Oh, The Lies I Tell
Yesterday, I promised to update the blog with a very mathy and impossibly boring post explaining why publishers are better off with higher royalty rates, and decimating their argument that with a 20% hardcover royalty, they "wouldn't make any money."
There will be no such post, for three reasons:
1. Really, how many editors read this blog? And how many of them will be convinced by the calculations of a total amateur? (On the other hand, if any editors privately want to be blown away by how not-almost-out-of-business they would be if they'd emphasized royalties instead of advances the last five years, they can email me at sparksflyup --at-- gmail dot com.)
2. The more I played with the numbers, the more I felt that my original proposal was...well not wrong, exactly, but overly simple. The upfront costs to publish a book are so significant, and they decrease so much over time, that starting the hardcover royalty rate at 20% now seems unreasonable* to me. (Although less unreasonable than six-figure advances for first novels.)
3. I don't trust my math, and my resident mathematician Daniel Biss is unavailable.
It's been very interesting to see all the ideas in comments for improving efficiency in publishing and bringing transparency to the relationship between author and publisher. I will try to post about that soon.
But for now, let me just say: I really believe that if we write with an eye toward book deals or royalty structures, we are screwed from the start. The business is important, because writers want to make a living and want to share their work with the biggest possible audience. But writing itself never works for me unless it feels like a gift, something I am trying to make for people. And you don't make gifts for money. You make gifts in the hope that they will matter to the recipients.
So I'm going to go to the coffee shop now and try to write something you'll care about.
*For publishers, I mean. For authors, it's a goldmine.
posted by John Green @ Thursday, July 02, 2009
24 Comments
24 Comments:
Oh, I love that thought. Writing is making a gift for someone. And not for everyone, but for the person (people) who really needs, wants, loves, books about...fill in the blank.
I will remember that.
"But writing itself never works for me unless it feels like a gift, something I am trying to make for people. And you don't make gifts for money. You make gifts in the hope that they will matter to the recipients."
This is SO much better than Math, John. As always, you chose just the right words.
John,
It's definitely ok to leave the mathematics and headaches of the publishing industry alone for awhile.
D-Divergence
F-From
T-Task
B-Basically
A-Allowed
Hope you are enjoying your coffee and getting back to writing.
This is great. Even if your idea didn't fly 100% it's awesome that you are trying to improve the system and keep the conversations flowing in an articulate and kind way.
The gift metaphor is so true.
Everyone gives in the process of creating a novel.
The agent gives it to the editor, the editor gives us notes, the author (one hopes) gives a cleaner version back to editor, art gives their beautiful cover designs and then, finally, the readers give back to the whole system when they discover (and hopefully like) our books.
Similar to the gift idea, writing because you need to and not because you have to makes a huge world of difference. If you're writing because you need to write or else this thing in your head is going to leak out your ears... is different than writing because you have to make a deadline/it's required.
Recently, a favourite author of mine commented that her most recent book made writing enjoyable again and I could tell the difference between that book and her last. I want the books I read to be written with a passionate urgency, as well as diligence, thought and intention. If it's just the last three, I find the work often lacks that gift-quality, the desire to share something important and worthy with a reader. It doesn't always make them bad books - just books that are less than they could have been.
I've been watching this discussion with interest, from the editorial side of things, because I know how much of the pie distribution takes, and as I run the numbers for the small press I'm planning, those numbers are scary even with a 10% royalty to the author. Authors do deserve to be paid for their work, but as much as I run the numbers, it's rather daunting to try to figure it all out.
Sorry if this doesn't really contribute to the conversation, but I must add that you've been featured on BoingBoing for this conversation. So I'm guessing quite a few people do care about it.
Best wishes,
Katie
Even when the proposal is by necessity
"overly simple," it is an interesting conversation to have. Actually the whole discussion reminded me of communism: a very interesting proposal that would theoretically make everyone better off, but in practice, well, maybe not.
When your resident mathematician returns, you might have a conversation about lottery winnings: lump sum up front, or potentially more in the long run (pending inflation)? Financial planners say: take the lump sum.
The argument remains viable for publishers, and I doubt we've seen the last of it, as zero-advance (and even some pay-to-play) experiments are ongoing in the industry. But in the end, I think whoever said "bird in the hand" really hit it on the head as far as authors are concerned. Big lump advance=money you don't have to give back, even if your book withers on the vine.
I hate maths. I like you writing things we care about.
But that's not to say I don't care about all of this, because it's been brilliant to see the discussion unfold.
Financial planners say take the lump sum because it's in the best interest of the financial planners, not because it's in your best interest.
I think higher royalties with low advances is better not only in theory but in practice, but it is unfortunately better for authors than it is for publishers.
And it is hard to get publishers to sign up for something that benefits authors more than it benefits them, particularly at a moment in history when there are already mass layoffs at publishing firms and (totally justified) worries that book publishing may not be a business in ten years.
I found the posts related to writing very interesting. As an aspiring writing, I like it when authors offer inside glimpses in to the industry.
Speaking of your writing as a gift. I just gave Looking for Alaska to my brother to read while he's stuck in the hospital for a week. He's never been a big reader but he called this morning to tell me that he hasn't read a book outside of school he's liked so much.
So this week your writing was a gift that reminded my brother that reading isn't just for classes (he's studying philosophy and theology, a lot of reading).
I would definitely say that Paper Towns was a gift. It actually really helped me to deal with some problems that I was having with a friend. Thank you :)
Oh, that old balance question:
We need to earn a living, but we are in this because we want to give something.
I agree.
I guess I'll also take some comfort in knowing that's why most health care professionals are in that field. They want to help people feel better/recover their health. That system isn't in any better shape than publishing.
