• Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.

The Zharmae Publishing Press

traveo2343

Publisher at TZPP
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Location
Saint Paul
Website
www.zharmae.com
In that text, three people earn money: the writer, the artist, and the publisher.

Out of a total income for the book of $15k, the author of the book gets paid $2,600; the artist gets paid $780; and the publisher gets paid the rest of the money, which comes to $11,620--not $1,820. Your authors don't get paid 50% of revenue while you only get 35-40%: the truth is, you take 77.5% of income while your authors get 17.3% and your artists get 5.2%.

Yes, I realise you have to pay for the cost of publishing the books out of your 77.5%; but your authors have to pay for the cost of writing their books out of their 17.3%, and your artists have to pay for the cost of designing and illustrating the books out of their 5.2%.

Now do you see why the risk is not equitable here, you're not splitting the profits with your writers, and you're not getting a smaller percentage of the income than your writers?

I definitely understand your line of thinking, but what you may fail to grasp about our business model, is that everyone - Author, Staff, Artists, etc, are all under a contract. It isn't being passed through the publisher to overhead. Which would account for that 77%, but instead is passed direct as the fee for service to the individual who worked on the project. And that $1,800 or so that the publisher earns, I have boosters to the staff contracts that I have to pay, government fees, and reinvestment into the company.

I'm not going to going to beat a dead horse, even by your own account, 17% is better then what that author would earn under a traditional Big 5 contract, with additional support and access that we as a small press are able to provide.

Because we follow GAAP, it is not possible to define a per unit price, as that price will increase with sales, after you reach the break-even point (this is an effect of economies of scale).

Your contract might be legally sound, and it might be good for you, but it's not good for the writers who sign it.

Travis, while I really appreciate your repeated efforts to clarify things for us here, and I am grateful that you have remained courteous and engaged throughout, I don't like your contract, and I don't like your business model.

I don't think you have bad intentions--not at all--but with all due respect I don't think you know enough about publishing to realise where you're going wrong, I don't think your terms are at all writer-friendly, and you're not being nearly as generous as you seem to think you are.

I still cannot recommend that any writers sign with your publishing house.

And that is your personal opinion and choice. I fully respect and encourage it. I do think that you are wrong in that assessment, but I also acknowledge that TZPP is a young company, and we really haven't shown you our ability to produce wonderful work with strong sales. I would hope that in the near future as we do so, that perhaps the animosity toward our business model will ease and that we might be able to convince you a different model of operation isn't too terrible.

Perhaps my view in the flaw of accounting does come from my lack of experience dealing with it. For now we're going GAAP, it makes more sense across the board.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Travis, you seem to have edited your quote-tags to attribute my comments to Round Two. You might like to correct that (if you can't work out how but would like it changed, let me know as I should be able to do it for you).

I definitely understand your line of thinking, but what you may fail to grasp about our business model, is that everyone - Author, Staff, Artists, etc, are all under a contract. It isn't being passed through the publisher to overhead. Which would account for that 77%, but instead is passed direct as the fee for service to the individual who worked on the project. And that $1,800 or so that the publisher earns, I have boosters to the staff contracts that I have to pay, government fees, and reinvestment into the company.

I don't think you understood my point. I'll have another crack at it.

You get paid for a book.

Before you divvy up that money between all the various people who are contracted to receive a share of that money, you take out all your costs and overheads.

THEN you work out the percentage that everyone gets.

You're covering your costs then paying everyone out of what's left.

That's only fair--and can only really be called a profit share--if you cover everyone's costs and overheads related to the book's production before you share out the amount that's left.

Because you don't, you're ensuring that you have no costs or expenses to cover out of your share: it's all pure profit for you. But everyone else has to get their share to cover costs and expenses and hope there's a bit left over for profit. that isn't equitable, is it?

I'm not going to going to beat a dead horse, even by your own account, 17% is better then what that author would earn under a traditional Big 5 contract, with additional support and access that we as a small press are able to provide.

No, it's not.

With a good trade publisher a writer might get 12% on cover price for a print edition, and 25% on net (where net equals cover price minus distribution costs) for a digital edition. With a specialist e-publisher, they're more likely to get 50% on net.

I worked out that your figures equate to 17.3% of total income, which is not as good as 25% of net: with a deduction of 30% distribution costs, 25% of net works out as 17.5% of cover price.

