Pinhead Publishers Should Be Afraid According To Konrath

[brainstorm77]

http://jakonrath.blogspot.ca/2012/05....html?spref=fb

Check that out.

[veinglory]

I have to say that taking home 20k on 175,000 sales seems a bit meager.

[brainstorm77]

It's definitely food for thought.

[HoneyBadger]

Gee, I wonder if there's a difference between being an established author who has been published through established trade publishers who then self-pubs, and someone who starts their career by self-pubbing *just in case* they get "dicked over."

No, probably there's no difference at all, so I think more budding novelists should listen to Konrath and take every single word he writes to heart.

Oh, wait, what? I don't think that's a good idea. Oh yeah. It's not a good idea. It's like, by and large, people who write Get Rich This Way! books got rich themselves by writing Get Rich This Way! books, not because they were spectacular business-people with revolutionary financial practices.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I find it interesting no one remembers the old rule about being nice to those you meet on the way up...

... because you might meet and need them on the way down.

It's very nice to rant and rave about other publishers when you think you have a secure future with Amazon - another publisher, btw. But if in the future Thomas & Mercer goes under because Bezos decides to not stay in publishing 'cause it's not making enough money (and Amazon isn't all about publishing so they can cut the division without caring much) then where do these authors go?

Especially when they're venting and screaming and calling their old publishers names.

Anyone can research Harlequin and find out what they're all about. Some authors decide they'll trade off the money for recognition and for sales - HQN sells, that's a certainty.

Glass houses and all that...

jmo, ymmv.

[Alitriona]

If an author signs a bad contract, it's the author's fault they are locked in a bad contract.

[brainstorm77]

How and what Harlequin pays has never been a secret. It's quite easy to find online.

And I agree, self-publishing is a heck of a lot easier when you have an established following. There's no doubt about that.

[veinglory]

I don't think we should assume that every guest blogger is a Konrath clone.

This women has 25 successful Harlequin books, she has figures. If they are accurate, 2.4% achieved royalties is appalling. I don't think that should be brushed under the carpet.

[Bubastes]

I found her post very enlightening. Konrath's comments after post (rah rah Amazon, boo to Big 6), not so much.

[brainstorm77]

Originally Posted by Bubastes

I found her post very enlightening. Konrath's comments after post (rah rah Amazon, boo to Big 6), not so much.

That's exactly how I felt after reading the post.

[shadowwalker]

I'm not impressed by established authors who make it big self-publishing. Their readers don't care who publishes them as long as the books keep coming. Now, if the quality starts going downhill, then they'll care - but otherwise... And yeah, if a writer gets caught in a bad contract, well, they signed it.

[veinglory]

The contract is for 6%, not 2.4 -- the small print must be pretty curly.

Also, I think a publisher that offers a crappy contract shouldn't be let of scot free.

Consider, if the same story was on Making Light or Dear Author--would it get the same response?

[amergina]

The thing I find annoying is that, once again, Konrath in his "rah rah Amazon!" shtick completely ignores the existence of established e-publishers that have good production values and nice royalty rates.

But I guess he can't be faulted for that. It's not like there have been many successful e-publishing companies in the romance genre for years and years. And no e-publishing company has ever thought to take on Harlequin. Nope.

[Bubastes]

Originally Posted by veinglory

The contract is for 6%, not 2.4 -- the small print must be pretty curly.

Also, I think a publisher that offers a crappy contract shouldn't be let of scot free.

Consider, if the same story was on Making Light or Dear Author--would it get the same response?

Probably not, judging from the response when Dear Author posted Harlequin's response to contract issues less than a year ago:

http://dearauthor.com/features/inter...ntract-issues/

As always, it boils down to a business decision. Harlequin may fit into the long-term business plans of some authors and not others, but that's not as interesting as emotional ranting, I guess.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Except nothing here is *illegal*. Immoral, maybe - but that depends on your POV.

If you're a new author just starting out and you're offered a contract, even a bad one, by HQN you just might take it - it's a great credit for your writing resume.

Nothing that happened to that author is/was illegal. Brother Joe might *make* it sound illegal but that's because he's got a hard-on hate for all publishers - except the one he's signed with, Amazon.

Is it a crappy contract? Then don't sign it. We've got hundreds of threads on good and bad publishers and contracts.

Is HQN the "big evil"? For the moment in Konrath's world, yes. But, as I said before, I'm always nervous about burning bridges. There's a lot of people doing that in public by badmouthing the publishers who gave them their start and I can't help but think karma is a bitch...

[veinglory]

I don't think the author's section of the post is at all unreasonable. I think she knows whereof she speaks and the number are shocking. Because she is not even getting the 6% as per contract, but 2.4%.

If a publisher came this forum with such an offer their reception would, I think, be chilly--even if the could guarantee Harlequin level sales.

I think the author is being flogged for the sins of the host.

I mean can someone here tell me how 6% per contract (60K) became 2.4 (20k)? That's quite a difference! There is something there I was not aware of and am interested to learn more about rather than having the usual knee jerk response to everything Konrath presents.

