Deborah LeBlanc
A couple of weeks ago an article regarding a new imprint from HarperCollins appeared in the Wall Street Journal that made me see red. Here are a few excerpts from it:
“Marking a radical departure from traditional book-publishing practices, HarperCollins Publishers says it will launch a new book imprint that won’t accept returns from retailers or pay advances to authors.
“To be headed by veteran publishing executive Robert S. Miller, the imprint also likely won’t pay for more desirable display space in the front of bookstores, a common practice. Instead, the as-yet-unnamed unit will share its profit with writers and focus much of its sales efforts on the Internet, where a growing portion of book sales are shifting.”
The article goes on to talk about whether retailers will accept this no return policy which has been tried unsuccessfully before, and the economic pressures both the publishers and booksellers are facing.
Last paragraph: “Mr. Miller said that many authors who currently receive large advances won’t be interested in the new model. However, he thinks he will attract major authors who have a book in the desk drawer that doesn’t fit their image, as well as up-an-coming writers.”
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why folks, in one industry or another, are always trying to screw the author. The model HC proposes is no better than POD in my opinion. In fact, it’s worse. When ANY company says they’ll share the ‘profits,” that’s a major red flag. Are they talking about gross profits or net profits? The major screwing comes into play if they’re talking net profits because it’s too easy to ‘cook’ the books and make sure NO net profits (or at best minimal) appear on the financial statements. Companies do it all the time to reduce their tax liability.
No advances—no returns (which means fewer purchases by book-buyers, I assure you!)—and no placement boons? Where’s the win to the author here? There ain’t none!
In my opinion, as a writing community, a stance should be taken regarding this injustice—the same stance as those fighting drug abuse in our country. And that stance is JUST SAY NO! grrrr…… Enough is enough.
Writers bust their humps to squeak out a living, barely able to make ends meet, and they’re lucky if those ends even come close to touching! Why does it appear that the film industry, now the very industry we depend on to make our living, are determined to break us down to sniveling, homeless runts, dependant on wages that are even below Scrooge’s stipends? Even worse, to target new writers to fill in this imprint is outrageously unjust. (If those major authors they’re referring to have anything to say about it, I would hope their say is “No, way, Jose!”
Prey on the newbies, the unsuspecting? They won’t be unsuspecting long—not as long as I have a voice!
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
Robert Jones
Amen!
RCJ
Apr 18th, 2008
Thomas Sullivan
They will do it because they can and because we are in competition with each other through natural market forces. Maybe their biggest unresolved question is whether the Internet will work for them, i.e. do they need the bricks and mortar bookseller? If those things are in place for them, you have to ask yourself if the total model is done evolving. Is there light at the end of the tunnel for artists? Will technology afford us — or groups of us — a way to become our own publishers, marketers, promoters, most likely through that same Internet or the one to begin arriving next summer which is supposed to be a quantum leap in speed, organization and accessibility. King tried it when technology was much younger, the Eagles have done it in music, and there have been other initiatives that unfortunately depend on an artist being established already. Maybe the niche profiteer will be the answer. Again, in music there are packagers who try to do this for Indies. I don’t know that there is an answer, but I doubt that we’re looking at the endgame yet. You can’t stiff the creator who controls quality (us) without ceding some potential power. You’re right, Deborah, the wrong end wags the dog and it’s always been that way. Biz types seized control long ago. It’s like a farmer growing a crop and the trucker and the storefront — mere deliverers in the chain — get all the bucks. Since the Internet trespasses more on the vessels of delivery than on the creative process, maybe that’s our ultimate salvation.
– Sully
Apr 18th, 2008
Janet Berliner
I’m with you all the way, Deb. –Janet
Apr 18th, 2008
Matthew Wayne Selznck
If you don’t want to deal with a major… don’t.
There are plenty of opportunities for independent authors, whether you deal with a small press with similar ideals or you publish yourself. Brick and mortar distribution is becoming less and less important.
“No advances—no returns (which means fewer purchases by book-buyers, I assure you!)—and no placement boons? Where’s the win to the author here? There ain’t none!”
No advance means you don’t have anything to pay off against royalties. No returns… that’s a drawback, but as I understand it this is a test being done with the cooperation of the bookstores, so maybe not an issue. Also, no returns means no deficit on your royalty statements.
No placement bonus means your work will have to stand on its own merit and you might have to do some marketing… which it should anyway, and you should, anyway.
As for POD, if you are willing to promote your work and embrace new media and guerrilla marketing techniques, you will make more per-book-sold than just about any book deal.
This imprint will be right for some titles and genres, not right for others. It’s Internet-centric, which is right thinking. And it’s just *one* approach out of many. It’s not the end of the world.
Apr 19th, 2008
Reply to “Seeing Red!”