We've just been tying up a deal with a new author for a book which we'll (I hope) be bringing out next year. I can't give any more details just yet, for reasons which will become clear if you read on.
Whenever we agree a deal with an author, we make the following points to them:
1. You should have our contract checked by a solicitor.
2. As a small independent publisher, we don't pay advances.
3. If we sell a serialisation, we take a very healthy chunk of the cash for it.
4. If we sell TV rights, we take a very healthy chunk of the cash for that, too.
5. You are very unlikely to get seriously rich out of this book.
All very upfront, and nothing hidden.
Still, some people don't like the fact that we don't pay advances.
The collapse of The Friday Project sparked a debate on guardianonline recently, with the paper's Bobbie Johnson protesting (in context of TFP going bust owing hundreds of thousands of pounds) that it was 'unfair' to 'build a business that harnesses enthusiastic (writers) but does not offer them advances'.
Interesting word, 'unfair'; I wonder what Guardian freelances would have to say about it.
Presumably, the TFP authors read their contracts and saw that there were no advances. They had two choices - sign, or look elsewhere. There's nothing unfair about it, just as there's nothing unfair about a publisher spending £10,000 on getting a book to market and making only (say) £3,000 back.
If TFP had paid out advances (and we'd be talking a lot of money, given the number of titles they had in the pipeline), they'd just have gone down the tubes a lot quicker.
The author I mention at the top didn't go to a solicitor, but she/he did go to The Society of Authors instead.
The Society of Authors exists for a reason: to protect the interests of writers in their negotiations with publishers. That's laudable, except that they seem to me not to understand how publishing works outside the plc echelons.
The author has forwarded us their suggestions. Many are perfectly acceptable, but they are wincing at our financial terms - specifically those relating to the aforementioned serialisations and TV/other subsidiary rights.
According to the Society, the monies owing from a serialisation 'should be' split 90/10 in favour of the author, and what we are proposing is 'unacceptable'.
It's not clear where this phrase 'should be' comes from - I'm unaware of an 11th Commandment, or any House of Lords ruling. And 'unacceptable'? What if the author wants to accept it? What if she or he has been rejected 25 times before and someone is taking a punt on them? Can they accept it then?
Our authors tend to be first-time writers. Some of them require a lot of editing (I mean, weeks). They have, at best, a small fan base of family and friends (and sometimes blog readers); there will be no midnight openings or manic signing sessions.
The bare minimum required to get a paperback to the shelves is £5,000. Add more - hundreds or even thousands more - for promotions and decent shelf-space in the bookstores.
Meanwhile, as The Bookseller reported recently, Waterstones now wants a further 5% discount - that's 5% straight off the publisher's bottom line - to carry stock. Amazon raised its discounts a while back. And printing and other costs are going up - because real inflation is three times what the Government says it is - too. Meanwhile, the price on the back of the book, £7.99, is the same as it was three or four years ago.
Chance of book reviews in Bobbie Johnson's Guardian and elsewhere: minimal.
Risk of failure: high.
We've made these points to the author and we'll wait and see what he/she says.
I'm not complaining about any of it, by the way. We're grown adults, we know the risks and we like working with our authors.
But people need to be realistic. The Friday Project has shown what can happen if you don't control the purse strings.
Blogs By Our Authors
Interesting Publications
Random Sites We Like
Clever Political Types
Book-related links
- Abe - Secondhand Books
- Amazon
- Andrew Lownie's site
- Book Brunch
- Book Trade Info
- Borders and Books Etc
- Canadian Bookish Types
- E Books
- Help, I Need A Publisher
- How Publishing Really Works
- How To Publish Your Own Book
- Lulu
- Monday Books
- Publishers' Marketplace
- The Book Depository
- The Bookseller
- Turnaround - our sales and distribution people
- Waterstones
- Writers and Artists
- Writers' Services
Counter
4 comments:
I also went to the SOA with my contract - they were similarly horrified - however, I decided to sign (with minor alterations) because I just don't like the idea of 'earning back' an advance on my first book. I'd rather just be paid for what I can sell, especially as my book could be perceived to be aimed at a rather niche market and would be difficult to translate to TV. BUT when I am writing fiction, I want to see those advance cheque zeros, baby!
Thanks Miranda (I think!).
I'm not sure how 'horrified' could ever be the appropriate word.
If a given book sells (they don't all), we'll make some money and so will the author. If it doesn't sell, we'll lose a lot of money (and have spent a lot of time doing so) whereas the author will simply have spent a lot of time.
I'm not complaining - we know the risks, of course, but that is how it works.
Just to reiterate, for any other potential authors (or SOA staff) reading this, this is how it is:
Two years ago, when we were bringing out our first book, a B format paperback would sell for £7.99.
Of that £7.99, we would take £x and our sales and distribution company would take roughly a quarter of that (so we would end up with 75% of £x).
This money would be used initially to defray our costs.
Those costs would depend on print run, but might be (say) £4,000 for typesetting, jacket design and printing.
Added to that, our own costs specific to the book - time spent liaising with the author and suppliers, editing and proofreading - and our general overheads need to be met. Add - say - another £2,000 for that.
So that's £6,000 before you've even started.
Which isn't a problem, but it is a fact.
Spin forwards two years.
Our specific costs have risen to £5,000 for the same book (as I said in my post) and the share of our general overheads has risen to, say, £3,000 (this is actually a gross underestimate for a publisher which produces five books a year, but it will do).
As I said, Amazon and Waterstones are increasing their discounts, so that the amount we receive from the retailers for each book we sell is declining dramatically.
Additionally, the range stocked by the major stores is reducing - they're taking fewer chances as the economy tightens. So we're having to pay - as I said - hundreds or even thousands of pounds to get our books into better positions in stores.
There are other factors around the edges - we now use a proofreader (though we still proofread ourselves), we use a small PR company to assist with promotion - which all adds cost.
Meanwhile, and this is the key fact, the price on the back of the book is still £7.99 and we are still receiving the same 75% of the same £x.
The other factor not mentioned here, of course, is that people - customers - are getting shorter and shorter of cash, so have less money to spend on books.
Now, you would have to be blind - or, it seems, a Society of Authors adviser - not to see that, in these circumstances, a publisher in 2008 cannot continue to offer the same terms as it did in 2006.
It may be 'horrifying' that authors are having their terms reduced, but it's life.
This is not a one-fact story.
And - as I said - no-one is forcing anyone to sign anything.
An interesting post and follow-ups. I, too, run a small publishing house (a little bit bigger than Monday, but not much). It's interesting that you've taken the decision to be so open and upfront about the commercial side of publishing; not sure I would be so candid, but I can't argue with anything you've said.
I'm interested in Miranda's closing remark - that when she is writing fiction she 'want(s) to see those advance cheque zeros, baby!'.
We publish fiction, Miranda, and unless you are extremely talented, or extremely lucky, or very beautiful and PR-able, and preferably all three, you should probably not bank on too many zeros on your advance (or any advance at all, come to that).
I wish it were not the case, but this is just the way of the world, I'm afraid.
Bon chance!
We could be secretive and keep everything close to our chests but since we've nothing to hide we decided not to hide it.
Most of what I'm saying isn't exactly a state secret anyway - common sense, a basic understanding of current affairs and economics and a few phone calls to printers, jacket designers and typesetters would give any intelligent layman or woman this level of insight I'd have thought.
Post a Comment