Amazon removes Hachette buy links from its stores.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Would an example help? At the bottom of the "Meet Max" entry is a downloadable copy of her resume. She is very much freelancing, and available for hire by SP authors with what I found to be reasonable rates. Last I contacted her though, she was booked for about six months ahead and I'm sure that's only increased since then.

The resume does not appear to suggest that Max actually worked as a salaried employee at S&S, nor does it state what her responsibilities were as a "freelance editor".

 

[Old Hack]

I must be reading resumes wrong then, I would expect a person who worked at Simon and Schuster for a number of years before hanging their own shingle to be as qualified as those still getting a paycheck from Simon.

They might well be. But my point still stands: self publishers can't usually access editors who work at trade publishers, as such editors are contractually forbidden to take on freelance work; and when they move on from salaried employment, most are too busy and too expensive for most self publishers to be able to work with them.

There were no sales. Stores refused to carry it because they didn't think it would sell. They didn't buy what was printed from the publisher in the first place. She said she had no sales of that title because after the stores refused to carry it, the publisher canceled it, which left it in some sort of legal limbo. I heard it on one of the multiple podcasts I listen to, if I can find it again I'll post the link.

I know I'm seeing this at a remove, but I have real problems with the story you're telling me. Bookshops refused to order in the book because of its cover, yes? But it's routine at most publishers, big and small, to show the buyers at the bigger chains their cover designs before a book goes to print. If book buyers don't like the covers, they are changed. Simple. It happens all the time. Because publishers know how critical those buyers are too a book's success.

And if the publisher "canceled" it, then what exactly did they cancel? If they cancelled the contract, she would not have been in any legal limbo: they rights would have reverted to her and she'd have been free to sell it elsewhere.

Please do find the link, because this is just sounding more and more confusing and unlikely.

Would an example help? At the bottom of the "Meet Max" entry is a downloadable copy of her resume. She is very much freelancing, and available for hire by SP authors with what I found to be reasonable rates. Last I contacted her though, she was booked for about six months ahead and I'm sure that's only increased since then.

The link won't work for me, Shaun. You might like to take a look at it, see if it needs fixing.

The resume does not appear to suggest that Max actually worked as a salaried employee at S&S, nor does it state what her responsibilities were as a "freelance editor".

Ah. Thanks, Liosse.

 

[Liosse de Velishaf]

The direct link to the resume: http://www.polished-pen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/res2.pdf


I'm afraid resumes aren't my strong suit. It's completely possible that "Max" does nin fact have some sort of serious professional connection to Harper Collins and Simon & Schuster.

 

[Mr Flibble]

Don't quote me, but I'm hearing from a couple of Orbit authors that for whatever reason, their UK orders don't seem to be affected--no idea why.

Nope, they aren't -- discounted as usual, delivery times as usual, buy links active, as I noted earlier (and got an email trying to flog me more books today, so I checked out some more, and all normal)

Some legal thing perhaps? Don't know. But it's only in the US that my books seem affected.

 

[Anaquana]

The direct link to the resume: http://www.polished-pen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/res2.pdf


I'm afraid resumes aren't my strong suit. It's completely possible that "Max" does nin fact have some sort of serious professional connection to Harper Collins and Simon & Schuster.

I'm wondering what a "Publusher" does? Are they professional drunks who spend their days in pubs?

But, seriously, if she's got that kind of mistake in her professional resume, I'd be hesitant hiring her.

 

[shadowwalker]

It states she's a 'freelance editor' for S&S and HarperCollins, so unless she's got her terminology screwed up, she's not currently an employee of either, and never was (based on her stated work history).

 

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I'm wondering what a "Publusher" does? Are they professional drunks who spend their days in pubs?

But, seriously, if she's got that kind of mistake in her professional resume, I'd be hesitant hiring her.

I hadn't even noticed. That's pretty hilarious...

It states she's a 'freelance editor' for S&S and HarperCollins, so unless she's got her terminology screwed up, she's not currently an employee of either, and never was (based on her stated work history).

She claims inside knowledge of "traditional publisher" marketing and pr departments. I wonder where she would have gotten it as just a freelancer?


Either way, I think this suggests that Davout is out of luck with this example...

