Being treated like royalty

I had my first book come out in 1999. I'm on 13 now, with number 14 in press. You'd think by now I'd have learned, but I think it's defensive memory - like marathon runners managing to forget the exhaustion and the pain and remember the glory and sense of achievement. Or parents planning on a second child and managing to forget the birth part, the diapers, sleepless nights and tantrums of the first... Just because I have been re-reminded of it and its something you need to know as a new writer, let me talk a bit about the reality of how out of touch the writer is with actuality, of your only real tool to know how you're doing: royalty statements.

These arrive. Mostly. Well, that depends on your publisher. With Baen mine arrive. With others... maybe. I've yet to see a single royalty statement for my short fiction, and I have sold 25 stories. I don't expect them to make money -- but I'd finding knowing how (and where) they sold valuable. Anyway: If you get a royalty statement really have no way of knowing if they reflect truth or creative fiction. I know one author (at a different publisher ) whose e-sales are clearly creative fiction, because she knows more people who have bought it than she's been paid for. And very small the numbers of sales on more than one book are precisely the same on another - statistically improbable.. You can of course demand an accounting -- but you'll never sell another book, and if you're wrong and the flaw does not exceed $2000 IIRC, it will be expensive, as you pay for it. So it never happens. I blame Norman Spinrad for this sorry state of affairs - but that's a long story for another time. If it hadn't been for Spinrad's action, the industry would have been healthier financially, and far weaker than it is now. I would also probably not have been published. You can -- if you evade the obstacles the big publishing houses made Bookscan put in your way (ever wonder why?) get the Bookscan figures. These however are very much less complete than your publisher's records and don't include every sale (I believe they exclude Amazon, and Indies and many stores not in a few main centres). As they estimate too apparently, they can exceed the numbers on your royalty statement (if for example you sell OK in New York and other major cities, but barely sell a copy in the rest of the US.) Of course it is entirely possible that the dark suspicions in every author's mind are mere paranoia, like the conviction that e-piracy stole all your sales.

But dear future writer, the saga goes on. You see, royalty statements only cover a complete six month reporting period. - Jan-June, July-December. So if your book comes out 30 December, two days later you are at the start to a complete 6 months and in theory you should get your royalty statement in September (in practice December). However if your book comes out on 3 January... your complete 6 months only starts in July-December. So in theory you would get that statement in March. Only in practice the statement will be a further 2-3 months late. So in other words, if your book came out 3 January 2009... you might only hear how it has done, and get any income from it early July 2010.

There are good historical reasons for most of this, and this delay is the origin of advances which are the bane of every publishing house's existence. Advances -- seeing as the landlord and the power company and the grocer take a similarly dim view to authors to waiting 18 months to be paid, are what most of us end up living on. They are an advance on royalty income and are typically paid - for books sold on proposal half on signing, half on turn in, or for multiple book sales 1/3 on signing and 2/3 on turn in, or latterly 1/3 signing, 1/3 turn in, and 1/3 on publication. A good editor once told me they aim at 2/3 of what they think a book will earn, and a good agent told me he aims for as much as a book will earn.

Er. Do you see the flaw in this? As this is all pure thumb-suck as to how well a book -- especially on proposal -- will do, and getting it very wrong (even if the book does much better than expected) reflects badly on the editor - because that's his job - to estimate it right, the publisher's staff have a vested interest in seeing it is nearly right. They have various tools to do this -- firstly their instincts, secondly those very accurate Nielsen Bookscan figures, and thirdly their company's clout in marketing, and distribution and retail space. And next time they buy from the same author, they have the figures resulting from using these tools... So the only ‘real' factor is the editor's instinct. In some cases that is good - Campbell, Jim Baen for examples -- but let's be honest here - it's a big, complex world, and even the very best get it wrong sometimes. Still, that's how it works and this is why (besides wanting money or needing it to live on) authors and agents try for as high an advance as possible. Which, of course skews the system further and forces the publisher to carry considerable debt...

