked up some impressive numbers, but, well, they're freebies. :) Who's actually selling bazillions of e-books on the NY side?

Angie

I'm glad to see the industry at least looking forward to the tech-changes that are sure to come.

I think I'd have to argue that the best ebook sales are probably in erotic romance. Unless you are talking about straight NY print pubs with ebook releases?

So then we'd have to say that *romance* readers are the ones who really started the trend and adapted to new technologies. Go romance!

"Sure, the percentage of
e-royalties is miniscule compared to overall sales of a book in print formats but who knows what the future might bring so you have to at least think about it."

Wow, so true. And something I wouldn't have thought about. Bring it on, ebooks.

Yes, industry standard for ebook publishers (like Ellora's Cave. Samhain, Liquid Silver, etc.) are around 37.5%. But no advance (except Samhain.)

I thought it seemed awfully low too, lol!

Good grief. Agents today almost need to be contract attorneys too!

I'm talkin' out of my pea brain here, so correct me if I'm wrong.


In my experience, Net of ANYTHING, is tantamount to ZERO to the author.
If possible, always negotiate for GROSS. And that's GROSS on your project, (book/whatever), considered alone. Negotiate not to mix your book/whatever in with the rest of the company's business.
Why?
Because, if you've negotiated for NET and the company shows an overall loss - believe me, the accountants are looking for every loss so the company can write off all it's expenses against taxes - (but your project book/whatever made money), you get NET of a loss-which is NOTHING. I think, this is how JAMES GARNER got ZERO residuals from the very successful ROCKFORD FILES. And how Forest Gump made $600 plus dollars, yet the studio showed a net loss for the year.
However,
If you've negotiated for your royalties to be based on GROSS and for you book/whatever to show all it's accounting, (expenses, sales, profit and loss, etc), on it's own sheet... Guess what, it's harder for the company to hide $$$ that's accrued to your book/whatever. Your project may still show a loss, hence no royalties, but the accounting is much more straight forward.

Perhaps my pea brain is toodling down an imaginary road here?

Haste yee back ;-)

Epublishers have to pay for the cost of editing, covers, Internet infrastructure, etc., which the major publishers have already paid for for the paper books. Epublisher royalties run between 35 to 50 percent, and the big publishers give 15 percent as well as using the ebook as "in print" to hold on to the rights for the paper book forever.

Is there anything wrong with this picture?

When ebook publishers started becoming successful, the traditionally published authors screamed like virgins at an orgy because they thought epublishing would harm their careers and incomes. What a joke. By accepting 15% as "standard," they may be harming the epublished.

LOL! If you want to know who the early adopters are, try talking with people who have been in the epub business for 10 or more years. SF&F is not where the big sales have been coming from.

Thank you!

Another good reason to have an agent covering you.

:)

There's a lot of misinformation in this comment thread.

1. "Net" in this case means "net" of what the publisher receives for the sale of the book. Say cover price is $10. that's what Barnes & Noble (or Amazon, or Fictionwise, or corner drug store, etc.) gets for sale of book. But they bought it off the publisher for $5 (or less, but let's make math easy). If you are paid on cover price @ 15% royalties, you get $1.50. If you are paid in net 25%, you get $1.25. NOT as good a deal.

That's why it behooves authors NOT to sign "% of net" contracts, especially with the way distributors are pushing against publishers to get lower prices.

2. I'm with two of the biggest publishing houses in the world -- the kind with the big buildings in Manhattan -- and I've never signed a contract with 15% e book royalties. This "standard" is one I'm not familiar with. Mine are much higher (though not as high as epublishers offer -- the trade off is the advances and the tens of thousands of sales through distribution)

3. I don't know any traditionally print published authors who whined at what epublishers had accomplished. Most didn't even see it as the same business (the way a steakhouse doesn't really care if a smoothie shop opens next door), and those who did were excited about the prospect of viable epublishing. I, for one, applauded the GOOD epublishers business model and the way it helped push ebooks into the mainstream.

4. What is this rumor about Kindle royalties being lower? My kindle royalties are the exact same as my ebook royalties in ANY format. My publisher does not split hairs as to which electronic format my book is sold in.

