tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post9001768338680029385..comments2024-03-10T04:29:20.044-04:00Comments on Mad Genius Club: On ‘Piracy', Pricing and Twelve Days of ChristmasSarah A. Hoythttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17478124095732219352noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-43826472710284471712010-12-28T08:49:06.373-05:002010-12-28T08:49:06.373-05:00Dave,
It's in the article I quoted earlier. T...Dave,<br /><br />It's in the article I quoted earlier. There may be a copy online, but I got the handbook as a physical book.<br /><br />The quote is: "Yet publishers carry high reserves against returns on their ledgers for years, and, when the book goes out of print, quietly pocket the unclaimed royalties. Having no hard industry-wide figures to go by, but estimating from my own and other agents' experiences, I would say that this is what happens to the majority of paperback books. Some authors and agents consider it to be fraud. I keep racking my brain for a gentler word, but so far I haven't come up with one."<br /><br />And later, quoting another agent, Mr Curtis says: "As one agent said to me recently, 'I know longer call them 'books sold', I call them 'books admitted to being sold.''"<br /><br />Later in the same article, he describes publishing accounting as following the same principles as movie accounting - where nothing ever makes a profit, on paper.Kate Paulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02034983693134240754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-50482362652370109882010-12-27T23:46:12.502-05:002010-12-27T23:46:12.502-05:00Kate I hadn't read about the fraud bit. Got a ...Kate I hadn't read about the fraud bit. Got a reference for me by any off chance (don't bother hunting it, and you could just e-mail it to me, if you have a link)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315551718688781746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-37574290964706250702010-12-27T23:43:38.538-05:002010-12-27T23:43:38.538-05:00And Synova, thank you for telling me about RBV. Th...And Synova, thank you for telling me about RBV. The prequel novella is in something called cosmic Adventures. I hope one day to extend that to a novel and do a final book in that world. But maybe only as an e-book.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315551718688781746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-66363800179875306792010-12-27T23:29:51.170-05:002010-12-27T23:29:51.170-05:00Synova, SFWA tries, but it has a few intrinsic pro...Synova, SFWA tries, but it has a few intrinsic problems - 1)a very very large percentage of the writer members haven't published for many years. There is no 'currently active' criteria. This makes votes and activism hard to achieve. 2)The organisation and its various arms tend to be run by people who like to play politics (naturally) and these are often people whose time-demands are not dominated by making a living writing. Some of them are good guys, but they aren't career writers. Some heroes of course are somehow stretching to successful careers and SFWA, but let's face it being a good writer takes a vastly different skill set from being good at playing organisation politics, and a lot of time. So for instance an author so irrelevant no one ever heard of her, who had barely managed to sell a couple of thousand books... ended up as one of the main office bearers - and using SFWA for her private vendettas (one against Baen, and one against Eric Flint) and agendas, and being ignorant of the real problems. <br />3)Allowing editors, agents and those employed in publishing membership was as catastrophic error, as it means a)they can block things, b)it's hard to talk about things without endangering your livelihood.<br /><br />If SFWA is stirring, things are very bad indeed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315551718688781746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-8221305694713657112010-12-27T22:38:04.968-05:002010-12-27T22:38:04.968-05:00Synova,
Never underestimate the power of the Dark...Synova,<br /><br />Never underestimate the power of the Dark Side... Oh, sorry, wrong cliche. SFWA's membership includes publishers, agents, and publisher representatives as well as authors. <br /><br />The problem there is that as soon as a problem arises between authors and a member publisher, there's a rather hefty conflict of interest - and since enough of the membership are currently published and publishing authors, they're understandably reluctant to be seen to upset the applecart. <br /><br />Not that I blame them - not upsetting the guys who pay your living expenses is one of those things most people consider important.Kate Paulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02034983693134240754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-74591977404821348472010-12-27T21:54:00.282-05:002010-12-27T21:54:00.282-05:00Hey, my son finished reading Rats, Bats and Vats, ...Hey, my son finished reading Rats, Bats and Vats, and wanted you to know that he really liked it.<br /><br />I got him the Rats, the Bats and the Ugly for Christmas as well so he's going to read that next.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-48681840550532028402010-12-27T21:41:47.884-05:002010-12-27T21:41:47.884-05:00That's SFWA's job, isn't it?That's SFWA's job, isn't it?Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-56503726937626837452010-12-27T20:23:32.771-05:002010-12-27T20:23:32.771-05:00Dave,
Since publishing seems to have run through ...Dave,<br /><br />Since publishing seems to have run through its babies and is starting the suicidal course of eating midlisters (by - at least according to rumor - dropping standard advances even more, which is guaranteed to push out anyone who doesn't have a secure non-writing source of income - I rather doubt we'll see much more than hysterical denial from the mega-corps. <br /><br />The math isn't pretty. When organizations like SFWA (which have a <i>lot</i> of reasons to avoid airing the dirty laundry, courtesy the publisher memberships) start using the word "fraud" in official publications to describe standard industry practice... I don't think I want to be in the middle when that bomb goes off.Kate Paulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02034983693134240754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-54825392808525823102010-12-27T16:46:08.074-05:002010-12-27T16:46:08.074-05:00Matapam, it's pretty plain that authors are co...Matapam, it's pretty plain that authors are considered an infinite and relatively cheap resource, unless they are the 1% of bestsellers. The trouble is the bestseller system parasitises the rest of the writers. It's not good for anyone in the long term in reality. <br /><br />The simple truth is that writers are no different to any other professional. You survive a fairly arbitary but generally hard entry exam. There are, it is true, a large number of people willing to take that exam, directly proportional to the number of readers (so as that falls your entry falls). But if you are going to retain the skills acquired in that exam, and work experience, and recover the expense of getting them to that point, you need to see that they can afford and be motivated to work full-time. Diverting the advance and promotion budget entirely into your bestsellers... means basically those who don't need the extra income to work fulltime are given extra, and to recover that money, books that didn't need promotion and distribution help to sell, get given it at the expense of the rest. And lo, they sell better. Ergo, they want bigger advances... and so on. Until you reach the point where Ms. Besteseller is, by the figures, writing a book which has 100 000 times the customer appeal of Mr Midlist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315551718688781746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-57927199656331711152010-12-27T16:40:28.859-05:002010-12-27T16:40:28.859-05:00Blogger ate my post.