It would be to everyone's advantage if advances became history. Well, certain editors who enjoyed the power of bestowing them, and certain authors who enjoyed the ‘push' that a huge advance gave to a mediocre to poor book, wouldn't like it. But publishers, their shareholders, readers and most authors would benefit.

Only we STILL have the lag phase, between proposal and payment, and the very long gaps in any author's income, and the uncertainty -- so most authors would not be prepared to let a publisher have their books without an advance, because if they did, the publisher could simply use the saving to give more to Joe or Fred in terms of push. Quite frankly there isn't a lot of trust out there, a situation fostered by all the secrecy.

The answer obviously is to do away with the lag phase, and to make sure that authors knew they were getting an equal chance (or reasonable chance) to succeed. Now, as I said, there are good historical reasons for the lag -- some which still exist for paper. Firstly, keeping track of a physical inventory was not easy or quick. Basically a stock count was the only way to really be totally sure. And every six months was pretty reasonable for that. Of course computerisation has improved this vastly and there really is no reason why a publisher cannot know fairly precisely what they've shipped and what they've got back on a day-by-day basis. Some will tell you, some will tell you if asked, and some just won't. Secondly, retailers had a three-month payment window. The publisher needed at least 4-5 months to be sure he'd actually got the money out of them. Thirdly sheer physical distribution - by sea for eg, could add months onto the time for both sales AND returns. Fourthly the issue of returns and the complexity this added onto calculations of royalties. Finally, the authors were costing the publisher interest charges on the advance. It made sense therefore to sit on/use the cash for as long as possible.

Of course all of the above falls apart in an e-book environment. The publisher and the retailer know immediately how much they have sold (and there is no reason the author and readers shouldn't know too), there are no ‘in distribution' copies, no returns, and no reason (as you are not holding physical stock you have to pay for before sale) to delay payment. And if authors - particularly those with work ready to sell - got paid say... monthly (to save on transfer costs), there is no need for advances, and an electronic retailer has as much e-space for Joe Neverheardofim as for Fred Bigname, and both have the same number of copies (ie as many as any reader wants) on their shelf.

It's a very attractive proposition for authors (the idea of a predictable income - even if it's only predictable day to day by tracking it - paid reliably on a predictable day every month - when bills are monthly is almost intoxicatingly lovely, compared to now), and for publishers, as they escape advances _and_ get reliable sales figures on which authors really sell well (without the GIGO input of bookscan, distribution, marketing and retail space) - which should make them make more money.
Maybe it is less attractive for retail...

Can anyone see any holes in it?

If It's Sunday, We Must Be ....Where?

I'll admit it. This morning I'm mentally lost, or at least in a fog. Part of it is because I'm hurting (nothing major, just annoying) and didn't sleep very well. Part is because my mind is on a project I've been working on with deadlines looming faster than I'd like right now. More on that as the time gets closer -- assuming I have any sanity left. I know, I know, the state of my sanity has always been questionable. What can I say? I'm a writer. ;-)

As I started pulling the blog together this morning, I came upon something I think every writer should be aware of, especially writers who have had or currently have or are considering signing a contract with Bloomberg Press. Three days ago, the Authors Guild posted a letter to its members warning them about the impact of a contract amendment being sent to Bloomberg authors by John Wiley & Sons (JW&S has aquired Bloomberg). The basic import of the letter is that the contractual amendment sent by Wiley would change the royalty system of some contracts from being based on retail price to net price. This could, according to AG, decrease royalties up to 50%. More than that, according to AG, Wiley would be able to keep a book in print with a "lowball print on demand royalty of 5%of net proceeds." Wiley has responded, claiming AG's representation of the letter and contractual amendments included in it is misleading at best and that the royalty changes will benefit the authors involved. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Any way, you can judge for yourself. Here's a copy of Wiley's letter. Read it and judge for yourself. For me, the most troublesome part of the letter is the inclusion of the print on demand language which reads, to me, as their way of keeping a book "in print" so the rights never revert back to the author. Your thoughts?