I knew about the Harly contract being 2% below standard but assumed volume made up the difference--but I had no idea it could play out to a royalty of 11c per sale. And that is what I would like to know more about.

[amergina]

I agree that the author isn't being unreasonable in her complaints. And I, too, would be interested in knowing more about what's going on there.

Without all the "Every publisher but Amazon suxxors!" stuff at the end.

[Bubastes]

Originally Posted by veinglory

I mean can someone here tell me how 6% per contract (60K) became 2.4 (20k)? That's quite a difference! There is something there I was not aware of and am interested to learn more about rather than having the usual knee jerk response to everything Konrath presents..

I remember reading this bit on The Passive Voice (another blog that I take with some salt), but this might shed some light on why 6% isn't actually 6%:

5. After the contract is signed, the Harlequin parent licenses rights to the book to a Harlequin subsidiary for a royalty of 6% of the sales price. PG is not sure if the parent ever publishes any books itself, but it doesn’t sound like it.

6. The Harlequin subsidiary sells the book, keeps 94% of the sales price (less expenses) and pays a “license fee” of 6% to the Harlequin parent.

7. The Harlequin parent divides the license fee 50/50 and the author receives a royalty of 3% of the sales price. It’s not clear to PG if other expenses are subtracted to reach the “net amount received” or not.

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/20...orrors-wanted/

I'd love to get my hands on a Harlequin contract so I can comb through it myself. Elaine English's summary of Harlequin's corporate structure (in the link above) adds an interesting complication.

[Alitriona]

Originally Posted by veinglory

The contract is for 6%, not 2.4 -- the small print must be pretty curly.

Also, I think a publisher that offers a crappy contract shouldn't be let of scot free.

Consider, if the same story was on Making Light or Dear Author--would it get the same response?

The response from me would be the same. I'm sure if she wasn't getting what the contract offered she would have grounds to sue. So maybe the small print was curly and maybe the publisher is offering crappy contracts(more than maybe) that offer pittance in exchange for exposure. However, no one forces an author to sign. As with any adult who signs a contract, it is the author's responsibility to know and understand what they are signing, and to question it if they aren't getting what was promised.

[Deb Kinnard]

Some of her contracts were years old. It's known in my niche of the romancers' community that the current ones are worse. And since they didn't, and still won't, define "net", they can sip a percentage point here and two there, and they're still within the bounds of the contract. I don't know for sure if they would, but what's to stop HQ from cutting still more into the paltry net that the author gets -- so that the end percentage is 1% or less?

I'm no apologist for Amazon, but neither am I for Harlequin. Konrath's views only carry me so far, and he's had a chip on his shoulder about "legacy" publishing since 2002. I served on a local panel with him once, and his views were pretty (ahem) firm even then. Granted that at the time he lacked experience...he didn't seem prone to listening very intently to those of us who had some.

[leahzero]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

I'm not impressed by established authors who make it big self-publishing.

^

[Old Hack]

I've read the post and some of the comments: as ever, I wish that Mr Konrath would cut his rhetoric and stick to facts and reasonable, logical analysis. He makes some good points, but they're buried beneath a lot of exaggeration and his own personal agenda.

HM&B (which is what I'm talking about here--not Harlequin US, where things might well be different) works to an extraordinary business plan compared to most other publishers: they expect a very high rate of return, something like 80%, which means they have a far lower profit per unit so royalties are correspondingly low; but they publish a huge number of books each year, and they publish them quickly, which means that although they make less money per title they keep their turnover ticking along.

Their readership is a lot different to the readership of most other publishers. Their business plan is miles different. Their contracts are correspondingly different.

I'm not trying to defend Harlequin: I've been told by several people over the years that Harlequin's contracts are poor (one person described them as "toxic"), but I can't comment on that directly as I've not read them. But there are things which haven't been taken into account in the article concerned, and so the picture the article presents is skewed.

Not that I think the author is being anything other than truthful, you understand: but there you go. I think there's more to the story than we're hearing, and what we are being told is being told out of context.

[Jamiekswriter]

The other thing I noticed is she did get a nice advance on every single one of her books. @ $6,500 per book. So on the high end she's made $162,500 on her 25 books. Are her royalty rates shitty -- hell yes. Still $162,500 up front/guaranteed isn't something I'd call "disgusting". How many self pub books make $6,500 out of the gate? ::shrug:: That being said, I do think there's some room for change in HQ's contracts but until the epubs start taking away their market and enough of their profits-- and I think some are well on their way (Entangled, Ellora's Cave, Samhain) they won't change.

[GregB]

I think it's great to get this kind of information out there. Media tie-in writers probably have similar stories to tell.

I do find it somewhat ironic that the blog post detailing her meager pay with Harlequin is followed by an entreaty from Joe to download her self-published ebook for free.

[Scribhneoir]

Originally Posted by GregB

Media tie-in writers probably have similar stories to tell.

But aren't media tie-ins typically work for hire? In which case the writer gets paid a flat fee, not an advance plus royalties, so this situation wouldn't apply.