5. The agent here is very obviously discussing HER experience with the electronic versions of the books sold by HER clients at primarily print publishers. What does she sell? Romance, sci-fi, chick lit, and YA. Of these, which has the highest ebook sales? Sci fi. Everyone knows that the *epublishers* making bank are doing so in erotica. I don't think this agent even handles erotica.

My guess is also that erotica sells far more than SF&F in the e-book arena.

Kindle royalties, depending on your contract, may be calculated on the "net" payment to the publisher (as discussed earlier). I don't know for sure, but does Amazon take out a hefty chunk for a publisher to sell via Kindle? For contracts based on "gross", there would be no difference to the author.

Was discussing the future of bookstores on a SF&F magazine forum recently. Will be interesting to see if any of those thoughts (downloadable e-books in the store while you suck down a latte in the lounge, for example) come to light.

Now the mens gymnastics is just full of amazing research potential, it's not perving really, you're actually doing work and people should be understanding if you end up lodged in your couch as you watch those biceps, sorry athletes was the word I was looking for. Love the olympics.

Hi Kristin
Don't feel bad. Raise your flag, wave your arms and cheer for the most amazing of amazing. I'm right there with you. I get swept away by the skill and grace those athletes have.

The Olympics, and we think getting published (or dare I say -- an agent!?!) is hard. Enjoy it, they deserve our applause.

Have a great day and even better evening cheering on your favs.

Nancy

This reminded me of something Nathan Bransford said... uh... last week, maybe: how tired he is of the phrase "coming of age."

I'll say one thing for the various authors of whoops-it's-not-memoir-after-all books in the news recently: they sure seem to have messed up the word "memoir" for anybody else's work.

Excellent advice, because we writers do love our words!

I can see how it might seen relevant to say "guess where I got this idea" when querying, but I realize now it doesn't matter how or where, just that the idea came to fruition and that it's a good one.

Thanks. I will tuck this away until I need it!

My boat was hauled out all this week so I haven't watched. I feel so out of the loop!
BTW
Kristin is it true!!!!! Are you really going to be on Oahu at the Maui Writers Conference???!!!!

You're right. The most difficult stories to critique are the ones where events (or perish the thought, the entire story) has actually happened to the author. So when you say, "this could be made more plausible", the author doesn't understand why. It's believable, because it happened to the author. And it was so real and heartbreaking that the author won't change a thing. In fact, the author's a bit upset that you'd even suggest this.

I'll take fictional events any day.

I have also caught Olympic fever! An interesting thing I heard about Michael Phelps on the ABC news this evening was that part of what makes him physically awesome is: a. his arm span across from fingertips to fingertips is longer than he is tall and b. his feet actually flex back further than normal essentially turning his size 14(!) feet into fins! I thought it was important that as a swim fan you have this information:)

Orion,
It is true. I will be in Oahu in about 2 weeks.

I recently queried you, and I included two sentences about myself. Something, I was completely uncomfortable doing. I had the impression that I was expected to do so. A second after I hit send I finished reading the blogs I'd missed this week and Wammo! I made the mistake I didn't even wish to make.

"Our initiative to modernise our contracts started over two years ago and we have received significant praise from both authors and agents for the clear and concise language and our balanced approach.

It's early.... I misread that to say they modernized their contracts 2 years ago "when we received significant praise..." for thier clear and concise language. As if they wanted to make it confusing.

o-O

But... I do see the author's point. I a publishing house is no longer doing anything with your work, if it isn't on the shelves regularly, then you want to have a chance to look at other avenues of revenue as they become available.

Backlist, thanks to POD, ebooks, and graphic novel adaptations among other possibilities, now has a value it didn't have a few years back when print was the only option.

Backlist is where a bunch of the action is these days so the publishers want it for nothing, just in case.

This article didn't mention this, but another I saw said that S&S UK also wants to give the author only 15% royalties on ebook sales. That's robbery.

The standard ebook royalty from epublishers runs between 50 to 75%, and epublishers have the extra expense of editing, etc. The big publishers already have that done for the paper version, and the authors shouldn't have to shoulder the entire expense for these multibillion-dollar conglomerates to build their ebook infrastructure.