Let me just say that St. P...Blogger ate my post. <br /><br />Let me just say that St. Paul is a spectacular idea.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-83209255417817711452010-12-27T16:27:56.230-05:002010-12-27T16:27:56.230-05:00Kate, actually these would be a start point.
To ...Kate, actually these would be a start point. <br /><br />To posit that it's the poor author being robbed - you need to show that there are costs (legit ones, not ones you say were minor when they vanish) to justify the fact that the rest of the chain gets 94%- 85% of the income. And if there is one thing that irritates me beyond measure it is the chorus of 'we on'y make 4/6/8/10% profit. Publishing's not profitable. Them greedy authors git 8%!' Authors* share is GROSS. Theirs is NETT. If I made 4% nett... I'd be delighted. <br /><br />*Typical Royalty rates paperback 6% newbies, 8% midlist, 10-15% on hardbacks, 10-15% e-books. Baen pay 20% on e-books, and various e-book pubs around 50%Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315551718688781746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-37315251384461030942010-12-27T16:04:57.228-05:002010-12-27T16:04:57.228-05:00Thanks Fred. I fixed the URL. Should have checked ...Thanks Fred. I fixed the URL. Should have checked it. Hardbacks: I might buy (or more frequently, be given for Christmas or a birthday) a hardback of an author's latest work that I can't wait for. But I do buy hardback to keep and re-read.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12315551718688781746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-26744532634845091542010-12-27T14:56:06.496-05:002010-12-27T14:56:06.496-05:00Pity SFWA can't propose a standard contract an...Pity SFWA can't propose a standard contract and the authors stand up for it. Unfortunately it is clear that publishers consider writers to be easily replaceable.<br /><br />From my slush reading days, I can say that some are, but not the good ones.MataPamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11128604732495114033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-70282493665464376922010-12-27T10:53:44.239-05:002010-12-27T10:53:44.239-05:00So just what is Mr Cornell on and where can I get ...So just what is Mr Cornell <i>on</i> and where can I get some? I need a good laugh!<br /><br />I'm going to quote from the SFWA handbook here - and I should add that similar sentiments were expressed by most of the authors who contributed articles.<br /><br />From <i>Royalty Statements</i> by Richard Curtis:<br />"Every company has its own idea of what and how information should appear, or not appear, on its statements.<br />"Just about the only thing they all have in common - and I state this categorically - is that they do not adequately report what the author needs to know. None of them. Not a single publisher."<br /><br />Mr Curtis goes on to list the information that <i>should</i> be present on a royalty statement (some of these, obviously, don't apply to ebooks):<br />"Number of copies printed.<br />"Number of copies shipped or distributed.<br />"Number of copies sold.<br />"Type of royalty: regular, special discount, Canadian, foreign export, etc.<br />"Royalty rate, in terms of a percentage and/or a dollars-and-cents amount.<br />"Number of copies returned.<br />"Reserve against returns, usually expressed in dollars.<br />"Details of subsidiary sales, contracts, and subsidiary income."<br /><br />The principle is that the author should be able to check the numbers and calculations from the statement. Funnily enough, publishers are extremely reluctant to provide authors with this information. (What Mr Curtis has to say about the publisher practices regarding reserve against returns is rather less flattering.)<br /><br />So... gee. Methinks I smell apologist.Kate Paulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02034983693134240754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940224740718934743.post-30698883002411024482010-12-27T08:09:07.991-05:002010-12-27T08:09:07.991-05:00The Cornell posting seems to have changed its URL....The Cornell posting seems to have changed its URL. I found it here: http://www.paulcornell.com/2010/12/twelve-blogs-of-christmas-ten.html<br /><br />Good posting, Dave. I buy your books in hardcover or paperback (sometimes both) and the eBooks. I just must be weird or something. ;)Frederick Paul Kiesche IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17503079579685008728noreply@blogger.com