 

[shadowwalker]

She claims inside knowledge of "traditional publisher" marketing and pr departments. I wonder where she would have gotten it as just a freelancer?

She was employed in editing positions at other publishers, but I was addressing the question of whether someone currently employed as an editor for a publisher would be freelancing. If she was supposed to be an example of that, it fell short.

 

[Torgo]

She claims inside knowledge of "traditional publisher" marketing and pr departments. I wonder where she would have gotten it as just a freelancer?

Well, be fair - she's apparently worked full-time for proper publishers like Hachette, Houghton Mifflin, and Donald M Grant, so it's entirely plausible that she'd have inside knowledge of marketing and publicity based on that.

She lists two years as an editorial assistant, followed by a year copyediting for another company and a year as an 'acquiring editor' (commissioning ed, I guess) at a third; it's a slightly peculiar CV with not a whole lot of editing experience, to be honest, but she'd know the business.

 

[Deleted member 42]

Because of tax law changes in 2008 and economic realities post the 2008 recession, many U. S. publishers are paying most of their editors as consultants via 1099s. That means that they're not receiving benefits, but they can take or refuse mss. at will, and aren't restricted as much as they might be.

I'm not saying there aren't any restrictions, just fewer than there were a few years ago, when more U.S. editors were salaried.

One publisher I worked for wanted a non-compete clause saying I wouldn't work on books in a particular category for any other publisher; I said I wouldn't sign with such a clause and they offered instead a clause stipulating I wouldn't work on two mss. at the same time in said category; that was fine by me.

There are a fair number of freelancing editors who still work for well-respected trade publishers around; the catch is that some are better than others, and you should follow up regarding the books they've worked on, and the authors they worked with. The relationship between an editor, an author and a book make a difference.

 

[Davout73]

I know I'm seeing this at a remove, but I have real problems with the story you're telling me. Bookshops refused to order in the book because of its cover, yes? But it's routine at most publishers, big and small, to show the buyers at the bigger chains their cover designs before a book goes to print. If book buyers don't like the covers, they are changed. Simple. It happens all the time. Because publishers know how critical those buyers are too a book's success.

And if the publisher "canceled" it, then what exactly did they cancel? If they cancelled the contract, she would not have been in any legal limbo: they rights would have reverted to her and she'd have been free to sell it elsewhere.

Please do find the link, because this is just sounding more and more confusing and unlikely.

I am pretty sure this is it:

http://rockingselfpublishing.com/episode-41-hybrid-publishing-cj-lyons/

"She eventually entered a writing contest where she became a finalist. This brought her name to the attention of the traditional publishing world and she was offered a contract on writing a book (all based entirely on the first chapter). The publisher was so excited about the first book that they signed her to write a book to follow it up immediately.

The book was very popular initially (before it had a cover) and then when the booksellers saw the cover they refused to put it on the shelves for a new author. The publisher refused to change the cover stating “we have an award winning art department.” They cancelled the book and it never hit the shelves through that publisher. When this happened CJ had already left her job and suddenly it had all come falling down around her. She hired a lawyer and got her rights back."

I do think the end result of this (the book being canceled) is rare, but the whole cover control issue certainly isn't. You would think the publisher would have redone the cover after investing that much into it.

Dav

 

[Perks]

Bookshops refused to order in the book because of its cover, yes? But it's routine at most publishers, big and small, to show the buyers at the bigger chains their cover designs before a book goes to print. If book buyers don't like the covers, they are changed. Simple. It happens all the time. Because publishers know how critical those buyers are too a book's success.

This is exactly what happened with my book. Barnes & Noble didn't like the cover, so Simon & Schuster changed it with three months until release.

 

[Ken]

This is exactly what happened with my book. Barnes & Noble didn't like the cover, so Simon & Schuster changed it with three months until release.

I wonder if this is a recent thing or if bookstores have had this much authority always? I suspect not, which'd explain a lot.

 

[Deleted member 42]

I wonder if this is a recent thing or if bookstores have had this much authority always? I suspect not, which'd explain a lot.

I know it was happening in 1992. I suspect it happened earlier.

 

[Ken]

I know it was happening in 1992. I suspect it happened earlier.

That's pretty far back. I guess when chain bookstores first arose would be a decisive factor, granted they haven't always been around. Independent bookstores probably wouldn't have had enough sway to have much say.