I meant RH UK, not S&S.

15% ?

For Ebooks? The no printing costs, barely a blip on the bandwidth to download, completely digital distribution kind of Ebooks?

LOL...

I also like the brazen attempt to squat on intellectual property even if they have no intention of doing squat with it themselves. What audacity.

???The standard ebook royalty from epublishers runs between 50 to 75%,???
That's on NET, I suspect, because the usual figure given for ebook royalty average is 30%.

The discussion I've seen so far among writers has not been very positive.

There is a lot of fear about this being either:
(1) an experiment which ends up failing
(2) a success for the publisher but not the author, which will prompt spreading of this business model and harm authors over the long run

What does this mean for agents such as yourself? I understand that the author may get a 50/50 split, but how does the author's agent get paid? Do they just take their 10-20% from the 50/50 split?

Thanks for explaining this more thoroughly. All the blogs I saw just said "no advances and no returned books."

Looks a lot like they're cutting agents out of the equation. I've also seen thoughts that the profit split is very Hollywood. That is, jimmying the books for zero profit. Hmm. So, how much does an author make? Zero. How much does an agent make? 15% of Zero.

Years ago Robert Silverberg agreed to a similar deal. He would take a smaller advance and the publisher would allocate the money to marketing the book. He later sued and discovered that no extra money was spent on marketing his book. Someone should ask him what he thinks about this special deal for "established" authors.

As an friend of mine commented earlier: You know the publisher is getting paid up front, the editor is getting paid up front, the cover artists, the copyeditors, the marketing department.

The only one not getting paid up front in this scenario is the person actually producing the work - the author.

So lemme get dis straight. I fin de lan. I grow de pot. I smuggle it cross de border... den I gib it all to you for noteeng, an at de en of de bizness yeer, you gonna gib me one haf ob all de profitt you got leff?

I don teenk so.

I agreed last year to a deal with no advance. Reasons were: a very tight publishing deadline (and I already had a manuscript that fit their series), it was a educational publisher with a good track record in doing things differently with what they published, the editor was a total dream to work with (big plus as I was dealing with another problematic editor at the time).
What has happened since? My agent was not happy as he had no input into the contract (it was take it or leave it). The second five of the series, of which mine was one, was supposed to be published by 31 March (now they tell me they don't know the expected release date). And the promise of further opportunities to submit manuscripts has not eventuated.
The thing that aggravates me the most? They haven't stuck to their original publication date. So I have to wait and wait and wait, and am now wondering if the first five bomb, maybe the second five will be cancelled. So no advance, no book, nothing.
The one thing an advance does is give you money up front for what you have laboured over. Even if the book doesn't come out, you haven't completely lost. With no advance, you are relying completely on the publisher to follow through and do what they say.
Huh. Never do that again.

Hi

Thanks for the entry. I want to ask a question, and I hope you don't think I am rude. I am just curious.

You often say you fight hard with publishers over certain issues, such as advance payments. Now in my ignorance, I would have thought that it would be the publisher who had the real clout, unless the book was one really hot piece of property, and let's face it, most are not. How often would you be able to get your desired outcome?

I have a question too. If a publisher wants a book, and let's say they are not the only ones, so it's something desirable, and you choose them, and they take EIGHT months to provide your first payment (the on acceptance payment) and the contract, while all the time doing edits with you, who is at fault here? My agent said the publisher was just slow and not to worry, but it seems like maybe there was something he/she could've done. Am I wrong? Is this standard?

I'm a newbie, so bear with me.

Why would publishers want to do this? The only logical reason I can think to spread out the payments is (a) they lack the $30K up front and would rather pay as they go, or (b) there's the concern that the contract will, for one reason or another, fall apart before finished product is out the door.

Now, (b) may be the reason -- I suspect between those two it would be, as most people would be squeamish about dealing with someone who promises more than they can deliver -- but if so, why would a contract fall apart?

I'm just placing myself in a soon-to-be-published writer's shoes and finding that this desire to segment the payout would make me somewhat queasy. (From the sound of it, it makes you slightly queasy too ;) )

Sorry if the question seems silly. Just curious :)

When you contract someone to put an extension on your house, do you just hand over 30K and say "that should cover it -- I look forward to putting in my furniture" ? Of course not -- you pay out money upfront in good faith and then money when things are done. Unless you are a fool, of course. This is the way of the world.

