IGX

What think you?

Long story.
Start with this. When I was starting, the book companies (there are now 4 --- then, maybe 10 --- were not in the business of making you money. I should show you a contract from one of the big 4. You have to go over it with a fine toothed comb. Cross out such clauses as "no money made by us in selling your books will ever be paid to you."

Writers don't have unions. Unless we're Stephen King or James Patterson or the like, we basically get screwed.

Skip this part pals if you're not interested.

This happened to me: 1st book. I got --- OK, I'll tell you --- 75 grand up front. 25 on signing. 25 when half the book is turned in. 25 when published. So my first book took my three years. ($25,000 a year.) It was published and was a national best seller. Goody. Means I make $$$ right.

Not right away. I get 5% on the first 5000 sold. 7,5% on the next 5000. 15% thereafter.

That's the usual deal.

Fine. But the publishing co. send you an accounting and a check. (and yes, that goes though my agent, who gets 15%). So they do an accounting and check for you every 6 months. But they have a "reserve against returns." Since books to book stores are fully returnable, they keep all you money. All of it. Until the next reporting period.

Thing is: standard proceedure in publishing is that while the accounting may be scheduled for June it will take until October to get the accounting and the check. Complain about that (especially when you know you have money coming) and you are told this is how it's alway been done.

Since I sold, and needed money, I saw they kept my money for neary 15 months.

So I have no love for publishers.

(Continued a bit later.)

Here you go: marginal revenue, marginal costs, and price elasticites!

In addition to the idea that Hachette might be worried about cannibalizing hardcover sales, it's possible that Amazon might be trying to get publishers to price when selling to Amazon as they would if they were a division of Amazon. This would allow Amazon to charge consumers in a way that maximized combined profits of the publisher and Amazon, but it would leave the messy pproblem of splitting those profits between the two companies.

OK, point number two. Amazon says writers should get 35% of the price of a book. That's more --- a lot more --- than most get.

The heart of the debate is this: Amazon wants to price books at $9.95. No more. Hachette says some e-books books should cost more. That would be due to the popularity of the book or author. Or because that book --- say a text book written by several experts over the course of years --- should cost more.

Whatever, the fact that Hachette wants to charge more does NOT mean that money would necessarily go to the authors.

Final points. Publishers do a certain service as "gatekeepers." That is, if a book is published by a major publisher, it will generally have some merit. (Not always, as a slue of Jersey Shore books proves.) Still, if a book is presented as a thriller or a literary masterpiece, it will likely have some of those attributes. It's difficult to wade through self published (and promoted) books and quickly find one of merit. Making a choice based on books published by major publishers is easier.

Point two: if Amazon wins, they may become the sole most important outlet for books of any sort and that sort of power is dangerous, both to literature and freedom.

To sum up: I like seeing the major publishing houses getting screwed because, well, I feel I've been screwed by them. Not me personally: all writers put up with the same shit.

But I don't want one outlet for books. Amazon doesn't censor stuff now. But they could. You don't want to put them in that situation. With Hachette (a huge international concern headquartered in Paris), Amazon is selling their books but delaying shipment, sometimes for up to three weeks. If Amazon succeeds in cowing the publishers, they'd have an unhealthy control of the book business. And that's not good.

seeahill wrote:Final points. Publishers do a certain service as "gatekeepers." That is, if a book is published by a major publisher, it will generally have some merit. (Not always, as a slue of Jersey Shore books proves.) Still, if a book is presented as a thriller or a literary masterpiece, it will likely have some of those attributes. It's difficult to wade through self published (and promoted) books and quickly find one of merit. Making a choice based on books published by major publishers is easier.

Point two: if Amazon wins, they may become the sole most important outlet for books of any sort and that sort of power is dangerous, both to literature and freedom.

To sum up: I like seeing the major publishing houses getting screwed because, well, I feel I've been screwed by them. Not me personally: all writers put up with the same shit.

But I don't want one outlet for books. Amazon doesn't censor stuff now. But they could. You don't want to put them in that situation. With Hachette (a huge international concern headquartered in Paris), Amazon is selling their books but delaying shipment, sometimes for up to three weeks. If Amazon succeeds in cowing the publishers, they'd have an unhealthy control of the book business. And that's not good.

Thanks Tim. I've been ambivalent about this. I always felt that publishers fucked writers and customers. Some of the really cheap books I can get on Amazon, whether it be modern fiction or classics are a great deal for the customer and helps new authors get some traction. On the other hand, I don't trust monopolistic tech oligarchs for a second.

when did you get that $75k advance? wasn't that good money back then?

dead man walking wrote:when did you get that $75k advance? wasn't that good money back then?

Sure it was. But it took me three years to do it right. So figure $25,000 a year. It's still OK money.
Then I had to "earn out." Means I had to pay back that money from the 5% to 7.5% I got on royalty for each book. Then I had to wait a year and half, after I earned out, to get money for the books above and beyond my earn out.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Here's some stiffing of artists Timmy might relate to

Yeah. This is the way it is for me. I don't work for short pay. Ever. Which means I don't work much anymore.
Young guys just coming up? They'll find a way to make it happen for them. Old guys like me who made some money a while ago: we won't work for free. It's the guys in the middle, the folks who have been writing for 20 years, who are screwed. You've been a writer for 20 years, you don't have a resume or job skills anyone values. Those are the people I feel sorry for.

Good perspective Timmah. Thanks.