50% of net is obviously an even better deal, and it works out to about 35% of cover price.

But there's still the 12% of cover price on print editions: 17.3% sounds a lot healthier than that. But it isn't, because the 17.3% you pay your authors is a percentage of the monies you receive from the distributor, not a percentage of the cover price of each book sold.

You'll probably have to pay a good print distributor a discount of 60% on cover price, which means that your writers only get paid 17.3% of the 40% of cover price that you get paid. Which, on a book which costs £10 per copy equates to just 69p per copy sold, rather than the £1.20 per copy sold a 12% royalty on cover price would provide.

How is that "better then [sic] what that author would earn under a traditional Big 5 contract"?

In addition, a Big Five publisher is going to sell a lot more copies per title than you are, I'll bet. As would most of the established independents with distribution in place.

As for the "additional support and access that we as a small press are able to provide": what, specifically, are you referring to? In my direct experience larger publishers provide a lot more support and marketing push, and sell far more copies than smaller publishers--especially small publishers run by people with no publishing experience to back them up.

Because we follow GAAP, it is not possible to define a per unit price, as that price will increase with sales, after you reach the break-even point (this is an effect of economies of scale).

Your costs "increase with sales, after you reach the break-even point"? Haven't you got that the wrong way round? Or have I misunderstood you?

And that is your personal opinion and choice. I fully respect and encourage it. I do think that you are wrong in that assessment, but I also acknowledge that TZPP is a young company, and we really haven't shown you our ability to produce wonderful work with strong sales. I would hope that in the near future as we do so, that perhaps the animosity toward our business model will ease and that we might be able to convince you a different model of operation isn't too terrible.

Here's the thing, Travis.

I've worked in publishing for nearly thirty years, and in all that time I've seen a lot of new publishing companies come and go.

The newcomers which have proved successful have all operated under the same sorts of business models that have proved successful for other publishers.

Every single one of the ones which were started under the sort of business plan that you've described has failed. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And when they've failed they've taken their books down with them, meaning that the authors involved have lost their books pretty much for ever and for nothing.

Perhaps my view in the flaw of accounting does come from my lack of experience dealing with it. For now we're going GAAP, it makes more sense across the board.

It might seem to make more sense but I fear that's because you've not understood the full implications of it. And bearing in mind your confidence that you pay higher royalties than trade publishers, it would seem my fears are correct.
 

justbishop

Proud Literary Sadist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
104
Location
Northern NY
Website
www.ashleyheckman.com
I have boosters to the staff contracts that I have to pay, government fees, and reinvestment into the company.

That stuff should be paid out of your percentage, not under its own cut.

Granted I've only one contract to compare yours to, but it's pretty simple. I'll get 45% of cover price on ebooks sold through my publisher's website. Things get a little more complex when a sale comes from another venue (Amazon, etc.), but my cut is 45% of net, in which net was specifically defined as cover/sale price less the venue's cut. That's it. That's all they take.

I would not sign a publishing contract that had the publisher taking costs for those services out of each sale PLUS a percentage of pure profit for the house. Seems to me that you're essentially double dipping.

ETA: just wanted to specify that my example is for ebook only.
 
Last edited:

Round Two

Behind the door of a small house.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
190
Reaction score
27
We have world English Language distribution, so we do sell through standard outlets including: Amazon, B&N, Kobo, Google, Sony, iTunes, Powells, etc. Distribution/Freight is what those retailers take which averages about 30% which is why the COGS is so high. I believe that I had mentioned this previously, but we always produce finished titles for Print, so a Barcode ($25) would also be included in that price tag.

It's hard to get a handle on things when you specify ebooks in your example, but then pull in print titles when explaining COG. But I realize giving a stripped down sample is a bit tricky given the particulars.

Do things look even more dire when you not only have to give a 50%+ discount to retailers for print books, but also have to pay the freight to get those books to those vendors?

That said, what does your P/L look like as far as expected sales for both print and ebook, and where do you see the bulk of those sales coming from (direct from you or through a vendor)?
 

LindaJeanne

On a small world west of wonder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
746
Reaction score
120
This is a flaw in traditional accounting in the industry. I don't come from books, and that is not how you do accounting in any other industry. I don't see the point in acquiescing to a serious flaw. So we follow GAAP.