Thnx for the info.

ps Did a bit of research on B&N.

Barnes & Noble originated in 1886 with a bookstore called Arthur Hinds & Company, located in the Cooper Union Building in New York City.[9][10] In the fall of 1886, Gilbert Clifford Noble, a then-recent Harvard graduate from Westfield, Massachusetts, was hired to work there as a clerk.[11] In 1894 Noble was made a partner, and the name of the shop was changed to Hinds & Noble.[12] In 1901 Hinds & Noble moved to 31-35 W. 15th Street.[13]

In 1917, Noble bought out Hinds and entered into a partnership with William Barnes, son of his old friend Charles; the name of the store was changed accordingly to Barnes & Noble.[14][15] Charles Barnes had opened a book-printing business in Wheaton, Illinois in 1873; William Barnes divested himself of his ownership interest in his father's firm just before his partnership with Noble and it would go on to become Follett Corporation. Although the flagship store once featured the motto "founded in 1873," the C.M. Barnes-Wilcox Company never had any connection to Barnes & Noble other than the fact that both were partly owned (at different times) by William Barnes.

1930–1969[edit]
In 1930, Noble sold his share of the company to William Barnes' son John Wilcox Barnes.[16][17] Noble died on June 6, 1936, at the age of 72.[18] In the long history of the bookstore, the namesake partnership was a brief interlude of thirteen years.

Barnes & Noble's former flagship store at 105 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, New York has been operating since 1932.
In 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, the bookstore was moved to a flagship location on 18th Street and Fifth Avenue,[19] which served as such until it closed in 2014. The Noble family retained ownership of an associated publishing business and Barnes & Noble opened a new publishing division in 1931.[17] In 1940, the store was one of the first businesses to feature Muzak; it underwent a major renovation the following year.[20] That decade the company opened stores in Brooklyn and Chicago.[21] William Barnes died in 1945 at the age of 78 and his son John Wilcox Barnes assumed full control.[21] The company underwent a significant expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, opening an additional retail store on Twenty-third Street in Manhattan and shops near the City University of New York, Harvard and other Northeast college campuses.[22]

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_&_Noble

I guess they had the clout even then, though not as much as now.

 

[Old Hack]

Because of tax law changes in 2008 and economic realities post the 2008 recession, many U. S. publishers are paying most of their editors as consultants via 1099s. That means that they're not receiving benefits, but they can take or refuse mss. at will, and aren't restricted as much as they might be.

I'm not saying there aren't any restrictions, just fewer than there were a few years ago, when more U.S. editors were salaried.

That's interesting to know, Medi. Thanks for the update.

However, it doesn't change my view that it's impossible for self published authors to access the same skills, people and services that are provided to authors with trade publishers. Which was where this part of the discussion grew from.

I am pretty sure this is it:

http://rockingselfpublishing.com/episode-41-hybrid-publishing-cj-lyons/

"She eventually entered a writing contest where she became a finalist. This brought her name to the attention of the traditional publishing world and she was offered a contract on writing a book (all based entirely on the first chapter). The publisher was so excited about the first book that they signed her to write a book to follow it up immediately.

The book was very popular initially (before it had a cover) and then when the booksellers saw the cover they refused to put it on the shelves for a new author. The publisher refused to change the cover stating “we have an award winning art department.” They cancelled the book and it never hit the shelves through that publisher. When this happened CJ had already left her job and suddenly it had all come falling down around her. She hired a lawyer and got her rights back."

I do think the end result of this (the book being canceled) is rare, but the whole cover control issue certainly isn't. You would think the publisher would have redone the cover after investing that much into it.

Publishers DO change covers if bookshop buyers don't like them. I am astonished that this one wouldn't, and if it was a good publisher then I am deeply skeptical of this story.

I wonder if this is a recent thing or if bookstores have had this much authority always? I suspect not, which'd explain a lot.

It's not a recent thing.

I've seen variables of this happening for the last thirty years. When I worked in computer games publishing we'd routinely send copies of our proposed packaging to buyers at the big retailers, and to editors and reviewers at the bigger magazines, and ask for their opinions; I had a book jacket substantially reworked in the late 1980s because the buyers at a small UK chain didn't like it (that book is still in print, and the same reworked jacket is still on it). It's common practice.