Off to clog my arteries with fried dough, in honor of independence.
You have editors/ publishers in different countries. Who are they hired by?
Also, why are Maureen Johnson's books hard to find in England?
Hi John-
This is a young writer who is involved in the Kenyon Review Young Writers program in Gambier, OH. I heard this was your alma mater and I was wondering if you had time in your schedule to come down and visit anywhere from July 6-July 11. If you could find time that would be awesome! If you do come ask for the Young Writers Program and Adrienne, thanks again!
YAAA(You Are Already Awesome)
-Adrienne
As a student at the Columbia Publishing Course, I found it interesting. Check out HarperStudio, an imprint that doesn't give advances over 100k and offers 50/50 profit sharing instead.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/fast-talk-the-experimenter.html
mooreofallison.blogspot.com
Hey so I was talking to a friend about Alaska vs. Margot, and I said that an important difference was that Alaska smokes and Margot, as far as we know, doesn't. Is this relevant? Am I reading too much into it? An answer would be very much appreciated.
I can't imagine any of your writing not being a gift. :)
I do not think your idea is wrong, nor do I think it's bad to accept a higher advance. It's probably, as you say, better in the long run to go with bigger royalties. The only flaw is this: we are not so altruistic as to think that deeply about it. Money is good. Money is shiny and spendable. After slaving away for years and years writing and re-writing the same manuscript, an immediate incentive is much, much more tantalizing than whatever may turn out better in the long run, especially if that great success is tentative.
So yeah, maybe your way is better. But I think you're going to run into some trouble convincing desperate authors of that. : )
Your theory of low advances are great IF most other writers also got John Green-type sales and awards and star reviews.
But they don't. Not by a long shot.
So your business of low advances works well for you. You don't need a large advance for your next book because you conceivably still have royalties coming in from LFA which came out in 2005. And because of your previous NYT best seller status, you'll also be certain table placement in book stores for your next book, which leads to huge spikes in sales.
BUT, most YA doesn't stay on bookshelves long enough to find an audience, much less earn out their advances or or bring in royalties. Generally, an author needs a publisher to market the book to accomplish true, hard-core sales. Publishers spend marketing dollars on lead titles, no one else.
For some authors a big advance IS some security that at least their "gift" of a a book will not have to rely on word of mouth for sales, but instead will have ARCs available at BEA, and ALA, publisher sponsored websites, and will have a publicist that really tries to help them market it rather than sticking it in the book catalouge and calling it a day.
Surely you aren't so successful that you think most authors are treated with the same respect and care as you, are you? That would be really dissapointing. For every author with ARCs for the taking at BEA and reviews in the New York Times, there are a hundred more with nothing. Not because their books are bad, but because publishers only have so many slots for "lead" titles. One agent suggested that being made a lead title was equivelent to winning the lottery. Table placement or other displays in a bookstore (which publishers pay to do for some of their titles) sell. That isn't based on a book's merit, but on that fact it's on a table.
To Anonymous above:
I understand the importance of marketing dollars, and the importance of having your ARCs circulated at BEA and ALA, and the importance of getting all those marketing and publicity dollars to reach your biggest audience.
(I also understand the importance of an author doing all s/he can to build an audience.)
But as I say in my previous blog post below, the size of the advance does not cause marketing dollars. Marketing dollars and big advances may often correlate (because publishers tend to spend more on things theyre more excited about), but if you offer to take a lower advance than the one you're offered, it will not affect the marketing budget for your book.
I am living proof of this.
Yes, YOU are living proof of this, but you and how many other authors -- with a regular/modest advance -- end up on the NYT best-sellers list, or get big huge pushes by a publisher every year?
Not many. Certainly not enough.
Big advances lead to publisher promotion. That's why an author no one has heard of can debut on the NYT best-seller list. Not because readers everywhere have discovered their book simultaneously, but because the book had the heck marketed out of it *because* it did get a large advance.
For most YA books, the advance money is the only money they'll ever get from the book. For many debut authors they get, literally two (2) months on a bookstore shelf. If their book doesn't take off it is gone to make room for incoming stock. So it never gets a chance to build an audience or earn out its advance/make royalties.
I know writers with star reviews for YA books, in hardcover, and yet those books don't get a sell- in at chains. They tank because of it. Personally, I want those authors to make as big as of an advance as possible, because it is very well the only money they'll see.
The publishing business model is out of control. It's a throw these books on the wall and see what sticks mentality. LFA stuck (rightly so) but in my opinion it's naive to think the cream rises to the top in publishing. Peopel will buy what is in front of their face, for better or worse.
"JG said: "...but if you offer to take a lower advance than the one you're offered, it will not affect the marketing budget for your book..."
This may or may not be true, but keeping in mind the last Anon's theories, if (like most authors) the only money you'd be making from a book is the advance (since most books don't earn out their advance or stay on shelves long enough to make royalties) why on earth would an author want to turn down money?
Authors don't have a crystal ball where they can see into the future and say, "Well, in three years I'll come up with this Book X which will make me money, so, for right now I can sell Book Y and Z for pennies."
Most authors don't know if they'll get the chance to publish another book. They can't count on publishers doing anymore than putting their book in a catalogue as their "marketing." You want THAT author to turn down money?
I don't see it happening.
I think the miscommunication is that you are only looking at it from the perspective of a NYT best-selling author. Of an author who is writing the movie script for his own book -- and presumably being paid for it. Of an author who does get ARCs given out at BEA and ALA, and gets invites to speak everywhere. That's why the argument doesn't hold up.
Your books will make money regardless, a different author, with only a book in a catalogue can't afford to "offer to take less," because it is the only money they will earn from the book. You've been spoiled, that you don't know this.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home