Jeff Rivera
Author of FOREVER MY LADY
Warner/Grand Central
http://www.ForeverMyLady.com

When ebooks were first advertised, readers were promised that, because of the reduced expenses, part of the savings would be passed on to purchasers, in the form of the ebook format being less expensive. This hasn’t materialized, though. And, as a reader, I can’t justify spending the money for an expensive electronic reader (nice though it might be) and then having to pay MORE for an ebook than I would for a paperback.

Why would any customer do this?

I have bought copies of a few books in ebook format – mostly books such as Terry Brooks’ Shannara series that are so large they are extremely difficult to carry around and read. I have also bought a woman’s erotica book in ebook format, because the format makes it impossible for others to see what I’m reading. And I would love to buy more books in ebook format, because I have a very extensive home library which I add to constantly, and ebooks are extremely convenient both to buy and store – but there’s just no way to justify the additional cost of an ebook, which may only be available as a download for a limited time, vs. a paperback, which can remain in my library for decades. And, until the publishers stop being such greedy SOBs, I can’t see that changing.

I have come to the reluctant conclusion, in fact, that this throttling of the ebook industry by publishers is being done deliberately. I can’t imagine why they’d want to do away with this format, which could make things so easy for everyone involved, but I can’t see any other explanation, since the publishing houses are far too savvy not to realize the effect their greed has had on the ebook market and on potential readers. Perhaps their motivation is, as I’ve concluded, greed. Perhaps it is somethng else. Perhaps it even stems from the publishers failing to read enough fairy tales in their childhood – because they most certainly are killing the goose that could lay golden eggs.

“but honestly, the idea that you can make the same kind of money, selling strictly to epubs is just bad math”

I’d actually say that last statement has more to do with bad assumption than math or fact. In reality, there are print authors whose entire advance and earn out don’t exceed 3K. It’s just as true that there are strictly ebook authors that make extrememly good money and support themselves and their families on their e royalties. In both ebook and print there is a very wide disparity of income potential and income being realized. In both markets, the only constant for any author is the potential for earnings.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for authors getting decent contracts, so I do hope the traditional houses, like Harlequin up their royalty rates, but honestly, the idea that you can make the same kind of money, selling strictly to epubs is just bad math. ePub’s sales numbers just aren’t on par with the big boys.

“Take same author and give her book to Ellora’s Cave. At a 5.99 per book, the same author with the same book need only sell 6,099 copies to earn the same amount of money and this does not include any paper sales she may make if EC chooses to sell the book in print format.”

5.99*.375 = 2.25 royalty earned per book. 13,700/2.25 = 6099 copies of books.

You know, that’s all well and good, in theory, but honestly, what’s the likelyhood of selling that many books through an ePub? Myself, and a number of writer friends,have tried going the epub way, and sure, it was easier to make that first sale, however, the large dollar amounts they were promising never came through. Our average number of copies sold is about 700 books, which mathmatically works out to…

700 x 2.25 = $1575.

That’s a far cry from $3,700. Call me crazy if you will but 6% of 10,000 is still more than 37.5 % of 500

Who’s to define what a detriment might be, specifically? On this e-royalty issue there are some who feel very, very strongly this is detrimental to the Harlequin author base. Others appear to feel it’s more H/S’s toe dipped into the area and wait and see. Others, like me, might have no real opinion on this either way at this point. And I imagine there are scores of others who could care less.

I’m a very global thinker (which is not necessarily the best thing), and so I tend to go to the meta-levels quickly. In this instance, I guess my sensibility isn’t directed at Harlequin or even at royalty rates on e-books but more generally on how authors are valued in a particular industry and how that valuation process is or isn’t equitable across industry players, etc. Those are the kinds of issues I think of when I think of the gains to be had for authors who choose to engage in more cooperative or collective thinking. When folks are satisfied with the status quo, such thinking doesn’t seem so necessary, and then when an issue comes up, community members will, as you say, have different opinions on a particular issue.

I’ve spent my whole career in education, some in educational partnership work — that is, in collaborative approaches to educational change. It’s challening but fascinating. Higher ed people often think problems exist because of poor K-12 teachers and schools, while K-12 people tend to see higher ed people as aloof and disconnected. Legislators have a certain view, too, as do community leaders, parents, and students. Rural areas have different priorities from urban ones, etc. But regardless of the particular issues (who’s responsible for kids not taking algebra early enough, or for AP courses not being offered at certain minority high schools, or for over-reliance on the SAT in college admissions), there is a shared sense of *problems* more generally, that afffect every tier of the educational system, and which, fortunately or unfortunately, are best met by collaborative approaches across educational sectors and areas.

So believe me, I understand all about herding cats. But educators who are working in collaborative initiatves aren’t giving up their individual culture or their independence or their autonomy; all those things are resources they bring to their collaborative work. It’s just a part of what they do, and it’s geared toward specific goals that will benefit the system as a whole. If, for example, you get more kids into pre-school, they do better academically later on, and ultimately colleges have to teach less remedial writing. It’s not mandatory that everyone participate, and it’s not a reflection of their value as educators.