 

[Ken]

It's not a recent thing.

I've seen variables of this happening for the last thirty years. When I worked in computer games publishing we'd routinely send copies of our proposed packaging to buyers at the big retailers, and to editors and reviewers at the bigger magazines, and ask for their opinions; I had a book jacket substantially reworked in the late 1980s because the buyers at a small UK chain didn't like it (that book is still in print, and the same reworked jacket is still on it). It's common practice.

Thnx for the insight.

Pretty impressive that book's still in print.

Can't argue with success.

 

[RedWombat]

I do my own covers for my MG series--I'm the illustrator as well as the author--and crimsony, we get revisions on covers late in the day sometimes! I've had to massively rework covers practically overnight because a buyer judged it "too scary," after the catalogs have gone out and everything.

I have no idea who this publisher with the "award winning art department" was, refusing to change a cover, but I second everybody else saying that is super weird behavior.

 

[JennTX]

Publishers DO change covers if bookshop buyers don't like them. I am astonished that this one wouldn't, and if it was a good publisher then I am deeply skeptical of this story.

I'm just a reader, and even I think this sounds odd. Why would a publisher invest money, then simply walk away because the bookstore didn't like the cover? They would be throwing away thousands of dollars.

I'm not saying I find her dishonest, I just wonder if this is something the publisher told her because they weren't able to get her books into stores.

 

[thothguard51]

Publishers have sat on manuscripts before. If true, then this is nothing new. This is why you need a very good reversion clause in any publishing contract...

 

[Anaquana]

I just saw on Tor.com that Barnes and Noble is offering a 3-for-2 deal on Hachette books.

 

[LOTLOF]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2014/0602/Walmart-cashes-in-on-Amazon-Hachette-fight-video

And now Walmart is jumping in. They are offering 40% discounts on in stock Hachette titles. Seeing Walmart trying to take advantage of Amazon reminds me of watching an old Creature Feature movie. You see Godzilla fighting some other huge monster as they level Tokyo around them. You're not sure who to cheer for and would be pretty happy to see both rip each other apart.

If authors are able to sell their books, and readers are able to buy them and actually get them delivered, I suppose it's a good thing. I think the best possible outcome would be for Amazon to be reminded they are not an ebook monopoly. That would be the biggest win-win for authors and readers.

 

[ShaunHorton]

I just saw on Tor.com that Barnes and Noble is offering a 3-for-2 deal on Hachette books.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2014/0602/Walmart-cashes-in-on-Amazon-Hachette-fight-video

And now Walmart is jumping in. They are offering 40% discounts on in stock Hachette titles. Seeing Walmart trying to take advantage of Amazon reminds me of watching an old Creature Feature movie. You see Godzilla fighting some other huge monster as they level Tokyo around them. You're not sure who to cheer for and would be pretty happy to see both rip each other apart.

If authors are able to sell their books, and readers are able to buy them and actually get them delivered, I suppose it's a good thing. I think the best possible outcome would be for Amazon to be reminded they are not an ebook monopoly. That would be the biggest win-win for authors and readers.

I find these funny, as these discounts are on the level that Hachette wants to prevent in the future with this fight with Amazon. So get them while you can, if Hachette wins you'll never see sales like this again.

 

[Terie]

I find these funny, as these discounts are on the level that Hachette wants to prevent in the future with this fight with Amazon. So get them while you can, if Hachette wins you'll never see sales like this again.

Why are you assuming that these prices reflect Hachette discounts? Isn't it much more likely that they're retailer discounts? You do know there's a difference between the discount a retailer pays to the manufacturer, and the discount off RRP that a retailer offers the consumer, don't you?

 

[Torgo]

Why are you assuming that these prices reflect Hachette discounts? Isn't it much more likely that they're retailer discounts? You do know there's a difference between the discount a retailer pays to the manufacturer, and the discount off RRP that a retailer offers the consumer, don't you?

This is kind of the point at issue with ebook pricing, though. Amazon are very happy to offer deep retailer discounts on ebooks, hence the publisher preference for agency pricing. The difference is that Amazon has a near-monopsony on ebook sales, I guess.