You seem to be confusing "how you do accounting internally" with "what you pay your authors"

I'm sure that many publishers follow GAAP in keeping their own books, while still paying authors a percentage of cover price.
 

eqb

I write novels
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,680
Reaction score
2,055
Location
In the resistance
Website
www.claireodell.com
You seem to be confusing "how you do accounting internally" with "what you pay your authors"

This.

I know what I will get for each hardcover, paperback, and e-book from Tor and Viking. Zharmae's contract leaves too much wiggle room for Hollywood accounting. If they aren't sure what their expenses will be, they have no business in the business.
 

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
6,704
Reaction score
1,314
Location
Far from the madding crowd
Website
www.victoriastrauss.com
Please go here: http://trgmholdings.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/quick-view-pubs.pdf This will probably give you guys the easiest method to visually see how we account, and you can compare these numbers.

Based on this example, the author is earning an actual royalty of 17% as a percentage of cover price, or 25% as a percentage of net revenue (assuming the 30% discount given in your example). That's considerably less than is paid by most epublishers.

- Victoria
 

traveo2343

Publisher at TZPP
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Location
Saint Paul
Website
www.zharmae.com
Hello

Are you suggesting that the entire compensation section would read better, and would make you feel better about it, if I changed the language to read a $1.00 per unit sold royalty in any format?
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
Travis, you are deducting operating overhead before the 50/50 split and taking a percentage on the 50/50 as well and that is called double dipping no matter how you slice it... Too bad the author does not get to deduct his/her overhead prior to the split as well.

What about returns? Do you allow returns? How do you hold back the authors percentages to deal with returns?

Why are authors paying for bar codes when you can down load a program that generates them, for free...

All in all, with this particular model of publishing, and the terms of the contract, I see no reason why an author can not do better by self publishing. At least they will know their overhead and how many units they will have to sell before getting 100% of the royalties without tying up their future rights...
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Hello

Are you suggesting that the entire compensation section would read better, and would make you feel better about it, if I changed the language to read a $1.00 per unit sold royalty in any format?

I can't speak for Victoria, but what would make me feel better is if you used a contract which is far more standard; if you cut out the "profit-sharing" thing, which isn't actually that at all, if you stopped expecting to have all your expenses covered before anyone else got paid, and started paying your authors a reasonable royalty which was based on cover price, and which was transparent and easy to calculate.

While you're at it, start using good editors, work to get full distribution, only publish as many books as you can publish well, and recognise that the reason trade publishing works as it does is that its processes work, and not because it's an author-cheating dinosaur.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Though I appreciate the engagement with criticism, I can't help but be slightly concerned about a publishing house which negotiates its boilerplate online.

A publishing house has two main classes of asset: the skilled people it employs, and the rights it owns, as defined by the contracts to which it is a party. The business model of a publishing house has to take very careful and meticulous account of both those, in order to build a portfolio with which to make money.

Before you go offering contracts to people, it's incumbent on any small press to have clear ideas about all this. To have, in fact, a business plan. Because the main way small presses go bad is by overextending, losing money on bad bets, then running out of capital and being unable to pay royalties on the sales they do make. We see it time and time again.

If I were starting a small press, I'd begin with very similar terms to those offered by mainstream trade publishers; one effect would be that I'd be able to trade with mainstream literary agencies. If I found I were making enough margin to be able to offer more generous terms, or business models, that'd be great. But start with the tried-and-tested first up.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Me too, Torgo. But doing so requires a significant amount of capital, and there's very little chance of getting any return on your investment for a year or two, which puts a lot of people off doing things the right way.

I wonder if this is why we see so many startups from people who haven't worked in publishing and don't have experience in the field, but relatively few involving those who have and do.
 

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
6,704
Reaction score
1,314
Location
Far from the madding crowd
Website
www.victoriastrauss.com
I can't speak for Victoria, but what would make me feel better is if you used a contract which is far more standard; if you cut out the "profit-sharing" thing, which isn't actually that at all, if you stopped expecting to have all your expenses covered before anyone else got paid, and started paying your authors a reasonable royalty which was based on cover price, and which was transparent and easy to calculate.

That would be my suggestion as well.