In other news around the internet, agent Rachelle Gardner says to get to a bookstore. I happen to agree with her. I've blogged before how, as writers, it's important that we read. But it is as important that we take time on a regular basis to visit our local bookstores. Not only does it allow us to see market trends and talk to other readers and pick their brains about what they are reading and why, it allows us to connect with the bookseller. That connection can lead to a recommendation of OUR book to a reader who is looking for something new and exciting. So, the next time you have a few minutes on your hands, get thee to your nearest bookstore.

Agent Janet Reid has an interesting post about how to format an electronic query. As someone who learned to type on -- gasp -- an IBM Selectric typewriter (yes, kiddies, there was a time when computers weren't in every room of the house) old habits about the formatting of a business letter die hard. But Ms. Reid's example and explanation hit home. That said, the caveat of this is to read the guidelines for the agency or publisher you are querying and follow them...no matter how strange or out of date or silly they might seem.

On the topic of following guidelines, agent Jennifer Jackson has two recent posts that show the importance of not only reading the guidelines but following them. The first post encourages us, as writers, to be persistent. Just because an agent turns down our first submission to them, it doesn't mean that agent won't like something else we've written. So, when you have another work ready, query them. This is especially true if you received an encouraging rejection letter from them on the first project. However, don't -- let me say that again, DON'T -- query that agent three or four times in a week on the same or different projects, especially if the guidelines tell you to submit only one project at at time. Submit, my children, wait for a response, wait a few weeks or more and then submit the next project.

Ms. Jackson's second post also concerns guidelines, this time highlighting some of the more odd comments she has seen included in query letters. Comments that shouldn't have been there had the sender simply taken time to read and follow the guidelines. For example, "...if I don't hear back from you within three days, (I'll assume) you aren't interested." WHAT?!? If you can show me any agent's guidelines that says you'll hear back within three days of submission, I have a book or three ready to send. Seriously, the query letter is meant to show us in our most favorable light as writers. Statements such as the ones Ms. Jackson highlights do the exact opposite and are so easy to avoid -- if you read the guidelines.

Finally, for those who write series, and even for those who don't but who have words or names or other conventions in their writing that might not fall under the standard style sheets currently used, agent Jessica Faust recommends you keep your own style sheet and even send it with your pages when you submit them. While it might not keep the copy editor from changing things, it will help. Along those same lines, agent Nathan Bransford recommends for those writing a series that you keep a series bible to help keep all those pesky details, names, places, and descriptions straight from one book to another.

So, any thoughts on these recommendations? Any news from the industry you want to share? The floor is now yours.

Who ate all the pies?

To quote from the article Amanda mentioned yesterday...

‘Turow began with authors' fears about piracy and lower income: 25% of net in "e" is less than a traditional 15% royalty. Newberg made her first point: "What are publishers doing to justify not giving authors 50%[*note]?"

Miller countered that "terms differ from publisher to publisher". Newberg shot back, "some terms are much better than others and we'll have to go public and some of you will look bad".'

Now, expressly stating that I am not implying in any way the people reported are paedophiles or anything like that... but am I alone in having the vile little image of some creepy individual saying ‘It has to be our little secret. If I tell anyone you'll be in _trouble_.'?

Shudder.

Let's just clarify something: there is NO ADVANTAGE that I can see for writers _or_ readers in secrecy about what writers earn or royalty percentages or numbers sold. It all needs daylight, openness and not threats and secrecy. It's NOT 15% - that's BEST rate offered on hardbacks - Most midlisters won't see that and few NYT best-sellers will average that.

Here are typical rates: newbie paperback 6% of cover price (up 100 000 copies hahahahaaaaa, and then increasing 8%) (and 4000-6000 copies would be what you might sell, unless there had for some reason been a mighty large laydown, with a lot of copies in a lot of stores. This is not something that the writer has any control over. In 1970, apparently that figure would have been... about 40 000 copies. Yes. Newbie income has been decimated.)

midlist PB 8%

Hardbacks start 10% for first 5K, 12.5% 5-10K, 15% 10K+. And 17K can see you on the NYT best-seller list.