To make you all feel better, illustrators all too often must finish entire books, particularly rushed ones, before even seeing the first payment, which comes after the contract is drafted, redrafted, signed, and processed. So quit your whining.

Thanks for the clarification, Kristin. My DH's book was done in 3rds, with the last payment due on publication (which will be this fall).

P.S. Soon-to-be-published-writer-shoes-wearer: you should be worrying about how to diminish the unlikeliness of ever getting published with a $300 deal instead of spending your time worrying how they're going to chop up your 30K.

Anon # 1 (and #2 since they are the same person I suspect) is crabby today.

One of the reasons people like to avoid payment upon pub is that pun can be so far away. Also, there is always the chance that the publisher will not actually publish your book, even though they have accepted the manuscript. Slim, but real chance.

The only logical reason I can think to spread out the payments is (a) they lack the $30K up front and would rather pay as they go, or (b) there's the concern that the contract will, for one reason or another, fall apart before finished product is out the door.

Actually, it probably has more to do with the time-value of money. Given that there's usually a year or two between signing and publication, if the publisher can put off paying that final $10K for two years, they can earn interest on it. It's probably worth an extra thousand or so dollars to them to pay it as late as possible. Multiply by the several hundred books they produce each year, and you can see why they put off payment for as long as they can.

Anon 7:54 --

AMEN!

--(a published writer who has no 30k lying around!)

Wouldn't a new writer be someone who has already submitted a complete manuscript (because it is seen as very poor taste to submit to an agent or publisher without a fully realized manuscript, for a newbie; I can see it would be different for a writer with an established track record)? That would mean two tenets of the issue have already been met; contract signed, manuscript completed and delivered, all in one fell swoop.

Am I incorrect?

T-Bone...

Oh, and how is this going to be effected by the eventual advent of e-publishing?

#1-- will there be agents at all when it is more cost effective for publishers to take on twice as many writers (or more) as they have in the past?

#2-- will contracts be delegated to something as simple as e-mail accounts, electronic signatures and payment through services like PayPal and electronic fund transfers?

#3-- will publishing drop in profitability enough that many writers will leave writing for lack of time & money, once again opening the market up down the road?

T-Bone...

By manuscript delivered, I believe she was talking about the final edits. Even if you've got a whole book done and it's sold that way, you will get an editorial letter (except under special circumstances) and then you have to do your edits. When the edits are accepted, then it's considered "manuscript delivered". I think.

Looking at the numbers Kristin posted about the payout schedule for a low paying novel, I think it might actually be approaching the point when a good writer can make more money selling short stories to decent magazines. Sell a big enough story to a well-paying mag, and you make three grand or so. No agent fees, flat payment schedule, and recognition are the rewards. Better yet, sell enough, get noticed by agents/editors, and get a bigger offer on your novel. Get some of your stories published in an anthology next to some really big names and drive up the sales of your novels!

Move to the coast, live on a yacht, marry a supermodel and pump out a few good looking kids. Watch your novels be made into movies, invest wisely and write your memoirs. Attend conferences and look contrite, not smug, and lend a helping hand to struggling writers.

Simple, easy! See you all in Santa Barbara for the wine festival.

This is really helpful information, thank you Kristin. I found a blog you did a while back (not on this site) that listed agents that accepted e-queries. It has proven most useful, thank you!

Waving ignorance flag here: does this mean no money from the publisher to the writer at all until the book hits the shelves?

What protects the writer from a publisher that decides it will renege on the contract? Does that ever happen?

Is this something that is happening with small houses as well that may be less financially able to pay up front or upon signing? What if they go out of business before publication?

Thanks for raising it, Kristin.

jwhit,

Traditionally there have been two payments - usually on contract signing and on manuscript acceptance. Now this payment on pub adds a third payment, when the book hits the shelves. I'd rather manage my taxes and get two payments, especially in the case of a book being published 18-24 months after contract signing. That's a long wait for the final third of the so-called advance.