Paying a flat royalty for all formats (i.e. $1.00 for any and all formats) makes things easy for the publisher by simplifying calculations, but depending on the format, could work out poorly for authors. It's really no more fair than the net profit royalty.

Another thing I noticed about the accounting calculation Travis posted is that it seems to include not just costs related to the specific book, but also some of the publisher's general overhead (the multiple editors). So it's actually even more disadvantageous for authors than a more typical net profit royalty calculations, which would just deduct direct physical production costs.

- Victoria
 
Last edited:

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
6,704
Reaction score
1,314
Location
Far from the madding crowd
Website
www.victoriastrauss.com
I wonder if this is why we see so many startups from people who haven't worked in publishing and don't have experience in the field, but relatively few involving those who have and do.

This. I think you're absolutely correct.

-Victoria
 

Round Two

Behind the door of a small house.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
190
Reaction score
27
Is anybody else having a problem getting the Zharmae website to come up?
 

Round Two

Behind the door of a small house.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
190
Reaction score
27
Hmm...

(goes to check)

Comes up for me. The front page is a note saying that they'll be out of the office for the long weekend, but back on Tuesday the third.

PS -- this is a site I've found useful:
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

Thanks LindaJeanne. The website confirms that it's just me. I pulled it up on my phone without any problems. Not sure what the issue is.
 

traveo2343

Publisher at TZPP
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Location
Saint Paul
Website
www.zharmae.com
I am working with my IT guy as we port the website over to a upgrade, which will also see the launch of a re-design. Just waiting on him to give the go ahead to go live. That may be a reason why some individuals are having issues accessing the website, I've actually received a few direct requests about the site as we make the change.
 

traveo2343

Publisher at TZPP
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Location
Saint Paul
Website
www.zharmae.com
That would be my suggestion as well.

Paying a flat royalty for all formats (i.e. $1.00 for any and all formats) makes things easy for the publisher by simplifying calculations, but depending on the format, could work out porly for authors. It's really no more fair than the net profit royalty.

Another thing I noticed about the accounting calculation Travis posted is that it seems to include not just costs related to the specific book, but also some of the publisher's general overhead (the multiple editors). So it's actually even more disadvantageous for authors than a more typical net royalty calculation, that would just deduct direct production costs.

- Victoria

I have no intention of backing away from the standard accounting, no matter how "un-standard" that may be in this industry. If an author requested that I change the royalty structure to be a set rate, such as $1.00 per unit sold, I would agree.

I would like to point out that had I accounted for production costs in this model it would, in fact, be disadvantageous to the author in comparison to the profit share model. In that, I would have to get an accounting of the fair market value of the hourly or project production costs of the services provided to the author. Zharmae is not a vanity publisher, we do not charge the author a fee for publishing their books. We do however operate all activities and services as a partnership and all partners in the per book project are party to the profit earnings. We define profit as that which is left over after Distro and registrations have been paid for. Even if I personally paid for that, and removed it from consideration it will only remove about $100 from the gross costs.

I am sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis, I would like to suggest that this method can work, and is a better alternative to the industry norm in the long run.

>>We have to come to a mutuality as an industry that are we move forward into the bold world of increasing interconnection and the question of risk vs. reward and the comparative advantage of working with a Publisher, that somethings have to change. I believe that our contract, and our method of operations does that, or at least is in the process of getting us there.<<

Though I appreciate the engagement with criticism, I can't help but be slightly concerned about a publishing house which negotiates its boilerplate online.

In answer to your comment/question, I make it a policy to be as transparent and accessible to authors and the broader community at large. I'd rather not have a bad rep among authors if I can avoid it. We've been in business for 3 years now and still are the new kids on the block in many respects with only 6 books out and just now getting into the groove of smooth operations.

To be clear, I am an advocate for the authors right to negotiate their own contract to their liking. The reason that I open discuss potential changes here, regarding our contract, is because of our de-listing from Ralan.com some time ago prior to our 360 degree re-write of our Short story contract (as well as our full contract). At the time, we were paying advances and we were receiving about 300 Sci-Fi manuscripts per month. Ralan has since refused to re-list us without first securing Victoria Strauss's approval, which to date, she has not given.