Yes, some authors do sell a LOT of books. But the reality is that's only 5%... of the best-sellers - or perhaps 0.5% of the authors not in small press. Include small press and you can make that 0.001%

I'm a great believer in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment. Society's mirror - which lets other people see our conduct and pass approval (which is sweet to us) or disapproval (which makes us, a social animal, uncomfortable) - works. We also base our valuation of people to society on how much they are approved of. With society becoming larger and more amorphous this is often measured by the rewards that society gives to individuals (one of the reasons for the display of wealth and symbols thereof). Given the above, can anyone tell this dumb bunny here why secrecy might be of any benefit to either authors or readers?

If we love and respect an author we are pleased if they are well rewarded. I certainly don't have a problem hearing that Terry Pratchett is rich. I am, au contraire, delighted.
Or perhaps it fulfils a need to pretend that we're approved of -- whereas if society knew we were earning $4000 as an advance (quite typical for a newbie) for a book that took us a year to write, well, that says society doesn't value us much. Perhaps if you're into self-deception this works for you. I really don't think this is a major reason OR reflects in any real way what society thinks the author is worth.
So what does that leave? Well, I suppose authors who are overpaid (and yes, they exist - industry darlings who get enormous advances they never get near to earning) wouldn't like it much, and neither would those who overpaid them. But, pardon my insensitivity, I (and 99.9% of readers and authors) really couldn't give a toss about their inadequacy being exposed. I fail to see why it benefits the rest of the authors or readers.
The only other reason I can see is that if it was public knowledge, the next publisher would have no incentive to offer a better deal. On the other hand if everyone's deals and sales numbers were public knowledge... well, that becomes irrelevant.
Of course I am avoiding mentioning the three elephants in the room. Because they like to stomp authors who hold ‘our little secret' up to society's mirror.

I've just got the bill for my 3 cats and 3 dogs month in quarantine - $7000. - 6 animals one month - average it out about $35 a day...

Which when I look at the $7500 advance that I will get for the current book (I contracted this a while ago and I am a co-author and only getting a share of the money. My advances now are higher, but still around 50 cents a copy I sell (Hardcover+pb + e-sales I find the final figure averages around $1 per copy sold - and that's because I get a reasonable e %. People do worse) And I always earn - and Baen pay - royalties) and the time it has taken me to write it (which is long for me, but normal for many) ... that's $35 a day. Based on the previous books this will sell, eventually, about 30-35 000 copies, and I will earn a little extra. But for now... that's it.
Or if I take my yearly income and divide it by hours worked $6.00-$9.00 an hour. I earn enough to scrape along on by working a LOT of hours.

So there we are, society.

For this book this author is worth the same as dog-kennelling for one by that measure. Or about 5 paperbacks (in the US), or 1.3 hardbacks a day.

Is this realistic?

Does something have to re-adjust? Is it the amount books cost, the amount e-books will sell for, the transparency of the system, or...

Is this what we value our authors at? 6% of cover price? (because they also have expenses, like... dogfood. You can't say that is all profit, any more than the other 94% is all profit) What do we value the rest of the process at? Given the distribution of the money, what can be cut? More of that 6%?

Are we prepared to have very, very few full time authors and the rest with second jobs or supported by partners (which both are not good for my writing, to be blunt)?

Do we want new authors fed into the system? (Because that costs, and will need to be subsidised by something. Or we have to be prepared to place near zero value on them.)

Do we readers want to choose what we like and that to finally decide what becomes a best-seller, rather than have someone who takes marketing and distribution decisions decide what we might like and can be allowed to choose from?

What do you think?

Who ate all the pies?

[* 50% in this case refers to of the publisher's net. Which translates 50% of the profit after the publisher takes their costs and expenses out. The author does not get 50% of the net. His gross is 50% of the publisher's free and clear pure profit - out of which he has to pay his agent, taxes, expenses. What's left (if anything) is his share of the profit. If you want real 50% then the author would have to add his expenses in too, and the remainder would be equally split. Oddly, I don't think this will happen ;-)]