RWA Redefines Publisher Definitions | Dear Author: Romance … is an excellent post about the Tax write-off Question….

It may not seem fair, but Newbie Jane’s got to climb a few rungs–mostly by her own efforts–before a publisher’s going to say let’s see what we can do to push NJ up a little higher on the ladder. I think it pretty much works that way in any business.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that it feels to me — as a reader — like Romance publishing is run on a factory farming model, and that I don’t like it — can’t accept that same logic of books are a mere consumer product. I don’t expect you to agree with me; in fact, I have no doubt that you can make all sorts of compelling arguments for why the current system is workable and good and even reasonably fair. I know there are two (or ten) sides to every story, but I must admit up front that my view is very jaded to begin with. And until a major publisher endeavors to explain the business model openly and honestly, it will likely remain that way.

I have no problem with people working hard for their success; I know you’ve done it, I know I’ve done it, and I know the satisfaction is rich. And up to a point, I think fierce competition can be a really positive and even inspiring force. But if, as Jane says, the technology is available to supply eARCs in the way of an electronic lending library, why aren’t publishers employing those? I don’t think publishers should be required to produce ARCs for every author, but at the same time, I have this image of publishers signing authors and then sort of slinging them all against the wall of the market — like so much semi-cooked spaghetti — to see which ones stick. And absolutely, there’s a compelling logic in seeing the opportunity that each one of those authors gets as positive for both the publisher and for readers (let alone the author). I get that — the cream rises to the top and all that (even if I don’t really think it’s true all the time — sometimes, though). And I do understand the balance of promoting opportunity over and against limited available resources. I’m certainly not suggesting a socialist state of publishing.

For me, this whole issue came down to the fact that I don’t see the distinction between production and promotion of books as natural or obvious. I understand that you see it differently. But from my POV as a reader, promotion and production really seem all of a piece in the process of publishing books. Which is why I was confused to start with about the definition of subsidy publisher. I understood they were trying to exclude pay for play businesses, but, like I said, to me it seems like some of the big houses have certain pay to play elements — they just distinguish them from what they see as core publishing services and functions. I understand it intellectually, even if it seems somewhat artificial to me.

The money has to come from somewhere. (and the time and the manpower if you’re doubling this element) It seems to me the publisher would be much less likely to take a risk on a new author or a new direction with this additional requirement. Or they’d compensate by nipping it out of the advance. Or they wouldn’t be able to earmark that $250 for an ad, or for posters for booksigning, or co-op offers. It’s already taken.

On the other end of it, if reviewers started getting 1,000 from one publisher rather than say, 500, Newbie Jane’s arc is going to get lost in the mountain anyway.

It may not seem fair, but Newbie Jane’s got to climb a few rungs–mostly by her own efforts–before a publisher’s going to say let’s see what we can do to push NJ up a little higher on the ladder. I think it pretty much works that way in any business.

I do absolutely agree that an arc is different marketing than a keychain or other give-away. Absolutely correct, imo. But publishers can’t do arcs for every author on their list. It’s just not feasible in any practical sense. And not doing them, and an author deciding to do them, doesn’t bring the publisher anywhere close to the subsidy line. If that’s the correct way to interpret your initial comment.

My initial comment was somewhere between a question and a point of confusion around how promotion is connected to the production and distribution of books. I understand what you and Sarah McCarty are saying about promotion being separate, even if it doesn’t really make sense to me. ARCs, especially, seem to overlap the boundaries between the substantive production of books and promotion/marketing.

Some houses send all the arcs in one package. Some send by US Mail and some send via Fedex/DHL/UPS.

I wish that publishers would allow access to e-arcs in the mode of a lending library. It would reduce the cost enormously. They could track who is reading them and after 3 weeks or 8 weeks or whatever, the ability to open the book would expire. There would be no reselling and if they used PDF or Mobipocket, the book couldn’t be “pirated”. I hate having all the arcs around that I am never going to read, that I can’t sell and so I dump them in the trash.

I’m not debating whether it’s right or fair or good business or bad that higher up the chain an author gets more of that budget. But that authors are made to create arcs. They just aren’t. They may opt to.