As you can read from our discourse on this thread, though I have acquiesced and modified our contract over the last year or so to be much more in line with other industry standard contracts (much to the disapproval of my investors) there still exist several key points that we both disagree on for entirely valid reasons. The legality of the contract is not in question, it is a legally sufficient. However the theory and experiential views behind several points is where we are coming to a bit of a standstill.

I am not required to further modify TZPP's contract, and Victoria is not required to give her approval to it. Thus, I will continue to discuss it, in hopes that eventually Victoria the Rest of AW will realize my contract is the best thing since sliced bread (not likely), or Zharmae and F.W. Fife's preference for being listed on Ralan either ceases or overshadows key contractual points.

I openly admit that I used the last 3 years to finish my term with the Army, recover from that mess of wonderfulness, get a solid understanding of the industry, most -- many.... (a few??) of it's quarks, and that I had to overcome a learning curve as I don't come from a publishing background, and I'm really not that smart. But, I am absolutely dense, determined, opportunistic, and zealous -- so, I like to think that counts for something. I also am very aware that my measly 3 years is facing off against those with 20 and 30 years of experience in the field, and as much as they may not like my contract are at least in some soft spot trying to help me get to 5 years, and maybe 10 and so on.
 

Round Two

Behind the door of a small house.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
190
Reaction score
27
Travis -

I think one of the biggest issues is -- regardless of accounting principles -- the contract you've got is overly complicated for what, in the grand scheme of things isn't all that complicated.

I know I discussed this up thread, but for example purposes again

Paperback - 2500 copies

Print costs - $4,000
Design - $1,500
Miscellaneous (ISBN, Copyright, cushion) - $500

Total costs = $6,000
Product - 2500 paperback books + epub/mobi files

We'll call cover price $16

Sell 2500 copies at a standard discount of 50%, gross revenue is $20,000

$20,000 - $6,000 (production costs/associated expenses) = $14,000

Even, though less desirable, if you paid the author on net money received from vendors ($20,000) at a rate of 10% per book ($.80/copy sold), you'd be on the hook for $2,000 in royalties.

If you price the ebook at $6 and sell 1,000 copies of that (using the same 50% discount), you'd have another $3,000. If you paid at the 25% of net received (on the low, but acceptable side of the current market), you'd pay the author another $750, while pocketing $2250 for the house.

Leaving you with net $14,250 for the house to cover all of the overhead related to selling books.

Is the math oversimplified for the purposes of this example. Sure. But it's not far straying too far on any front. It also paints a much clearer picture for author (and author advocate), while, I would think, simplifying your per title P/L and forecast/budgeting from a corporate standpoint.

Admittedly, I'm not an accountant, so I can't argue on accounting principles. But I've run publishing companies for more than a decade using the standard practices of the industry and have done ok with it. You can rest assured that if one of the Big Five saw an advantage in switching their accounting practices as a way to boost revenue and profits, it would have already happened.
 

traveo2343

Publisher at TZPP
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Location
Saint Paul
Website
www.zharmae.com
Is the math oversimplified for the purposes of this example. Sure. But it's not far straying too far on any front. It also paints a much clearer picture for author (and author advocate), while, I would think, simplifying your per title P/L and forecast/budgeting from a corporate standpoint.

Admittedly, I'm not an accountant, so I can't argue on accounting principles. But I've run publishing companies for more than a decade using the standard practices of the industry and have done ok with it. You can rest assured that if one of the Big Five saw an advantage in switching their accounting practices as a way to boost revenue and profits, it would have already happened.

I think you guys underestimate just how far and loud your thoughts on book contracts and royalties accounting actually carries in the industry, especially with new authors and increased clout of established higher end authors.

I think that if the model I suggest is to the benefit of Big 5, and they attempted to model after me, they would be in far less financial difficulty (within reason, they have exceptional overhead rosters most billion dollar entities do) but would see massive author backlash. Authors and the Writer's Associations are very vocal and often force hands in much the same way that a union would.

Take the recent issue raised regarding the Hydra imprint, and the backlash it received on Publisher's Weekly, mainly from Writer's Beware and Ms. Strauss and Mr Scalzi. Victoria's voice carries so loud that Hydra changed it's game fairly quickly. They were, as far as I could read, attempting a model similar to how TZPP actually operates in terms of profit share, one that is far more fiscally responsible.

In any other industry we call that Union activity forcing a company's hand.
 