For authors who want a certain change in their community or industry, I think that cooperative approaches make sense. An author who isn’t interested should never feel pressured to participate, but at the same time, I don’t think collective thinking is tantamount to giving up one’s individuality and independence — at a core level, I think it’s just about sharing resources for greater gain.

There are authors who will not even agree that plagiarism is wrong (I’m not one of them)…under those circumstances, it is unrealistic to think we can or even should band together about anything.

I also do not think it is right for an agency to take a stand that would put all their authors careers at risk. Every author is an individual.

This may very well all change with time, and the point Christine made about good will is valid. E-books start kicking some righteous ass in sales, more agents and writers will put the pressure on Harlequin to adjust.

For me, the Romance community is about mutual support, education, networking, information–and certainly about friendships. There is, most certainly, politics and advocacy on some levels. I stay off those levels because I’m not especially interested in either, and I’m no good at them. I certainly respect those who are. Competition exists in every field, and can be healthy–or not, depending. But most of the writers I know personally do what they do, without looking over their shoulder at who’s coming up, or pumping their legs to try to catch who’s ahead of them. If you’re doing that, you’re not looking at the work, and you’re never going to hit the finish line anyway. Or if you do manage it, you’ve sure wasted a lot of energy worrying about everyone else.

A collective strategy would only work if there is first a collective, then if that collective agrees on the problem at hand, and the stategy to overcome it. That, right there, is something I’d stay well away from.

I write books. That’s priority. I have opinions–obviously–but those opinions aren’t going to jibe with everyone else’s.

As Nora says, I believe decisions made by authors should be made because of their own personal needs, goals and visions for their career.

But can’t there be a balance between the writer’s individual sense of well-being and the community of writers as a whole? Does it have to be an all or nothing, zero sum proposition? Because it seems to me that at some very basic level, a thriving community passes the benefits of that thriving on to all its members, and a struggling community distributes those detriments to everyone, as well. That a single author may not feel so strongly and directly those benefits and detriments doesn’t mean they aren’t there or aren’t influential in some way. And just because an author benefits in one sense from a certain industry practice doesn’t mean that they won’t suffer, as well, at some later time. I hear all the time about how wonderful and supportive the “community” of Romance authors is, but I guess I’m wondering what, exactly, constitutes authors’ sense of “community.” Not that everyone has to be dedicated to slaying industry dragons, or anything, but what is the nature of the ties that bind (if they do bind, that is)?

Now, I am just kind of speaking of the top of my head because I haven’t really given good thoughts to the subject, but it would seem to me that a romance author union provided to better the contractual conditions for new and/or exploited authors would be quite helpful. Why not use a unified group to effectuate change.

I don’t necessarily think a union is necessary – in some cases, in fact, I think circumstantial coalitions and collectives work very well. Unions can, and often do, provide protections for their members, but if you take the labor unions in the US as an example, they have also been at the forefront of efforts to institute more restrictive immigration policies. Not every organization, IMO, is suited to a union. And unions can, in the course of advancing their own agenda, inhibit other kinds of change.

However, I don’t think that the individual mindset of the artist is mutually exclusive with a more collective intent — in fact, I think individuals tend to do better when they belong to a thriving community where there is a balance of shared and private goods. I tend to be one of those people who thinks that most every problem can be solved by adopting a collective strategy for change, but, a coalition is only as strong as its weakest member (a cliche, but, alas, a true one).

One problem for Romance writers, though, might be this incredible sense of competition that seems to flow through the mid-list (driven in part, IMO, by factory publishing practices that don’t always give authors a second chance to sell a book). Because you need support from the middle in building a coalition, too. It may also just be a matter of personality. Personally, I don’t think one has to be a conformist by nature to become part of a coalition, but at the same time you can’t force people to adapt to collective work, either.

Let’s face it. This is a new market for H/S and IMO they are hedging their bets. If it doesn’t fly for them, financially they don’t take a hit.

I’m not in marketing. I’m not into PR beyond what I have to do to get my name out there. I’m a writer. Full Stop.

Christine R. makes a great point I think in the goodwill and press issue.

I for one would also be reluctant to join a union, for my own reasons. Neither am I comfortable discussing details of my contracts. I will say that though I didn’t go for any major changes, any requests for changes to my contracts were approved with no questions asked. At this point in the game, for me personally, I’ll eat the royalty rate on the e-books in exchange for having an editor I adore working with and an office that has been nothing but supportive and enthusiastic about me coming on board. As Nora says, I believe decisions made by authors should be made because of their own personal needs, goals and visions for their career.

The harlequin machine isn’t perfect. But I’ve yet to find a perfect place to work. And I’d much rather be happy where I work in exchange for a few dollars.