I do absolutely agree that an arc is different marketing than a keychain or other give-away. Absolutely correct, imo. But publishers can’t do arcs for every author on their list. It’s just not feasible in any practical sense. And not doing them, and an author deciding to do them, doesn’t bring the publisher anywhere close to the subsidy line. If that’s the correct way to interpret your initial comment.

Promotion isn’t the book, the editing, the cover, the production, the distribution. It’s promotion. And that always has been a variable above and beyond. The fact that it’s a tight, competitive market doesn’t change that. It’s been tight and competitive before, and will be again.

One thing I do know. As long as I’ve been in the business I’ve heard publishing professionals say that Romance writers, in particular, are savvy and aggressive with self-promotion. They know how to get the word out. It seems like self-produced arcs are the next wave. Not a thing wrong with that.

But publishers are not obliged to produce them for all their authors, any more than they are obliged to take out ads for all their authors for a new book, or send them on tour. This is most usually the kind of thing you build up to. And it’s tough–no argument from me there.

Maybe if we could get someone from publilcity or production (don’t actually know who does what) to give a general idea what it costs to do a couple dozen arcs for a book, and distribute them, the basic logistics of the process would be more clear.

How are they being made to? If it’s we won’t do it, so if you want them, it’s on you–that goes back to choice. If it’s we won’t buy your book unless you agree, in the contract, to produce and distribute arcs at your own expense, that’s a different thing. I’ve never heard of this. Ever.

I have no idea what the contractual provisions are. But I think the line you’re trying to draw in terms of voluntariness is a little artificial given today’s publishing/marketing realities. If you’re saying that no author HAS to have ARCs, then I agree with you. But if you’re suggesting that the fact that publishers produce ARCs for some authors and not for others is equivalent to, say, authors choosing whether or not to hold giveaways on their websites, I don’t agree. As a reader who, before I reviewed, had no access to ARCs, I was *affected* by ARCs because they meant early reviews and the buzz of anticipation around a book I might not know about and would then be encouraged to buy right out the sale gate (isn’t that when the critical sales figures are tabulated?).

As I said, I think ARCs are a substantially different type of marketing than, say, producing keychains or dressing up in costume, because they are the kind of marketing that delivers the actual contents of the book to booksellers and reviewers. And they’re the kind of marketing that publishers clearly see as valuable (perhaps even essential?) because publishers take on the cost for some authors. ARCs are different from advances, for example, because the advance goes directly to the author, whereas ARCs are aimed directly at the market. Can an author succeed without ARCs? I don’t see why not. But in this case, I don’t think that the lack of a requirement for publishers to produce ARCs is the same thing as publishers not producing key chains, bottle openers and other author promotions. For me, as a reader, they’re not the same thing, and I’m the one buying the books (i.e. I’m part of the target of promotion).

To put them in perspective, think of them as really thick bookmarks.

LOL; and yet, authors don’t freak out when their bookmarks are sold on eBay. Great simile, though.

I think I understand what you’re saying, Sarah; from the POV of the publisher and the author, production, editing, and distribution are strictly defined as those costs leading specifically and directly to the editing, printing, and distribution of the “on sale” book product. So if a publisher requires an author to pay for editing services, that’s subsidizing the costs of production. But if a publisher asks for an author to pay for promotion, that’s not. If publishers pay for ARCs, that’s basically a bonus to the author, as Nora Roberts suggested. Which makes publishers a lot like lawyers — drawing fine distinctions that may not seem natural to people outside the paradigm.

How are they being made to? If it’s we won’t do it, so if you want them, it’s on you–that goes back to choice. If it’s we won’t buy your book unless you agree, in the contract, to produce and distribute arcs at your own expense, that’s a different thing. I’ve never heard of this. Ever.

I know lots of authors produce their own arcs, at their own expense, but I’ve never heard that the publisher required them to do so.

For me, publishers aren’t required to produce them, and neither are authors. Promotional tools are options and choices.

Sarah, you could send one of yours to Turn The Page, my husband’s bookstore. His bookseller LOVES arcs, and handsells books she enjoys like crazy.

I just got 12 for Caine’s Reckoning. I wasn’t expecting any. Don’t really know what to do with them. However, if I hadn’t received any, it wouldn’t have had any impact on production or distribution of the book. If I don’t do anything with them, it won’t effect any part of the distirbution, etc.

I do have to do something with them, though. The pressure of them sitting there looking at me is driving me nuts. *G*