It thwarts the newer author who's getting a small advance but is smart enough to spend it on marketing, except she needs the cash to start doing this well before pub date. That doesn't help the publisher, does it?

As well, it seems to me that when the mss. is delivered, the author has held up his end of the deal. If for some reason the publisher delays release, that shouldn't affect the authors cash flow beyond the fact that any royalties above earn out will now come later.

They're just trying to improve their cash flow by cutting into ours. Seems like every business these days is trying to get better payment terms. Most would rather not pay for anything until they've already sold it.

Yep, I agree with Dave. This is for their cashflow not the author's. It allows them to spread out their investment. The longer they keep the money in their bank, the more interest they can accrue. I see companies all the time dragging out "net 30 day" invoice payments to 45 days. In my opinion, it's a shameless and cheap business practice.

The impact on the individual author's taxes is just a rose-colored-glasses way to look at it.

It sounds like the publisher's idea of a layaway plan. Gee, I wish I could put my electric bill on plan like that.

It's a matter of publishers (like most businesses) wanting to hold on to their money for as long as they can.

Well I don't notice booksellers paying advances to publishers for the rights to sell a book, and I don't notice agents paying advances to authors for the rights to sell a book--so why, exactly, is the publisher being "shameless and cheap" and the agent, and the bookseller not being?

Treating the publisher as adversary in this transaction is crazy. It is already an insanely capital-intensive business, far more so than in other media. Why on earth does it make sense to extract as much capital as possible out of the part of the supply chain that is already under the most pressure?

To Richard Nash:

I would assume that authors are "the part of the supply chain that is already under the most pressure" instead of publishers. And this would be more true with the biggest publishers.

this is a lot like the liquor business - not right or wrong, just another form of money management.

a winemaker makes wine, takes him a year. a broker pitches it to a wholesaler, the broker does not get pad until the winery does. the wholesaler wants 30-60-90 plus day terms, i.e. he doesn't want to have to pay for the wine until he has had ample amount of time to have it sold.

not the greatest deal, but industry standard, though better brokers nail them down to 30 day terms...

BTW, This blog has made it to WD's Best Websites of 2007:
http://www.writersdigest.com/101BestSites/?m_sCategory=AgentBlogs&m_nYear=2007
Congratulations, Kristin!

Jan

Not sure about this. The UK tax system allows income averaging, so it makes no real difference if you get a big payment in one year and nothing the next. The US (as far as I know) doesn't allow that. So staggering payments actually is a way of managing taxes. Which is not to say, of course, that one wants part of an advance to be contingent on publication.

Excuse the anonymous commenting, but in order to share some details, I find it necessary. For average sized-deals, I agree with Kristin that the money should all be given in advance, thus, the "advance." However, big deals--especially multi-book deals--I understand wanting to hold a little back. I'm going to use some nice round numbers and suggest that an author received a three-book deal for $100,000 per book. Let's say the agent is able to negotiate half on signing and half on delivery. That means that the author will get $150,000 on signing, and an additional $50,000 on delivery. That means that a year before the first book is even released, the publisher has essentially paid for two whole books. Cool for the author, but can you understand why the publisher balks at that? On the other hand, if you do a third on signing, a third on delivery and acceptance, and a third on publication, then the author gets $100,000 up front, $33,333 a few weeks later (d&a of the first MS is almost always within a month or two of signing) and then $66,666 a year for the next two years (one D&A and one publication per year) followed up by a final year of $33,333. That way, by right before the first book has come out, the publisher has paid $133,000 for that book so far. They'll be much happier to cough up that next $33,000 on publication. And really, what author can complain about that? I personally like knowing that I am going to have a steady income over the next several years rather than one big lump sum right up front and then several slightly sparse years.

And like Kristin said, it's in the author's best interest to try to get more of the pie before publication, but having a bit left over (for me it's 25% upon publication) just seems fair when you are working with big deals or multi-book sales.

JMO.:)

It's frustrating. I am with that 'P' publisher and they're great, except for--yes--the publication payment. This sucks but is almost impossible to get out from under. I hoped it would change when I moved to a much higher advance per book but nope, nope, it got more entrenched. But at least I don't have joint accounting, which gives me a lot of comfort. :)

Hey!! That's my friend Helaine Becker's SECRET AGENT Y.O.U. right next to it. Neat!