But again, that’s me personally. I’m all for better contracts for authors, of course I am. But am I ready to be David to the Harlequin Goliath? Wouldn’t that be cutting off my nose to spite my face? I’d be giving up a heck of a lot.

I would add that maybe what we HS authors should be looking at, beyond using our advocacy groups to try to effect change and arguing the rate with each new contract, is a way to make their raising the eroyalty rates worth their while, somehow. I think, with the psuedonym issue, HS finally realized that it was costing them more in ill will and bad press to keep “owning” authors’ names than it was actually worth to them–also, I wonder if they saw some legal ramifications for them in the future with that issue, that “owning” an author’s name is no more legal than those people who bought up domain names early on to sell to the people who actually owned those names. In any case, HS saw that they could get a fat dose of positive PR and goodwill with their author base and really, not lose a thing, by letting the psuedonym issue go.

They also raised the royalties on all Non-NA English-language releases a few years ago from 2% of cover price to 4%. Again, created goodwill with the author base for them.

Hmm. Maybe a study of corporate reasoning is in order here. Maybe we have yet to find the right button(s) to push.

There are some who’d disagree, and some who believe we should all come together on any of a variety of issues. Others would likely feel those particular issues aren’t of interest or not a priority.

Years ago I attended a workshop at a writers’ conference where a member campaigned strongly for everyone in attendance to stand up and tell the group what she got on her last contract.

Well, no.

It’s no one’s business what I got on my last contract, and even more to the point what I got doesn’t apply to anyone else. What the writer who wanted this, as a point of solidary, got on her last contract doesn’t apply to anyone else.

Her thought was that if Author X got $$$ on her last contract for a historical from Publisher Y, than when Author Z went into negotiations for a historical with Publisher Y, she could demand the same terms.

But in reality, it’s unlikely Authors Z and Y have the same sales history, the same potential, the same output, etc, etc.

And in this group of about 100 published writers, the only one who gave her contract figures was the writer who made the suggestion.

We are not a collective. Even royalty rates can and do vary.

I understand the herd strategy–I wrote for H/S for many years and right or wrong, fair or unfair, they’ve got it and it works for them.

I prefer making my own inroads. And if I manage to clear a path here or there that another author can follow, that’s great. But I ain’t picking up a machete and blazing a trail.

Now, I am just kind of speaking of the top of my head because I haven’t really given good thoughts to the subject, but it would seem to me that a romance author union provided to better the contractual conditions for new and/or exploited authors would be quite helpful. Why not use a unified group to effectuate change. Perhaps, like Robin, I am just an idealist.

When I was researching this article, I found some blog posts about how slow RWA was to respond to authors requests for help on this issue of digital royalties. Maybe RWA is the correct body to act in favor of its membership in obtaining changes to the base contract. (I think that the contract would be more fair if there was a provision that was based on profitability if that is indeed the reason why Harlequin’s DRR are depressed). Of course, what kind of punitive action RWA could take that Harlequin would be responsive to is another question.

As for there being no other game in town, that is true. For now. But when ebooks increase from selling $11 M to selling $51 M a year (which might only be a few years from now), maybe the discussion will be completely different.

I understand that authors are individuals, but I don’t understand why authors wouldn’t band together for a better base contract.

I’ll shamefully admit that I am very much an idealist when it comes to building coalitions for change — I really believe that the strategy is effective and that such collective lifting from the bottom raises everyone up in the end. I can’t speak to this particular situation, but in my own semi-activist experience, I have run across two basic problems: 1) those on the bottom, the exploitees, are often fearful of having what little gains they’ve made taken away from them, and 2) those who have power and are not exploited, but who could be valuable allies, don’t want to get involved in a fight they don’t necessarily see as theirs. Unfortunately, the powerful allies are really necessary to provide clout for the exploitees, and so without the partnership of the big and little guys, the coalition dynamic is not particularly effective. And change then proceeds much more slowly and incrementally, unless, of course, things get so bad for the exploitees that they feel they have more to gain than to lose by banding together and fighting actively for change.

It’s really not, or not in this case. 25 years is a long time to be together, and my agent and I know each other very well. She’s always communicated the good, the bad and the ugly to me, because she understands not only that I can handle it, but that I like to know.

I listen to my agent, and trust her completely. I also know she’d never attempt to herd me anywhere. She has and will push for change, but I’ve never known her to do with with threats.

I’ve walked away from two publishers in my career–one of them was Harlequin. My reasons for doing so were based on my needs, goals, and my career, not anyone else’s. Neither walk was easy. I would expect another author to stay or go depending on her own needs, goals and career, not mine.

Nora, in the end I pretty much agree with you in that it isn’t realistic in this case. The point I was making is that the digital royalty negotiation has been done before in similar circumstances with musicians. That it won’t work in this case is due more to Harlequin’s monopoly than authors not wanting to work together to help each other.