Comments on: RWA Change for Publisher Recognition

By: Sarah McCarty

Sarah McCarty — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:04:41 +0000

For the author, it doesn’t matter if the house pays an advance. They can join Pan through their earnings. The only reason an author ever had to be concerned about a publisher being recognized was because they could only get into PAN through a recognized publisher. That is no longer an issue, and more authors will now be eligible. For a publisher, derecognition simply means they no longer get into the conference free. Not that they can’t attend, just that they have to pay their way.

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.

By: gloriadeo

gloriadeo — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:27:13 +0000

Another concern in regards to the required advance “for all books”: how are they planning to judge this? And does it eliminate publishers like, for example Barbour (a reputable and “real” publisher) whose guidelines for their new mystery line state that all contracts are “royalty based.” Now I’m not a Barbour author, so perhaps they are offering an advance, but it doesn’t read so. Anyway, if Barbour is not offering an advance on this new line, does it mean they would not be RWA “eligible” because they don’t provide a $1000 advance on “all books.”

By: Ellie M.

Ellie M. — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:58:07 +0000

I kind of wondered if “primary” was used because authors at vanity/subsidy presses often handsell their books, correct? That would mean the publisher website was then not the ONLY means of distribution! I also don’t know what it takes for a vanity/subsidy press to get listed in a few places like Amazon. When I researched this I found some references to warning signs of v/s presses being they only sell at their own sites and mayb at Amazon, which I can re-track down if anyone is interested.

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

By: Sarah McCarty

Sarah McCarty — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:29:42 +0000

Morning Seressia,

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

Sarah

By: Seressia

Seressia — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:18:34 +0000

That is good news, Sarah. Hopefully they will IMMEDIATELY change the wording from “PRIMARY” (which was my sticking point) to “ONLY” which I can totally accept!

By: Sarah McCarty

Sarah McCarty — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:59:37 +0000

My faith is restored!

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.

By: Sarah McCarty

Sarah McCarty — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:30:24 +0000

Let us hope the definition gets revisited. I’m clinging to mine. *Small grin*

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.

By: Seressia

Seressia — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:56:21 +0000

Samhain will be "unrecognized." Check here.

By: Ellie M.

Ellie M. — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:31:28 +0000

According to the letter from the board, the RWA Eligibility requirements don’t affect market updates, although who appears in the market updates will depend on the final interpretation of the word “primary” in the board’s definition of vanity presses. I believe they meant “primary” in the sense that the publisher in question has no other legitimate form of distribution other than their own website and perhaps Amazon and the item will need to be clarified or even deleted in order for the overall definition to be an accurate representation of today’s publishing market. I realize that many people disagree with this interpretation, however :)

By: Seressia

Seressia — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:13:30 +0000

I really can’t add anything here other than to say I’m already in PAN and published in print so these changes don’t affect me. That being said, I do think it hurts in the long run. I was excited at the changes at first, because I focused on the contest categories. But the more I reread, the more distressed I became.

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.