The people with the most on the line in this fight were the authors and they are the ones this policy is meant to benefit. Which it is. A huge, insurmountable barrier that has been standing in the way of epubbed authors has finally come down and I, for one, am going to celebrate.

But what about all that 50% stuff over at BAM’s site? Thoughts?

You and me both. I do feel it’s important that what’s written matches what was intended.

Sarah

I received an email from Board Member Diane Pershing clarifying the definition of vanity press. (The caps are hers so the emphasis is hers)

“If the ONLY means of distribution is at the publisher’s web site–if the only way ANYONE can buy a book from that publisher is at their web site–then it is legally considered a “vanity” press.”

So, I am happy now. I am back to thinking this policy is a very big step forward for RWA, that disconnecting Pan Recog from Pub Recog is a plus for the market and authors, and while Publishers may not be recognized, their authors still can be. Which is the way it should be. They are different segments of the market, have different priorities within RWA, and have different areas of importance when it comes to recognition.

Publishers are still going to be unrecognized, (unless they choose to meet the criteria) but as long as the definition gets redefined, their authors won’t be and as RWA is an organization for authors, I can accept that.

Check here.

As I said, I don’t have a pony in this race, but it seems to me that there continues to be a pervasive bias against epublishing houses. How in the world are they going to prove that they sell more in other arenas other than their websites? Linking the shopping carts on their websites to etailers like Fictionwise will actually cost the publishers money, because they have to pay a distribution fee to get their books there, just like print pubs pay distributors to get their books into brick and mortar stores.

So RWA will cost epublishers money (if they want to participate in RWA’s reindeer games) by not allowing sales on the publishers websites, or at least, less sales there than in all other avenues combined. In what world is this good business sense?

I found my rose-colored glasses, so I’ll end by saying that I hope this is just some miscommunication, and the impacted publishers will corner board members or the Executive Director and get clarification. If not, I suppose we’ll all have to wait for the Market Update and see who’s in and who’s out.

Oh, and to Sarah’s and Jordan’s points about the lack of tangible PAN benefits, everything I’ve heard backs that up. Unless you do the PAN track at National, there’s not a lot else.

BUT…one big benefit of being in PAN is how you’re treated by fellow RWA members. I know there are chapters where everyone’s nice to each other and people are treated with professionalism and respect — count your blessings, if you’re in one — but there are others where the unpublished are treated worse than dog shit. And in those situations, having PAN status makes a huge difference.

Me too.

I live work and sell in real time. I have to be up to date on technology, marketing techniques, industry trends and contract issues. I’m signing contracts today. I’m hopefully publishing tomorrow. My career is moving forward in an industry that is also moving forward. New technology is creating new markets that can be optimized. As an author, I have to figure out how to do that without losing my shirt. I have to watch to see where technology is going and try to discern what clauses I need to tweak in my contracts to make sure I’m not in a bad position 10 years from now because of something I signed today. Keeping up with all this and my writing commitments leaves me with neither the time nor inclination to run back along the path of what was to battle with RWA to take the leap into what is.

It’s just easier to go outside the organization to groups or associations that have more relevance.

I find there are many blogs (Like DA for example) and smaller communities online that give me what I need with a much better mindset.

I agree. Completely frustrating.

Sure, we’re encouraged to speak out and write in, but that doesn’t mean they listen. AND that is what I find frustrating.

And just for clarity, the PAN thing itself doesn’t really bother me, I’ve had my status for a few years and this won’t change it. However, I didn’t renew my own RWA membership earlier this year simply because I got tired of all the waffling on a few of the policies.

I really wish people with more inclusive views and, frankly, a more businesslike approach would run for office. This attempt to redefine vanity/subsidy publishing in a non-standard way reeks of personal bias, and taken in context with RWA’s history of prejudice toward smaller and electronic publishers, it’s hard not to conclude that the Board’s goal is exactly what it appears to be: to exclude all publishers except the big NYC houses.

Maybe I’m too idealistic, but I honestly believe this level of personal bias has no place in executive decisions made for the world’s largest organization of romance writers.

RWA has a history of rewriting poilicy and applying it retroactively depending on the personal preference of those on the board at the time. It’s not just epublishing. Nor erotica. It’s been many things over many years, the justification rarely logical. But every year something.