Big Changes in the Publishing World? (And Are They Good for Authors?)
ByPublishing is on the brink of many big, big changes, I believe. The system has been broken for a long time, but all the cracks are now showing. Will the whole system as we know it crumble and give way to something new?
I think so. It’s already happening. It’s just a matter of time.
For instance, a month or so ago, something significant happened. One the major players in publishing, Robert S. Miller, left Hyperion (which he founded and headed) and moved to HarperCollins, where he will head a new imprint. This new division has an entirely different structure–designed to resolve two of the publishing industry’s major concerns: high author advances (to certain authors, anyway), and the high rate of returned books (which I’ve said elsewhere is one of the fatal flaws in publishing).
This new imprint (which is industry speak for a division within a publishing company, sort of a mini-publisher within the larger publishing house) plans to pay lower royalty advances, or none at all, but divide profits equally. So instead of 15 percent of retail (or, typically, 7.5 percent of net for the author), the author would split the revenues 50/50, but get nothing upfront.
The other big change is that the stores will not get to return the books they order.
Are these changes good for authors, and are they likely to be adopted by other publishers?
Here’s my prediction. (Time will show whether I’m a prophet or not.)
I think that the change in paying royalties will eventually be adopted by other publishers. In fact, it is what Morgan James Publishing has been doing for several years already. No advances, higher royalties (though MJ is only 20 percent, which makes 50 percent seem like heaven).
Is a change in royalty structure good for authors? Yes, though we might not like it. Like eating vegetables–it may not be what we like, but it’s what’s good for us.
We authors need to realize we need to take 100 percent responsibility for the success of our book. If we do this, in what may be the new system, we will win. If we don’t–well, the publishers have carried us for a long time.
By that I mean, most authors don’t earn back their advances, which means the publisher lost money on them. Is that fair? (Well, maybe, given the pittance we get for all our labor. But the publisher has costs, too. Having been on both sides, I sympathize with both … and say again, the system is broken, so we have to fix it or rebuild it from the ground up.)
The second big issue is, how will the bookstores respond to a no-returns policy?
Probably the same way they respond to Print On Demand published books: They won’t stock them. Plenty of other books to choose from that they can return. (And they do–return rate is as high as 40 percent.)
Only a wholesale adoption of such a policy by all major publishing houses will force the bookstores to stock books they can’t return.
Will publishers have the guts to do that?
As I said, time will tell. Robert Miller is apparently embracing other sales outlets. They plan to release around 25 books a year “in multiple physical and digital format … with the aim to combine the best practices of trade publishing while taking full advantage of the internet for sales, marketing and distribution,” reports HarperCollins.
Miller is also reportedly considering offering both e-book and audio editions of the hardcovers at no extra cost to the consumer. When I’ve talked to other publishers about doing this, it seemed like anathema. Yet, many authors have proven it’s a strategy that works.
Robert Miller and Jane Friedman (president and CEO of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide), I admire your courage in making this move. I hope it succeeds. I at least think you’re on the right track.
2 Comments
May 7th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
We’ve worked positively with four major publishers; we’ve been treated fairly although all authors (including us) whine about the lack of support in marketing our books, especially to church booksellers and independents.
Traditional publishers may be wise to explore POD technology, whereby they don’t produce huge warehouse runs of titles they don’t plan to back with marketing dollars and high-energy campaigns. By waiting to print until the order has been placed (POD) much expense can be avoided.
The question of book returns is a separate matter. Given the fact that so many books end up spine-out, invisible on the bottom shelf, it’s no wonder that returns happen. The published authors we speak with (at writers conferences and publishing events) are strongly considering either a move to self-publishing, or else a cooperative-type venture in which authors band together for marketing clout, visibility in the marketplace, and thus higher unit sales.
The 900-pound gorilla(s) in the room involves the wholesale supplier(s). Often bookstores have their inventory essentially dictated by suppliers; individual owners can’t tailor their stock to their region, local authors, or the perceived needs of their own market areas. This issue may be the most perplexing of all. Will wholesalers change their practices and allow more customization and individual tailoring of store orders?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Thanks for your helpful comments, David!
POD is a double-edged sword, as far as traditional publishers using them, at least from an author’s perspective. This is because with POD, a book can remain “in print” forever. If the publisher isn’t doing anything with the book, the author often can’t get the rights back. That can hamper an author from doing more with the book or related products, if the contract forbids it. I have clients in this predicament and it’s frustrating.
Thanks too for bringing up about the wholesale supplier issue. Yes, that’s a huge problem. I doubt wholesalers will change their policies. It’s too “efficient” this way (though perhaps not effective). Sigh.