Last edited:

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
I admire the tenacity with which AW's regulars have pinned down the exact royalty percentages, but right now I'd like to harp on the other issue in play: sales figures

The Big Five sell far more copies of each title than outfits like Zharmae do. For the conventional publishing houses, modest sales figures start around 5,000 copies. Those aren't the outstanding titles; they're the little ones. Middling successful books get well up into five figures.

Zharmae will be doing well if it moves a few hundred copies. No way are authors going to make more money off their publications.

Old Hack is right. There's a reason we see so many startups from people who haven't worked in publishing and have no experience in the field, and so few startups from people who do.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
I have no intention of backing away from the standard accounting, no matter how "un-standard" that may be in this industry. If an author requested that I change the royalty structure to be a set rate, such as $1.00 per unit sold, I would agree.

I would like to point out that had I accounted for production costs in this model it would, in fact, be disadvantageous to the author in comparison to the profit share model ... I am sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis, I would like to suggest that this method can work, and is a better alternative to the industry norm in the long run.

Travis, your business model is not advantageous for authors, as I and several other people have shown in this thread. If you'd read and properly understood our posts, you'd understand this.

If you'd like any clarification, you only have to ask.

If you really think your model is better, show us. Don't give us any more long explanations: give us a breakdown of the real numbers. Compare them to the model we're saying is better. SHOW US how yours is better.

We've been in business for 3 years now and still are the new kids on the block in many respects with only 6 books out and just now getting into the groove of smooth operations.

How many sales have those six books managed to achieve? And what have their authors earned on those sales? If you could share this information with us it would give us all something definite to look at with regard to how beneficial--or not--your business model is.

I think you guys underestimate just how far and loud your thoughts on book contracts and royalties accounting actually carries in the industry, especially with new authors and increased clout of established higher end authors.

There's a reason that people pay attention to Victoria Strauss: she knows what she's talking about. She's been through this with many other publishers, and has seen how approaches such as yours generally pan out.

As for underestimating the effect that discussions here have, I don't think that's true. I wish more people paid attention.

I think that if the model I suggest is to the benefit of Big 5, and they attempted to model after me, they would be in far less financial difficulty (within reason, they have exceptional overhead rosters most billion dollar entities do) but would see massive author backlash. Authors and the Writer's Associations are very vocal and often force hands in much the same way that a union would.

Nonsense.

I'm tempted to take this apart and show you how many ways you're wrong, but I don't see what this has to do with Zharmae. It's a diversionary tactic, and I'm not going to take that path.

Take the recent issue raised regarding the Hydra imprint, and the backlash it received on Publisher's Weekly, mainly from Writer's Beware and Ms. Strauss and Mr Scalzi. Victoria's voice carries so loud that Hydra changed it's game fairly quickly. They were, as far as I could read, attempting a model similar to how TZPP actually operates in terms of profit share, one that is far more fiscally responsible.

In any other industry we call that Union activity forcing a company's hand.

Again, nonsense. And again, diversionary.

I admire the tenacity with which AW's regulars have pinned down the exact royalty percentages, but right now I'd like to harp on the other issue in play: sales figures ...

Zharmae will be doing well if it moves a few hundred copies. No way are authors going to make more money off their publications.

Agreed, Hapi.

Travis, if your way of working really is so good, prove Hapi wrong and answer my question regarding sales figures and income earned.
 

LindaJeanne

On a small world west of wonder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
746
Reaction score
120
Travis, generally speaking, when moving from one industry to another -- or any other sort of change of context, such as city-to-rural -- it's a good idea to understand WHY things are the way they are before you try to make changes to improve things.

Because no matter what you're moving from, and what you're moving to, if you assume that the only reason they do things like X instead of like Y is that they don't know any better, you're setting yourself up for a fall.

You can't improve a system that you don't understand. You can't "fix" something if you don't understand WHY it's the way it is.

You've been getting a lot of good info in this thread from people who know more about the publishing industry than you and I put together -- but I'm not sure you're even fully reading their posts.
 

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
6,704
Reaction score
1,314
Location
Far from the madding crowd
Website
www.victoriastrauss.com
Ralan has since refused to re-list us without first securing Victoria Strauss's approval, which to date, she has not given.
Ralan never asked for my "approval." He asked for my opinion. I gave it. He made his own decision.

- Victoria