I want to go the spy museum!!! I grew up 20 minutes north of D.C., but they didn't have that one then. :-( Maybe I'll visit when we go visit Dad.

Anyway... does this paragraph REALLY mean what it appears to mean? ie: that the author can't jot down ideas for others stories before they're finished with that one? Yikes!

Not related to the topic, but, Kristen, did you see The Onion "Novelists Strike Fails To Affect Nation Whatsoever"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/novelists_strike_fails_to_affect

Hilarious. The truth hurts!

Tamara

(Sorry, Kristin, I misspelled your name! AACCKKK! Tamara)

That clause is a beauty all right. Funny too. Imagine trying to dictate to an author that they can't BEGIN work on any other book in the same genre prior to completing 'the Work'. Unbelievable, not to mention unenforceable unless they have serveillance equipment keeping an eye on the author's desk, laptop, etc. Gotta shake your head at that one.

Do they impose time restrictions? How about publishing under psuedonym? That's all just kinda scary.

I guess the publisher wants a time period between the release of one book and the release of another in the same genre. Wouldn't it make more sense to impose time restrictions, as Jana suggested in the comment above?

Ooh, ask her if there were American Dad! DVDs there. I love that show, and things don't get much spy-er than the CIA ;-)

Have a lovely day! :-)

*laughs*

And what are those of us who work on multiple books at the same time to do with that clause? I wouldn't even be able to be published with that company, if that clause were present; I'd have violated the terms before the fact.

*scratches head*

I'm not sure what the point of that clause would be, either. What if the writer's slow, so he would have to start a new one immediately to have the book done after a (somewhat decent) interval?

Let us know how that goes! :-D

-Carradee

Off the shizzle my nizzle. Hang that in the barn with the rest of the hizzle-dizzle. Shiznik on the wizzle-wizzle. Off the hook off the chain and on the downlow n dirty. Macmillan gots to step off an get with the program, get with the now and change they papers to fit with the agent with the mostest, Agent Kizzle Nizzle.

WODFUF

Yet another example of when it quite literally pays to have a good agent BEFORE you sign the contract.

anon1:50/WODFUF:

Word!


-cyndiindahaus!

That's astonishing. I'm acquainted with at least one author who keeps a number of books on the back burner, and works on them when the mood strikes. This clause would dictate what she could and couldn't do with her creative energy. Yeesh.

Hah! That's hilarious. What do they do, come to your house, open your laptop, and make sure you're working on nothing but their book?

Kinda hard to enforce, isn't it? Goodness. When I'm almost done with one story, the only way I get through it is to start piddling with a new one.

Such an appropriate ipod song for this posting. *snort*

Does this mean I wouldn't be able to keep up with my epic "Ass Monkeys of the Great Plains" while working with Macmillan? I've been writing A.M.o.t.G.P. since I was fourteen. Twenty years and nine hundred seventy-five thousand words later, I find writing in A.M.o.t.G.P. to be very therapeutic (stops the voices in my head very nicely). I'm horrified to think that a bunch of pencil-pushing gerbil-minds would wish to take that away from me.

Still looking for the right publisher on that one.

I can just picture it: the contract arrives with a secret electronic "eye" embedded in it, activated the moment it's signed. Our unsuspecting author sits down at the laptop, opens up one of those *other* books that s/he is working on...and a giant blue arc shoots upward from the contract, through the file cabinet, and into the motherboard of the laptop. The Blue Screen of Death appears, followed by hysterical cackling from the speakers saying, "WE TOLD YOU!"

Note that this reaction would not take place if the author is opening said laptop to check e-mail, write a letter to her mother, pay a bill, or shop online...because this contract device is INTELLIGENT (unlike that clause in the first place).

Probably not that easily enforced--but certainly a phrase to strike terror into the hearts of newbies, and infuriate those of us who have a tad more experience. Yet another thing to flag and have my agent (when I get one!) take care of.

In the meantime, watch out for those blue arcs...

I had my hand up but was going to say the same as Karen about the value of having a good agent.